SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 12, 2016; MARCH 2, 2016; MAY 12; JUNE 22; JULY 6, 2016; 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2016; AND NOVEMBER 16, 2016

Serial No. 114–3

Part 4 (Final)

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

———

PART 4 (FINAL)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–359 PDF 2016

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JANUARY 12, 2016; MARCH 2, 2016; MAY 12; JUNE 22; JULY 6, 2016; 

SEPTEMBER 13, 2016; AND NOVEMBER 16, 2016

Serial No. 114–3

Part 4

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, 

Vice Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska 

SCOTT C. GRAVES, Staff Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana, Chairwoman 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts, 

Ranking Minority Member 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Subcommittee on Nutrition—Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 553

DelBene, Hon. Suzan K., a Representative in Congress from Washington; 

submitted letter on behalf of Katharine Ryan, Policy and Research Manager, Food Lifeline ............................................................................................... 599

Hartzler, Hon. Vicky, a Representative in Congress from Missouri; submitted 

letter on behalf of Roger P. Allison, Vietnam Veteran & Executive Director, 

Missouri Rural Crisis Center .............................................................................. 597

Kirkpatrick, Hon. Ann, a Representative in Congress from Arizona; submitted 

letter on behalf of Angie B. Rodgers, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Association of Arizona Food Banks .................................................................... 600

Lujan Grisham, Hon. Michelle, a Representative in Congress from New Mexico; submitted letter on behalf of New Mexico Association of Food Banks ..... 598

McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from Massachusetts, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 552

Walorski, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from Indiana, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 549

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 551

WITNESSES

Leibman, J.D., Abby J., President and Chief Executive Officer, MAZON: 

A Jewish Response to Hunger, Los Angeles, CA ............................................... 554

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 555

Tebbens, Erika, Ballston Spa, NY .......................................................................... 558

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 560

Faris, Vinsen, Executive Director, Meals-on-Wheels of Johnson and Ellis 

Counties in North Central Texas, Cleburne, TX ............................................... 562

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 563

Schneidewind, J.D., Eric J., President-elect, AARP, Washington, D.C. .............. 568

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 570

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Aster, Kristen, Manager, Hunger Advocacy Network, submitted statement ..... 604

Bivens, Rodney, Executive Director, Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma; Eileen 

Bradshaw, Executive Director, Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma, submitted letter ........................................................................................ 606

Corina, Gina, Executive Director, Utahns Against Hunger, submitted letter ... 607

Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank, submitted briefing ........................... 601

Shiffer, Cristin Orr, Senior Advisor for Policy and Survey, Blue Star Families, 

submitted letter .................................................................................................... 608

Woodings, Karen, Advocacy Manager, Central Pennsylvania Food Bank, submitted letter .......................................................................................................... 609

Zimet, Hon. Susan, Executive Director, Hunger Action Network of New York 

State, submitted statement ................................................................................. 612

Loaves and Fishes, St. Stephen and the Incarnation Episcopal Church, submitted letters on behalf of: 

Chamberlin, David, U.S. Army Veteran ......................................................... 613

Meier, Duane A., U.S. Army Korean War Veteran ....................................... 613

Food Bank of Alaska, submitted statement .......................................................... 614

Page

IV

Full Committee—Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 615

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 616

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 617

WITNESSES

Muth, Stephanie, Deputy Executive Commissioner, Office of Social Services, 

Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Austin, TX .......................... 618

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 620

Dean, Stacy, Vice President for Food Assistance Policy, Center on Budget 

and Policy Priorities, Washington, D.C. ............................................................. 623

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 624

Cunnyngham, Karen, Senior Researcher, Mathematica Policy Research, 

Washington, D.C. ................................................................................................. 643

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 644

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Wareing Evans, Tracy, Executive Director, American Public Human Services 

Association, submitted letter ............................................................................... 685

Full Committee—Thursday, May 12, 2016

Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 689

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 691

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 691

WITNESSES

Hanna, Kathy, Senior Director Enterprise Payments and Store Support, The 

Kroger Co., Cincinnati, OH; on behalf of Food Marketing Institute ............... 693

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 694

Wright, Jimmy, Owner, Wright’s Market, Opelika, AL; on behalf of National 

Grocers Association .............................................................................................. 705

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 706

Beech, J.D., Douglas M., Legal Counsel and Director of Government Relations, Casey’s General Stores, Inc., Ankeny, IA; on behalf of National Association of Convenience Stores .............................................................................. 709

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 710

Martincich, Carl, Vice President of Human Resources and Government Affairs, Love’s Travel Stops and Country Stores, Oklahoma City, OK; on 

behalf of National Association of Truck Stop Operators (NATSO) Representing America’s Travel Plazas and Truckstops .......................................... 714

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 715

Full Committee—Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from North Carolina, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 750

Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 747

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 749

Submitted statement on behalf of Pat Bebo, M.S., R.D.N., Ohio State 

University Extension; on behalf of SNAP-Ed Program Development 

Team, Land-grant University Cooperative Extension ............................... 803

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 750

WITNESSES

Wisdom, M.D., M.S., Kimberlydawn, Senior Vice President, Community 

Health & Equity and Chief Wellness and Diversity Officer, Henry Ford 

Health System, Detroit, MI ................................................................................. 751

Page

V

Wisdom, M.D., M.S., Kimberlydawn, Senior Vice President, Community 

Health & Equity and Chief Wellness and Diversity Officer, Henry Ford 

Health System, Detroit, MI—Continued

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 753

Submitted question .......................................................................................... 821

Foerster, M.P.H., Susan B., Emeritus and Founding Member, Association 

of SNAP Nutrition Education Administrators, Carmichael, CA ...................... 757

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 759

Supplementary material .................................................................................. 809

Sharma, Ph.D., R.D., L.D., Shreela V., Associate Professor, Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas; 

Co-Founder, Brighter Bites, Houston, TX .......................................................... 765

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 767

Submitted question .......................................................................................... 822

Britt-Rankin, Ph.D., Jo, Associate Dean/Program Director, Human Environmental Sciences Extension, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO; on behalf of Extension Committee on Organization and Policy ................................ 770

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 771

Submitted question .......................................................................................... 822

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, submitted statement .................................. 818

Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Education & Policy, submitted statement .... 820

Full Committee—Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 825

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 826

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 827

WITNESSES

Shahin, Jessica, Associate Administrator for SNAP, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. ................................... 828

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 829

Supplementary material .................................................................................. 915

Brown, Kay E., Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. ...................................... 834

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 836

Yost, Hon. Dave, Auditor, State of Ohio, Columbus, OH ..................................... 859

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 861

Supplementary material .................................................................................. 916

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Wareing Evans, Tracy, Executive Director, American Public Human Services 

Association, submitted letter ............................................................................... 917

Subcommittee on Nutrition—Tuesday, Tuesday, September 13, 2016

McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from Massachusetts, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 923

Walorski, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from Indiana, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 921

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 922

WITNESSES

Stillman, J.D., David, Assistant Secretary, Economic Services Administration, 

Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Olympia, WA .......... 925

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 927

Anderson, Jon, Deputy Director, Office of Family Independence, Georgia Division of Family and Children Services, Atlanta, GA .......................................... 934

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 936

Page

VI

Weber, Peter, Founder, Fresno Bridge Academy, Fresno, CA; accompanied 

by Kim McCoy Wade, J.D., CalFresh Branch Chief, California Department 

of Social Services, Sacramento, CA .................................................................... 941

Prepared statements: 

Weber, Peter .............................................................................................. 943

McCoy Wade, J.D., Kim ............................................................................ 946

Full Committee—Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Conaway, Hon. K. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 969

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 972

McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from Massachusetts, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 974

Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 973

Walorski, Hon. Jackie, a Representative in Congress from Indiana, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 973

WITNESSES

French, Eric, Director of Grocery, Amazon, Seattle, WA ..................................... 976

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 977

Submitted question .......................................................................................... 1065

Lovelace, Gunnar, Founder and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Thrive Market, 

Marina del Ray, CA ............................................................................................. 979

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 981

Beal, J.D., Michael J., Vice President, Secretary, and Chief Operating Officer, 

Balls Food Stores, Kansas City, KS; on behalf of National Grocers Association ........................................................................................................................ 983

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 985

Hess, Pamela, Executive Director, Arcadia Center for Sustainable Food & 

Agriculture, Alexandria, VA ................................................................................ 1025

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1027

Newport, M.S., R.D./L.D., Melinda R., Director, WIC and Child Nutrition 

Programs, Chickasaw Nation Department of Health, Ada, OK ....................... 1031

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 1033

(549)

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM 

(PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: ADDRESSING 

SPECIAL POPULATIONS) 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 12, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jackie Walorski 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walorski, Thompson, Gibbs, 

Crawford, Hartzler, Benishek, Davis, Yoho, Abraham, Conaway (ex 

officio), McGovern, Adams, Lujan Grisham, Plaskett, Ashford, 

DelBene, and Kirkpatrick. 

Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Jadi Chapman, Mary Nowak, 

Mollie Wilken, Scott C. Graves, Stephanie Addison, Faisal Siddiqui, 

John Konya, Lisa Shelton, Mary Knigge, Nicole Scott, and Carly 

Reedholm. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE WALORSKI, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM INDIANA 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Welcome to today’s Nutrition Subcommittee 

hearing. I want to thank everyone for taking the time to be here, 

and I want to thank, in particular, our witnesses for your participation. I also want to bring to your attention today’s orange juice, 

compliments of Representative Ted Yoho of Florida. 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is by 

far the nation’s largest Federal food assistance program. Last year, 

we began a review of the past, present, and future of SNAP, holding ten hearings at the full Committee and Subcommittee level. 

The review started from a broad perspective, but has narrowed in 

focus, examining such topics as the role of the charitable sector in 

fighting hunger, and the use of evidence-based solutions to measure outcomes. 

One of the last hearings of 2015, we examined the effect of hunger on children, how they can break the cycle of poverty. In our 

first hearing of 2016, we are picking up where we left off by looking 

at challenges facing special populations. Seniors, veterans, and active-duty military families each have unique needs. Speaking 

broadly, they are more vulnerable than many other populations to 

550

illnesses and physical and mental impairments that affect their 

ability to be fully independent. 

A simple trip to the grocery store may not be so simple if you 

have to maneuver a motorized wheelchair. Their ability to prepare 

food may be hampered by arthritis or an inability to stand for long 

periods of time. Climbing the economic ladder through work is not 

necessarily an available avenue to them. And yet under SNAP, 

they are treated under a one-size-fits-all model. 

Consider the makeup of the veteran population alone. As a Member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I am well aware of the 

range of ages and abilities under this one umbrella. You have seniors who fought in World War II and Korea, baby boomers who 

served in Vietnam, and those who more recently returned home 

from Afghanistan and Iraq, and everyone in between. Some are in 

perfect health. Others face one or multiple diseases, or physical, or 

mental conditions, such as Alzheimer’s, arthritis, PTSD, or traumatic brain injury. And as more women answer the call to serve 

our country, that means women will make up a greater proportion 

of the veteran population. Given the diversity in the makeup of this 

population, one size cannot possibly fit all. 

As for active duty military, the USDA has estimated there are 

between 2,000 and 20,000 military families signed up for SNAP. 

However, a quirk in the eligibility calculation adds a needless complication to a family’s decision whether or not to live on the base. 

The housing provided to a family living on a base does not count 

toward SNAP eligibility, which lowers their income and increases 

the benefit. On the other hand, the allowance that a family receives 

to live off a base does count toward eligibility, which raises their 

income and decreases the benefit. There are plenty of pros and cons 

that a military family must weigh as they decide whether or not 

to live on the base, but that shouldn’t be needlessly clouded by 

whether or not they get a higher benefit from SNAP. 

Finally, the ranks of seniors are set to swell as the baby boomer 

generation enters retirement and health advancements help people 

live longer. Seniors have the lowest rate of SNAP participation of 

any demographic the program serves, but they also have the lowest 

rate of food insecurity. A low rate of food insecurity, however, 

doesn’t give license to overlook the many factors that contribute to 

hunger among seniors, including a fixed income, illness, healthcare 

costs, specialized diets, and access to transportation. 

Before I close, I want to reiterate a theme that has been consistent throughout this entire review process. SNAP does not operate in a vacuum. SNAP alone will not end hunger, food insecurity, 

or poverty. SNAP is a piece of the larger puzzle. Everyone; the Federal Government, state governments, not-for-profits, the privatesector, researchers, and recipients themselves, have a role to play 

in lifting Americans out of poverty and up the economic ladder. 

Today we will hear from witnesses who can attest to challenges 

faced by each group, and potential ways to lower barriers. I thank 

each of our witnesses for being here and lending your expertise, 

and I look forward to hearing from you. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Walorski follows:]

551

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE WALORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM INDIANA

Good morning, happy New Year, and welcome to today’s Nutrition Subcommittee 

hearing. I want to thank everyone for taking the time to be here and I want to 

thank, in particular, our witnesses for their participation. 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is by far the nation’s 

largest Federal food assistance program. Last year, we began a review of the past, 

present, and future of SNAP, holding ten hearings at the full Committee and Subcommittee level. 

The review started from a broad perspective, but has narrowed in focus, examining such topics as the role of the charitable sector in fighting hunger and the use 

of evidence-based solutions to measure outcomes. 

One of the last hearings of 2015 examined the effect of hunger on children and 

how they can break the cycle of poverty. In our first hearing of 2016, we are picking 

up where we left off by looking at challenges facing special populations. 

Seniors, veterans, and active-duty military families each have unique needs. 

Speaking broadly, they are more vulnerable than other populations to illnesses and 

physical and mental impairments that affect their ability to be fully independent. 

A simple trip to the grocery store may not be so simple if they have to maneuver 

a motorized wheelchair. Their ability to prepare food may be hampered by arthritis 

or an inability to stand for long periods of time. Climbing the economic ladder 

through work is not necessarily an avenue available to them. 

And yet, under SNAP, they’re treated under a one-size-fits-all model. 

Consider the makeup of the veteran population alone. As a Member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I’m well aware of the range of ages and abilities under 

this one umbrella. You have seniors who fought in World War II and Korea, baby 

boomers who served in Vietnam, those who more recently returned from Afghanistan and Iraq, and everyone in between. Some are in perfect health. Others face one 

or multiple diseases, or physical, or mental conditions, such as Alzheimer’s, arthritis, PTSD, or traumatic brain injury. And as more women answer the call to serve 

our country, which means women will make up a greater proportion of the veteran 

population. Given the diversity in the makeup of this population, one size cannot 

possibly fit all. 

As for active duty military, the USDA has estimated that there are between 2,000 

and 20,000 military families signed up for SNAP. However, a quirk in the eligibility 

calculation adds a needless complication to a family’s decision whether or not to live 

on the base. The housing provided to a family living on a base does not count toward SNAP eligibility, which lowers their income and increases the benefit. On the 

other hand, the allowance that a family receives to live off a base does count toward 

eligibility, which raises their income and decreases the benefit. There are plenty of 

pros and cons that a military family must weigh as they decide whether or not to 

live on the base, but that shouldn’t be needlessly clouded by whether or not they 

get a higher SNAP benefit. 

Finally, the ranks of seniors are set to swell as the baby boomer generation enters 

retirement and health advancements help people live longer. Seniors have the lowest rate of SNAP participation of any demographic the program serves, but they also 

have the lowest rate of food insecurity. A low rate of food insecurity, however, 

doesn’t give license to overlook the many factors that can contribute to hunger 

among seniors, including a fixed income, illness, health care costs, specialized diets, 

and access to transportation. 

Before I close, I want to reiterate a theme that has been consistent throughout 

this review: SNAP does not operate in a vacuum. SNAP alone will not end hunger, 

food insecurity, or poverty. SNAP is a piece of the larger puzzle. Everyone—the Federal Government, state governments, nonprofits and the private-sector, researchers, 

and recipients themselves—has a role to play in lifting Americans out of poverty 

and up the economic ladder. 

Today we’ll hear from witnesses who can attest to challenges faced by each group 

and potential ways to lower barriers. I thank each of you again for being here and 

lending your expertise and I look forward to hearing from you.

The CHAIRWOMAN. I would now like to recognize Ranking Member McGovern for his opening statement. 

552

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, thank you very much. And welcome to the 

witnesses here today. 

This is the tenth hearing on SNAP, and some have wondered to 

what end. Well, Speaker Ryan and Republican presidential candidates gave us the answer last Saturday at their so-called forum 

on poverty in South Carolina, and I have to say that I am deeply 

troubled. 

We have known for a long time that Speaker Ryan supports 

block-granting SNAP. We have seen it year after year in his budgets. But if that is where all of this is going, that is bad news for 

poor people, and it is bad news for the vulnerable populations that 

our witnesses here today represent. 

Proposals like Speaker Ryan’s to block-grant SNAP would decimate one of the key features of the program; that it can quickly 

respond to an economic downturn, that when the breadwinner in 

a household loses his or her job, a family can quickly access SNAP 

to keep food on the table until they get back on their feet. 

After this last recession, there is good data emerging showing 

that SNAP worked as it was supposed to, and expanded to help 

more families who needed it. And now that our economy is recovering, SNAP caseloads are declining and will continue to decline as 

the economy continues to get better. Simply put, SNAP is working. 

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, on the 

other hand, which was converted into a block-grant in the 1990s, 

barely responded at all to the recession. In fact, we have seen and 

are seeing states shift TANF funds away from core antipoverty 

purposes, and instead using these funds to plug holes in other 

areas of their state budgets, leaving vulnerable families out of luck. 

The reality is that block-granting SNAP would be catastrophic 

for the program. Funding would be capped and states would either 

have to reduce the benefit, which we all know from the many hearings that we have held is already inadequate, or they would have 

to cut people off. Either way, it would make hunger worse. And we 

know what happened with TANF, that states wouldn’t have to use 

their SNAP block-grant funding to actually feed people. States 

could use that money for just about whatever they choose. 

So we shouldn’t change the entitlement structure of SNAP. 

Block-granting SNAP is a bad idea, period. It would make hunger 

worse in this country, and I urge my colleagues to think twice 

about going down the dangerous road of block-grants. 

Now, in terms of today’s hearing, I see that the title is; Past, 

Present, and Future of SNAP: Addressing Special Populations. Today’s witnesses are among the most distinguished experts on senior 

and veteran hunger, but I think that we are only scratching the 

surface on special populations receiving SNAP. We should also be 

talking about the disabled, Native Americans, ex-offenders, and 

ABAWDs, able-bodied adults without dependents. These are all 

groups that have unique and often complicated circumstances, and 

we should be focused on making sure that they have access to adequate food benefits. I hope these populations will not be forgotten. 

But bottom line, if all of his is about block-granting SNAP, or as 

Jeb Bush said, ‘‘eliminating the food stamp program,’’ then I would 

553

just respectfully express to my Republican colleagues and the leadership here to be prepared for a fight. If we have any function in 

this Congress, it ought to be to making sure that the least among 

us are not forgotten or not invisible, and that we ought to be there 

to offer a helping hand. 

And again, I thank the witnesses, and look forward to hearing 

your testimony. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I see the Chairman of the full Committee has joined us. The chair would now like 

to recognize Chairman Conaway for his statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS 

Mr. CONAWAY. Well, thanks, Chairwoman. I appreciate your 

holding this hearing. 

SNAP is a broad program. It is complicated. There are many facets to it. You can’t brag on it or criticize it in a 30 second soundbite with any real granularity. And so unbundling the program to 

see its various parts and pieces, has great value, and that is kind 

of what we have been doing. And so bringing you here today to 

help us understand the impact that SNAP has on the populations 

that you are the most involved with is important for the Committee 

to help us understand. And this Committee has made no proposals 

in changing SNAP, in spite of the Ranking Member’s comments to 

the contrary. And so we are trying to learn, trying to understand 

it, because I would be hard pressed to say any program in government is perfect and works perfectly for everyone. If it can’t be improved, that is a pretty tall comment to make, and I don’t think 

you can make that claim about anything. So helping us understand 

the direct impact that these programs have on alleviating issues 

that your populations face day in and day out, in addition to hunger, is appropriate and a good use of our time. 

So, Madam Chair, I appreciate you holding the hearing, and I 

yield back my time. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The chair would request that other Members submit their opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin their testimony, and to ensure there is ample time for questions. The chair 

would like to notify Members that they will be recognized for questioning in order of seniority for Members who were here at the 

start of the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in 

order of arrival. I appreciate the Members’ understanding. 

Witnesses are reminded to limit their oral statements to 5 minutes. All of the written statements will be included in the record. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses to the table. Abby 

Leibman, President and CEO, MAZON, Los Angeles, California; 

Erika Tebbens, former military spouse; Vinsen Faris, Executive Director, Meals-on-Wheels of Johnson and Ellis Counties, Cleburne, 

Texas; Eric Schneidewind, President-elect, AARP, Lansing, Michigan. 

Ms. Leibman, please begin with your testimony when you are 

ready. 

554

STATEMENT OF ABBY J. LEIBMAN, J.D., PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MAZON: A JEWISH RESPONSE 

TO HUNGER, LOS ANGELES, CA 

Ms. LEIBMAN. Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on 

Nutrition of the Committee on Agriculture, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I am Abby Leibman, President and CEO of MAZON: A Jewish 

Response to Hunger, a national nonprofit organization working to 

end hunger among people of all faiths and backgrounds in the 

United States and Israel. 

In response to learning that a startling number of our partners 

were providing food assistance to a growing number of military 

families and veterans, MAZON’s Board of Directors made these 

issues a core priority for our education and advocacy. After an exhaustive search for accurate data from government and private 

sources, we learned the following: First, we found that literally 

hundreds of thousands of veterans are experiencing food insecurity, 

without receiving assistance from SNAP and other available benefit 

programs. Food insecurity among veterans, old and young, is nearly double the prevalence of food insecurity and very-low food security for the general U.S. population. Second, we also uncovered serious indications of food insecurity among currently-serving members of the military. 

The causes: low pay among lower-ranking enlistees, high unemployment among troop spouses, larger household sizes, challenges 

around activation and deployment, and unexpected financial emergencies. 

How do we know this? In addition to reports from our colleagues 

operating food pantries, MAZON learned from a source at the Pentagon that there are food pantries operating on or near every single 

Naval and Marine base in the United States. 

There can be no denying that food insecurity among military 

families is real and a painful reality. The experiences that Erika 

Tebbens will share with you today provide insight into just what 

those realities look like. 

There are three important actions that we urge Congress to take 

now to begin to address this growing problem. Demand more data. 

Despite strong anecdotal evidence, food insecurity among military 

families is not adequately documented or monitored by government 

agencies. What data we have been able to secure are often contradictory, out-of-date, or simply incomprehensible. No one really 

knows the military and veteran population numbers for government nutrition programs, let alone the estimates for the true level 

of need in these populations. Accurate data is essential if our nation is to better understand the scope of food insecurity among 

military families, and allow us to find the gaps and provide meaningful solutions. But make no mistake, if even one military family 

goes without adequate nutritious food, this nation is not meeting 

its responsibility to those who serve our country. But, of course, 

data alone is not the answer. You must remove policy barriers. 

Federal policies are actually denying struggling military families 

the resources they need to prevent food insecurity. 

Including the basic allowance for housing as income when determining SNAP eligibility is not only inconsistent with its treatment 

555

by other Federal programs, it has made thousands of struggling 

families ineligible for vital SNAP benefits. In order to survive, they 

must turn to food pantries on and off military bases. 

The BAH is not included as income for the purposes of calculating income taxes and eligibility for WIC and Head Start. The 

BAH should be consistently excluded as income for the purposes of 

determining eligibility for all nutrition assistance programs. We 

urge agency collaboration. For veterans, this is not only essential; 

it is becoming a matter of life and death. A growing number of veterans, particularly disabled veterans, are caught in the middle of 

bureaucratic delays and Federal agency silos, unaware of, or unable to, access nutrition assistance benefits, despite their obvious 

need. For veterans awaiting a disability determination, delays and 

multiple appeals are commonplace and last for almost a year in 

some communities. During this time, these men and women are 

unable to access nutrition assistance benefits and literally have 

nothing to eat. 

What can we do? We can start by ensuring that the government 

agencies charged with their care actually communicate with each 

other. VA social workers can use a simple two-question food insecurity screening tool, and refer those who screen positive to resources 

that support access to adequate healthy food, including SNAP. But 

perhaps the best way to prevent hunger among veterans is to protect and strengthen the SNAP Program. Right now, an estimated 

60,000 veterans face the loss of SNAP benefits because of the expiration of the time limit waiver for ABAWDs. Cuts to SNAP hurt 

millions of Americans, including military families and veterans. 

This reality of limited data, unfair policy barriers, and bureaucratic 

silos comes at a time when the need among military families and 

veterans has never been greater. It is up to you to make the 

changes that will make this reality less impactful on their food insecurity. If not now, when? If not you, then who? 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leibman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ABBY J. LEIBMAN, J.D., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, MAZON: A JEWISH RESPONSE TO HUNGER, LOS ANGELES, CA 

Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Nutrition and Committee on Agriculture, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I am Abby Leibman, President and CEO at MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, a national nonprofit organization working to end hunger among people of all 

faiths and backgrounds in the U.S. and Israel. Founded in 1985, MAZON partners 

with literally hundreds of food banks, pantries, and direct service agencies that provide for people who are hungry and advocate for other ways to end hunger and its 

causes. MAZON’s Board of Directors has made hunger among military families a 

core priority for our education and advocacy efforts. MAZON has a strong interest 

in the development of sensible and compassionate food and nutrition policies for 

military and veterans families. It is on this topic that I would like to speak with 

you today. 

MAZON believes that those who make great personal sacrifices in service to our 

country should not have to struggle to provide regular, nutritious meals to their 

families. 

We first became concerned about this issue more than 4 years ago when our colleagues from the emergency food network shared concerns about the up-tick in the 

number of military families and veterans turning to them for food assistance. 

Across the country, service members were (and still are) showing up at food pantries, sometimes in uniform, looking for help in feeding their families. While many 

emergency food providers have responded by developing specific and innovative proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
556

grams to assist food-insecure military families, most of these organizations are 

strapped by increasing demands for services in general and have limited capacity 

to address this population. 

MAZON was alarmed by these reports about struggling military families and veterans and determined to investigate the issue. We conducted an exhaustive search 

for accurate data from the Department of Defense, USDA, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Congress, and direct service providers. We found that hunger is experienced too often among veterans, especially those veterans having difficulty 

transitioning back to civilian life and the workforce, waiting extended periods of 

time for disability determinations, or struggling to make ends meet when their disability pay is low. 

For currently serving members of the military, food insecurity is triggered by a 

number of different circumstances, including low pay among lower ranking enlistees, high unemployment among military spouses, larger household sizes, challenges 

around activation and deployment, and unexpected financial emergencies. There is 

clear evidence of widespread reliance on food pantries and distribution programs on 

and near military bases; in fact, MAZON learned from a source at the Pentagon 

that there are food pantries operating on or near every single Naval and Marine 

base in the United States! There can be no denying that food insecurity among military families is a real and painful reality and that government safety net programs 

are not adequately meeting the needs of those who serve our country. 

There are three important actions that we urge Congress to take now to begin 

to address this growing problem: 

Demand more data—Despite strong anecdotal evidence, food insecurity among 

military families is not adequately documented or monitored by government agencies, and indeed the problem has long been obscured and ignored. Data are often 

withheld from the public or are excessively difficult to obtain. What data we have 

been able to secure are often contradictory, out of date or simply incomprehensible. 

For example, USDA’s most recent data indicates that approximately 2,000 active 

duty service members participate in the SNAP program. However, we believe the 

scope of the need is significantly larger than that number reflects. This figure only 

counts families that self-report as active duty military and is derived using a methodology that experts have deemed skewed to underreport the number of military 

families for multiple reasons. Indeed, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, 19,455 active duty service members were estimated to receive SNAP in 2014. Similar data for WIC is not even available. So no one really 

knows the military and veteran participation numbers for these programs, let alone 

estimates for the true level of need in these populations. 

Blue Star Family’s Military Family Lifestyle Survey offers a glimpse of the economic hardship and food insecurity challenges for active duty families, as well as 

some of the barriers that make it more difficult for them to get needed assistance. 

The 2015 survey reported more than 7% of responding active duty military and 

spouses faced food insecurity within the past year. Nearly 6% of respondents sought 

emergency food assistance through a food bank, pantry, or charitable organization, 

while only 2.4% participated in SNAP. 

A more complete understanding of the scope and characteristics of the growing 

problem of food insecurity among military families and veterans will enable DOD, 

USDA, the VA and Congress to better identify gaps in Federal food program usage 

and provide a meaningful response to the unique challenges confronting these vulnerable households. 

MAZON has sought out additional data to help in this effort by working with colleagues in the House Armed Services Committee to request a [Government] Accountability Office report to explore these issues. Having the House Agriculture 

Committee weigh in on the need for better government data and accountability, including guidance for the GAO report, will give greater urgency to the call for an 

effective response to this issue. 

However, I must underscore here that in our view, if even one military family 

goes without adequate and nutritious food, this nation is not meeting its responsibility to those who serve our country! Upon Senate passage of the FY16 NDAA bill, 

the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee stated, ‘‘It is critical for our 

troops to know that we can put politics aside to support them, their families, and 

their mission to protect our country.’’ Sadly, when the problem of food insecurity 

among military families continues to go unscrutinized and unaddressed, such selfcongratulatory rhetoric rings hollow. 

But data alone is clearly not the answer. 

Remove policy barriers now—Federal policies are denying currently serving 

military families who are struggling the resources they need to help keep them from 

experiencing food insecurity. 

557

Many lower ranking service members—especially those with multiple dependents 

who live off base or in privatized housing—are systematically made ineligible for 

SNAP because their housing allowance is counted as income. For these families, the 

best option available to them is to frequent food pantries on and off military bases. 

The Basic Allowance for Housing is excluded as income for the purposes of calculating income taxes and eligibility for some Federal programs, including WIC and 

Head Start. By the same token, we believe that the BAH should be consistently excluded as income for the purposes of determining eligibility for all nutrition assistance programs. The intent of the BAH is to provide housing for uniformed service 

members with minimal military overhead costs by relying on the civilian housing 

market. Yet treating the BAH benefit as income for determining eligibility for SNAP 

puts some military families at an unfair disadvantage and disqualifies them from 

receiving vital food assistance. 

MAZON strongly urges an immediate fix to this problem in a way that does not 

come at the expense of access for others or any funding for nutrition assistance programs. This is a simple and common sense policy change that should be immediately undertaken because it is the right thing to do and would rectify a past slight 

to military families. Though Members of Congress and Pentagon leaders recently expressed worry that current funding levels leave our armed forces at ‘‘the lower ragged edge of readiness,’’ similar concern has been notably absent for the struggling 

military families who honorably serve our country despite living on their own personal ‘‘ragged edge.’’

MAZON has been working for several years with anti-hunger advocates, military 

service organizations, food banks and pantries, and champions on Capitol Hill to 

eliminate this unnecessary and harmful policy barrier. Legislation was introduced 

in 2015 in both the House and Senate that proposed excluding the BAH as income 

for the determination of nutrition assistance benefits. Sadly, these proposals were 

swiftly blocked and the problem of food insecurity for currently serving families remains. 

Surely we owe it to our military families to remove unfair barriers to access for 

needed benefits. Making this policy correction supports the national goal of mission 

readiness for our armed forces and also promotes fiscal responsibility as these families—particularly the children—experience improved health outcomes from higher 

levels of food security and better nutrition, which in turn yield reductions in longterm health care costs. The recent report about SNAP by the White House Council 

of Economic Advisers vividly demonstrates the important role of SNAP in reducing 

both poverty and food insecurity and documents the significant long-term impacts 

of SNAP for children in the areas of health, education, and economic self-sufficiency. 

Urge agency collaboration—A growing number of veterans—and particularly 

disabled veterans—are getting caught in the middle of bureaucratic delays and Federal agency silos, unaware of or unable to access nutrition assistance benefits despite their obvious need. 

Unacceptable portions of the veteran community, who used to get ‘‘three squares 

a day’’ as soldiers, now do not know where their next meal will come from. It is 

estimated that over 300,000 elderly veterans are food-insecure and confront the 

same barriers faced by all seniors trying to access benefits—stigma, misinformation 

about potential eligibility, and a daunting application process. More recent vets face 

serious challenges as well. According to a 2012 University of Minnesota study of soldiers returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, one in four veterans report 

being food-insecure (27%), and 12% of those vets were classified as having very-low 

food security. These rates are nearly double the prevalence of food insecurity and 

very-low food security for the general U.S. population. In addition, we know that 

many veterans return from combat with disabilities that make it more difficult to 

maintain gainful employment and provide food for themselves and their families. 

Households with a disabled veteran are nearly twice as likely to be food-insecure 

as households that do not have someone with a disability. Ensuring that all veterans have access to adequate and nutritious food is critical, and providing such access to disabled veterans is the least this nation owes to its returning and injured 

soldiers. 

Unfortunately, this is a promise that is not always kept. Veterans who are awaiting a disability determination face enormous challenges in making claims through 

the VA’s daunting claims process, where delays and multiple appeals are commonplace. During this waiting period, many veterans are unable, or limited in their ability, to access nutrition assistance benefits. 

For veterans applying for assistance or seeking medical care through VA facilities, 

USDA and the VA must do more to help these veterans navigate the application 

process and connect them to benefits and resources available to help them meet 

their basic needs. USDA could help the VA serve as a conduit for outreach and eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
558

cation about SNAP and proactively link vets to nutrition assistance through eligibility screenings and application assistance. Better coordination between USDA and 

the VA would go a long way in connecting disabled, aging, and struggling veterans 

with available nutrition assistance, contributing to better long-term health outcomes, lowering health care costs, and reducing unnecessarily high rates of poverty 

and homelessness in this population. 

A simple but highly effective intervention would involve VA social workers and 

health care professionals adopting as standard practice the utilization of a two-question food insecurity screening tool and then referring those who screen positive to 

resources that support access to adequate, healthy food, including SNAP. The recent 

adoption of a similar policy by the American Academy of Pediatrics provides an exciting precedent for an effective intervention that promises smart and cost-effective 

ways to help ensure that veterans don’t come home to hunger. 

Perhaps the best way to prevent hunger among veterans is to protect and 

strengthen the SNAP program. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that SNAP 

effectively reduces food insecurity and poverty rates, contributes to savings in longterm health care costs, and positively impacts long-term health, education, and economic self-sufficiency outcomes. And yet, recent attempts to cut SNAP—including 

a proposal during the last farm bill process that put 170,000 veterans’ benefits at 

risk—only exacerbate the problem of veteran hunger. And right now, an estimated 

60,000 veterans face the loss of SNAP benefits because of the expiration of the time 

limit waiver for ABAWDs. Cuts to SNAP, in addition to causing harmful impacts 

on American families struggling to get by and get back on their feet, also hurt military families and veterans who receive critical assistance from the program. 

Conclusion 

The unfortunate reality of what I have outlined today—of limited data, unfair policy barriers, and bureaucratic silos—comes at a time when the need among military 

families and veterans has never been greater. 

There has been a sad and ineffective response to military hunger issues in the 

past. When media stories about military families on SNAP circulated in the late 

1990s, Congress was concerned about the optics of members of our military receiving food stamps. In order to get these families off of SNAP, Congress in 2000 created a parallel program—the Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA)—

administered by the Department of Defense with an explicitly stated goal of removing military families from the SNAP rolls. This little-known and poorly administered DOD program did not work either to get military families off of SNAP, or 

more importantly, to adequately address the challenges of food insecurity that are 

faced by some military families. It was such a failure, in fact, that Congress recently 

voted in the 2016 NDAA bill to sunset the failed FSSA program domestically at the 

end of 2016. However, without any additional action taken, Congress has effectively 

abandoned the thousands of struggling military families who fall through the cracks 

of SNAP eligibility and turn instead to the emergency food system out of desperation. These families deserve more than failed policies and government indifference. 

Therefore MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger strongly urges Congress to take 

action now to effectively address the problems of military and veteran food insecurity that I have shared with you and that have been tragically ignored for far too 

long. The bipartisan-appointed National Commission on Hunger, in its final report 

released just last week, made recommendations to address military food insecurity 

consistent with what I have outlined for you today. I hope that my testimony and 

the personal reflections shared by Erika Tebbens provide the necessary justification 

for expeditious Congressional action. 

The principle of leaving no one behind is deeply embedded in the ethos of the U.S. 

military. If Congress continues to ignore the problem of hunger among service members and veterans, we are surely leaving them behind and in the enemy hands of 

hunger and poverty. 

MAZON welcomes the opportunity to work with you to create lasting and meaningful change to meet the needs of our military and veteran families. Thank you.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Ms. Leibman. 

Ms. Tebbens, please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ERIKA TEBBENS, BALLSTON SPA, NY 

Ms. TEBBENS. I would like to begin by thanking all of you for 

taking the time to hear my testimony, and for MAZON for working 

on this important issue and giving me this opportunity. Being able 

to speak on behalf of active duty military families who may be too 

559

afraid to speak out on this matter is a great honor, and I hope my 

story can help them. 

In 2003, my ex-husband, Colin, was assigned to his first Naval 

duty station as a culinary specialist at the Bremerton Naval Hospital in Washington. I was leaving my job as a high school teacher 

and a Master’s Degree program, just two courses short of graduating. The job prospects in our new town were bleak, and I was 

constantly told that I was over qualified in interviews. I finally 

managed to secure employment in two positions; as a bank teller 

making $9 an hour, and as a baker at a diner making $10 an hour. 

I was working 35 to 40 hours a week, but still only making 1⁄2 of 

my previous salary. 

Then in March 2004, I found out I was pregnant. A coworker 

mentioned the WIC Program to me. I had never heard of it, and 

I thought it absurd a military family would qualify for any type of 

assistance, especially because we weren’t the lowest rank of enlisted personnel. Colin was an E4, which is quite good for someone 

with less than 2 years of service. When they told us our family 

qualified, they also told us that many military families are eligible 

but don’t realize it. How could this be? I was quite embarrassed, 

but had to accept both the help and the disapproving glares when 

handing over my vouchers at the grocery store. 

All this time, I was continuing to apply for a job with better pay 

but continued to be deemed over qualified, and it didn’t help that 

I was also very visibly pregnant. 

Our son, Jack, was born in November 2004. He had to be delivered via caesarian section, meaning I was not allowed to go back 

to work for 6 weeks. When I was medically cleared for work, I 

could only take shifts on Saturdays, when Colin could watch Jack. 

We had no family locally and could not afford childcare. This is 

when things got incredibly difficult. We went to the Navy Marine 

Corps Relief Society for advice, and their only recommendation was 

that we apply for a low interest credit card called Military Star. 

Taking on more debt did not seem like a reasonable solution. 

With a lot of shame and reluctance, I applied for SNAP benefits. 

When we were denied, I was devastated and confused. I felt like 

we were doing everything right but we were still stuck. I also 

didn’t understand why we would qualify for one government food 

program but not another. My husband and I shared one used car, 

and had no cable or other amenities. We kept a vegetarian diet because we couldn’t afford to buy meat. I exclusively breast-fed Jack 

until he was 6 months old too, which saved us the expense of formula. I was also forced to defer my student loan payments, but 

that only prolonged the debt. 

The stress that this financial burden caused was profound and 

constant, and was amplified by the stress of caring for a newborn. 

The problem was our basic allowance for housing, or BAH. In the 

SNAP application, BAH was being included as income, despite the 

fact that the WIC application specifically excludes it, and both programs fall under the USDA. When we moved there was no military 

housing available to us, so we were forced to rent an apartment. 

We intentionally chose an apartment where our BAH would cover 

both the rent and the utilities. BAH is calculated by the local cost 

of living, and varies greatly across duty stations. Since we lived in 

560

a high cost of living area, this inflated our gross income substantially. This is why we were denied essential SNAP benefits, and 

why many military families are also denied. On paper, it appears 

these families are economically stable, when in reality they might 

not earn enough to support their children. 

I feel it is an oversight as part of the application process because 

I could not imagine that legislators would ever consciously want 

members of the military and their families to be food-insecure. 

Thankfully, I found a great full-time job when Jack was 18 

months old, and we were able to leave the WIC Program. We 

haven’t needed it since. We are lucky, but that doesn’t change the 

fear, stress, and panic we felt during the first 18 months of my 

son’s life. 

Being in a military family is challenging. We have to make so 

many sacrifices. Missed time with loved ones, not having a constant place to call home, job security for dependents, and so much 

more. One thing military families should never have to worry about 

is having enough food. 

I sincerely hope you will consider revisions to SNAP for military 

families because they deserve to be taken care of by the country 

they serve. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tebbens follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIKA TEBBENS, BALLSTON SPA, NY 

January 7, 2015

Subcommittee on Nutrition, 

Committee on Agriculture, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, D.C.

To the Honorable Members of the Nutrition Subcommittee:

When my son Jack was born, I was married to a Culinary Specialist at the Bremerton Naval Hospital in Washington. He was an E4, after enlisting as an E3, and 

we were proud of his solid ranking. I have a bachelor’s degree, and before we moved 

I had nearly completed a Master’s Degree in Secondary Education. 

I left a $30,000/year position as a teacher when we were assigned to the Kitsap 

Peninsula. The job prospects in our new town were bleak, and I was constantly told 

I was ‘‘overqualified’’ in interviews. I finally managed to secure only part-time employment in two positions—as a bank teller and as a baker at a diner. I was working 35–40 hours a week but making 1⁄2 my previous salary. 

When we found out I was pregnant we were barely making ends meet. Thankfully 

we were good cooks with plenty of knowledge about healthy eating. Even while 

sticking to affordable staples like beans and rice or vegetable soups, our grocery bill 

was awfully high. I struggled with having to choose between healthy, nutritious food 

and processed, cheap food. 

A coworker happened to mention the WIC program to me. I had never heard of 

it before. I was certain as a military family we wouldn’t qualify, but I made an appointment at our local WIC office anyway. The office was in a private building in 

our town, not on the base. That meeting was quite enlightening. I learned that it’s 

quite common for civilian OBGYNs to give information about the program to pregnant women. But I never heard it mentioned once in all my visits to the military 

hospital. 

The pre-screening process for the WIC program was fast and simple, and the 

women working there were knowledgeable and supportive. To my surprise, we 

qualified, and I learned that this is true as well for many military families. 

I used the WIC benefits while pregnant and continued to search for a better paying job, but just kept hearing that I was ‘‘overqualified.’’ I also suspect no one was 

interested in hiring a woman who was very visibly pregnant. 

561

* Editor’s note: the referenced ‘‘collection of stories’’ was not included with the submitted testimony. 

Our son Jack was born in November 2004. He had to be delivered via caesarean 

section, meaning I was not allowed to work for 6 weeks. Once I was medically 

cleared to return to work, I could only work shifts on Saturdays, when my husband 

wasn’t working. There was simply no way we could afford childcare, and, like so 

many military families, we had no local support system. 

Our financial challenges with an infant mounted, and I ran out of solutions. I reluctantly applied for SNAP benefits and was denied. I felt confused, scared, and ultimately dumbfounded. How could we qualify for one government food assistance program, but not another? Why didn’t we qualify for SNAP when we were struggling 

to put food on the table for our family? 

Although both the WIC and SNAP programs fall under the USDA, the WIC application specifically excludes additional military allowances, such as the housing allowance, as part of your monthly income. The SNAP program, in contrast, does require counting our Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) as income when applying. 

Most people don’t realize military families often acquire housing in a different 

way than their civilian counterparts. On the whole, our military subsidizes housing 

expenses for active-duty military families, whether you live on-base or off. If you reside in off-base or privatized military housing, the subsidy is determined by the cost 

of living in your area. But including the BAH as part of determining eligibility for 

government programs, which only happens if you live off base or in privatized housing, artificially inflates a family’s gross income. So that’s what happened to us. 

We were rejected because our housing allowance was included as part of our income, which made it seem like we were making more money than we were. I’ve 

since learned that this is a common reason why military families are denied access 

to SNAP benefits. 

We were left wondering how we were going to survive even while my husband 

went to work serving his country. 

After being denied for SNAP, I didn’t know what else to do. There weren’t any 

other options for our family. When we moved, there was a wait list for on-base military housing so we chose an apartment that was under our housing allowance in 

an attempt to make ends meet. We also shared one used car, and lived without 

cable or other amenities in an attempt to get by. 

We were making payments on my graduate school loans, which also weren’t considered in benefit eligibility. As a responsible adult, I pay my bills. I wasn’t going 

to just stop paying. For some time I had them deferred, but that was only a temporary solution. 

I breast-fed Jack exclusively until he was 6 months old, but the costs of having 

a child piled up. Diapers, wipes, and other necessities were a constant strain on our 

budget. We shopped the commissary, because it was cheaper, but our food bills were 

still more than we could afford. I remember putting groceries on the credit cards 

more times than I could count. There are few things more disheartening than worrying about where your next meal is going to come from. 

My life—and my son’s life—are much better now. All debts from that time have 

been paid, and we are food-secure and living comfortably. I was able to leave the 

WIC program after I went back to work full-time when Jack was about 18 months 

old. We can now afford to give generously to various charities and donate to our 

local food pantries. For 4 years, I managed a local farm that accepted WIC and 

SNAP benefits. I lived the experience of stretching each dime, so when people 

shopped with my farm, I would go to great lengths to help them make the most of 

the meager benefits. 

Being in a military family is challenging in ways most people can never imagine. 

You make so many sacrifices: missed time with loved ones; not having a constant 

place to call ‘‘home;’’ job security for dependents; and so much more. I don’t ever 

want another military family to worry about food the way we did. 

If we had been of a lower rank, I honestly don’t know how we would have survived. No military family should have to experience the fear and shame of being 

food-insecure, but we should also be giving them the resources and information to 

get help. 

I hope that these reflections from my personal experiences, and the other stories 

that follow collected by MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger,* help you to better 

562

understand the particular challenges of food insecurity faced by too many of our 

military families. 

Sincerely,

ERIKATEBBENS.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Ms. Tebbens. 

Mr. Faris, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF VINSEN FARIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MEALS-ON-WHEELS OF JOHNSON AND ELLIS COUNTIES IN 

NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS, CLEBURNE, TX 

Mr. FARIS. Madam Chair, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here with you 

today. 

In addition to leading Meals-on-Wheels of Johnson and Ellis 

Counties, I also have the honor of serving as the immediate past 

Board Chair of Meals-on-Wheels America. All told, there are more 

than 5,000 Meals-on-Wheels senior nutrition programs throughout 

our country, all unified in a mission to support our communities’ 

most vulnerable seniors to live safely, healthfully, and independently in their own homes. Today we are challenged like never before in addressing the growing needs of a rapidly aging population 

that is increasingly struggling with hunger, and paying for basic 

living needs like rent, utilities, and prescriptions. 

Take Emily, for example, whose story is similar to the thousands 

of seniors in your states and districts who are significantly at risk 

of hunger and isolation. Emily is 92, a retired nurse who worked 

for 40+ years, and receives about $850 a month in Social Security 

benefits. She suffers from severe osteoporosis and is physically unable to leave her home to go to a grocery store or stand to cook and 

prepare her own meals. Emily relies on a Meals-on-Wheels volunteer to bring her a nourishing hot meal every day. This friendly 

visit and personal connection is the only human contact Emily may 

regularly have. 

Like most Meals-on-Wheels clients, the nutritious meals Emily 

receives help her to maintain her independence, to live in her own 

home, and to avoid unnecessary trips to the hospital. Meals-onWheels offers her a lifeline that is a much-preferred, economical, 

and commonsense alternative to other long-term care options. 

As you know, the consequences of hunger and food insecurity are 

both socially and economically profound. For seniors, even a slight 

reduction in nutritional intake can exacerbate existing health conditions, accelerate physical impairment, impede recovery from illness, injury, or surgery, and increase the risk of chronic disease. 

Today, one in six seniors struggles with hunger, and those experiencing very-low food security has increased 63 percent between the 

start of the recession in 2007 and 2013. Findings from a recent 

study showed that seniors on Meals-on-Wheals’ waiting list are 

among our nation’s most at-risk and vulnerable populations. Specifically, these seniors are more likely to report poorer health, higher rates of anxiety and depression, and fall more frequently. 

Eighty-seven percent of these at-risk seniors required assistance 

with grocery shopping. 


11403107.eps
563

It is imperative that proven and effective programs designed to 

meet the nutritional and social needs of special populations such as 

seniors like Emily be further strengthened. Any legislative and policy changes should enhance nutritional access and assure individual safety, security, health, and well-being. We can either invest 

a modest amount in proper nutrition for our seniors now, or spend 

significantly more on the adverse consequences that will increase 

healthcare costs later. 

Accordingly, we urge consideration of the following: First, protect 

and support SNAP. On average, seniors on SNAP receive only $129 

a month. However, it can mean the difference between having to 

choose between meals or prescriptions. SNAP must be supported 

and recognized as a critical pillar to reducing senior hunger. 

Second, reauthorize and support the Older Americans Act. The 

Act has been the primary piece of Federal legislation supporting social and nutrition services for older Americans since 1965. Despite 

the Act’s longstanding bipartisan, bicameral support, it has been 

unauthorized since 2011, and remains woefully under-funded. 

Third, modify Medicare and Medicaid to meet the nutritional 

needs of our most vulnerable. It is notable that a senior can receive 

Meals-on-Wheels for an entire year for about the same cost of 1 day 

in the hospital, or 1 week in a nursing home. Accordingly, we recommend that Medicare and Medicaid plans include coverage for 

home-delivered meals prepared and delivered by private, nonprofits, with physician recommendations. 

The time to act is now, especially given the magnitude of the senior hunger problem, coupled with our rapidly aging population. The 

good news is that the infrastructure already exists to meet these 

challenges through successful programs administered by USDA 

and HHS. Working together to ensure that no senior in need struggles with hunger and isolation is an investment in our nation’s fiscal future, and it is also a preventative prescription for significantly reducing Medicare and Medicaid expenses. This is an issue 

that is not only within our reach to solve, but it is also the right 

thing to do for all of the Emilys in our communities. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faris follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VINSEN FARIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MEALS-ON-WHEELS

OF JOHNSON AND ELLIS COUNTIES IN NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS, CLEBURNE, TX 

Chairman Conaway, Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking Member Peterson, Ranking 

Member McGovern and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee—good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today at this important 

hearing. I am Vinsen Faris, Executive Director of Meals-on-Wheels of Johnson and 

Ellis Counties, located immediately south of Dallas—Fort Worth in Cleburne, Texas. 

As well as having the privileged responsibility of delivering more than 1,200 nutritious meals to needy homebound seniors in our 1,700+ mile2 area each day, I also 

have the honor of serving as the Immediate Past Chair of the Board of Meals-onWheels America. Meals-on-Wheels America is the oldest and largest national organization comprised of and representing community-based senior nutrition programs 

that are dedicated to addressing senior hunger and isolation in every state. By providing leadership, research, education and training, grants, and advocacy support, 

Meals-on-Wheels America helps to empower community programs, just like Mealson-Wheels of Johnson and Ellis Counties, to improve the health and quality of life 

of the seniors they serve. 

All told, there are more than 5,000 Meals-on-Wheels programs—both congregate 

and home-delivered—in communities across the country that are delivering vital soVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
564

1 Administration for Community Living. Data Source: AGID State Profiles. Retrieved from 

www.agid.acl.gov. 2 Administration for Community Living. Data Source: AGID National Survey of OAA Participants. Retrieved from www.agid.acl.gov. 3Ziliak, J., & Gunderson, C. (2015, April). The State of Senior Hunger in America 2013: An 

Annual Report. Retrieved from www.nfesh.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/State-of-SeniorHunger-in-America-2013.pdf. 4Ziliak, J., & Gunderson, C. (2015, April). Supplement—The State of Senior Hunger in America 2013: An Annual Report. Retrieved from www.nfesh.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/

NFESH_2015_Report-_Supplement_032515.pdf. 5Ziliak, J., & Gunderson, C. (2008, March). The Causes, Consequences, and Future of Senior 

Hunger in America. Retrieved from www.mowaa.org/document.doc?id=13. 

cial and nutrition services to seniors 60 years of age or older. These programs are 

big and small, rural, suburban and urban, and serve nutritious meals in both the 

home, where one’s mobility is limited, and/or in congregate settings, such as senior 

centers; delivering a total of roughly one million meals daily.1 While each program 

is certainly unique in regard to its daily operations, we are unified in our mission 

to support our communities’ most vulnerable seniors to live safely, healthfully and 

independently in their own homes for as long as they wish. We also share the same 

challenges in addressing the growing needs of a rapidly aging population that is increasingly struggling with hunger and paying for basic living needs, like rent, utilities and prescriptions. 

Take Emily, for example, one of the over 2,800 clients we serve in Johnson and 

Ellis Counties, whose story is similar to the thousands of seniors in your states and 

districts who are significantly at risk of hunger and isolation and rely on Meals-onWheels to be able to live at home. Emily is 92, a retired nurse who worked for 40 

years in Johnson County, raised her family there, and brings in about $850.00 a 

month in Social Security benefits. She suffers from severe osteoporosis and is physically unable to leave her home to go to a grocery store to purchase food or to cook 

or prepare her own meals. Instead, she relies on a Meals-on-Wheels volunteer to 

bring her a nourishing hot meal every day—her primary source of food. This friendly visit and personal connection is the only human contact Emily will have each day. 

Like most Meals-on-Wheels clients, the nutritious meals Emily receives help her 

to maintain her independence, to live in her own home, which she prefers, and to 

avoid unnecessary trips to the hospital or premature placement in a nursing home, 

often paid for through Medicare and/or Medicaid. According to the 2013 National 

Survey of Older Americans Act Participants, 92% of Meals-on-Wheels recipients reported that the meals enabled them to continue living at home, and 83% said that 

eating the meals improved their health.2 For Emily, Meals-on-Wheels offers a lifeline that is a much preferred, economical and common sense alternative to other 

long-term care options. 

At no other time in our history, however, has the issue of senior hunger been at 

a more critical level. Regardless of what statistic you see, it is undeniable that the 

problem is grave, growing and expensive. Today, 9.6 million seniors 3—or one in 

six—may not know from where their next meal will come. All the more concerning 

to this Subcommittee is the fact that the number of seniors 60+ experiencing ‘‘verylow food security’’—or ‘‘hunger,’’ as the National Commission on Hunger just expressed in their report released last week—has increased 63% between the start of 

the recession in 2007 to 2013.4

As you know, the consequences of hunger and food insecurity are both socially and 

economically profound. For seniors, however, even a slight reduction in nutritional 

intake can exacerbate existing health conditions, accelerate physical impairment, 

impede recovery from illness, injury and surgery, and increase the risk of chronic 

disease(s). The Causes, Consequences, and Future of Senior Hunger in America

(http://www.mowaa.org/document.doc?id=13)—the first ever assessment of the 

state of senior hunger in America released in 2008—found that a senior facing the 

threat of hunger has the same chance of much more severe activities of daily living 

(ADL) limitations as someone 14 years older.5 This means there is a large disparity 

between a senior’s actual chronological age and his or her ‘‘physical’’ age, such that 

a 67 year old senior struggling with hunger is likely to have the ADL limitations 

of an 81 year old. 

Furthermore, findings from a 2015 study entitled More Than a Meal (http://

www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/theissue/facts-resources/more-than-a-meal)—commissioned by Meals-on-Wheels America, underwritten by AARP Foundation and 

conducted by Brown University—showed that seniors on Meals-on-Wheels waiting 

lists are among our nation’s most at-risk populations when compared to a national 

representative sample of aging Americans. Specifically, the seniors included in the 

study were significantly more likely to:

565

6Thomas, K., & Dosa, D. (2015, March). More Than a Meal. Retrieved from: 

www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/MTAM. 7Feeding America & Meals-on-Wheels America. (2015, March). Senior Hunger: A National 

Crisis and a Collaborative Response. Retrieved from: http://www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/

docs/default-source/membership/resources-tools/advocacy/fa_mowa_seniorhunger.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

• Report poorer self-rated health (71% vs. 26%).

• Screen positive for depression (28% vs. 14%) and anxiety (31% vs. 16%).

• Report recent falls (27% vs. 10%) and fear of falling that limited their ability 

to stay active (79% vs. 42%).

• Require assistance with shopping for groceries (87% vs. 23%) and preparing food 

(69% vs. 20%).

• Have health and/or safety hazards both inside and outside the home (i.e., higher 

rates of tripping hazards, (24% vs. 10%), and home construction hazards, (13% vs. 7%).6

In light of the immense vulnerability and array of health and mobility challenges 

our nation’s seniors face, coupled with the high-cost, high-risk factors they pose to 

our healthcare system, it is imperative that proven and effective programs designed 

to meet their nutritional and social needs are further strengthened. And at the same 

time, it is important to recognize that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to the 

problem of senior hunger. The fact is that there is a wide continuum of need and 

a variety of federally supported nutrition programs targeted to meet vulnerable populations along that spectrum and promote health and well-being. For those seniors 

who are most mobile and may struggle with hunger primarily as a result of limited 

income and access to affordable foods, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) may serve as the best intervention. In contrast, for those seniors who 

are hungry as a result of mobility and health challenges and are physically unable 

to cook or prepare meals, Meals-on-Wheels may serve as the best intervention. In 

other cases, it may be a combination of Federal and local programs working together 

to address hunger in the community. Illustrated below is a chart that Meals-onWheels America and Feeding America created jointly to showcase the senior hunger 

continuum and the programs that exist to help support them.7

As Congress considers modifications to the Federal nutrition safety net to support 

the vulnerable populations we are discussing today, it is imperative that their 

unique nutritional and social needs be at the forefront of the process. Any legislative 

and policy changes should not only enhance nutritional access, but should also assure individual safety, security and health and well-being today and into the future. 

We can either invest a modest amount in proper nutrition for our seniors now, or 

spend significantly more on the adverse consequences that will develop in 

healthcare costs later. 

We must continue to build on the progress being made to ensure that seniors eligible for SNAP are able to access and utilize the support available to maintain their 

health and quality of life. We must also ensure that proposals, such as the SNAP 

grocery-delivery pilot, are carefully tested and implemented and that the ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN

11403108.eps
566

8 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Older Americans Act: Updated Information on Unmet 

Need for Services. Retrieved from www.gao.gov/assets/680/670738.pdf. 9 Administration for Community Living. Data Source: AGID State Profiles, and the National 

Survey of OAA Participants. Retrieved from www.agid.acl.gov. 10 United States Department of Agriculture. FY 2015 Income Eligibility Standards. Retrieved 

from www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/FY15_Income_Standards.pdf. 11 United States Department of Agriculture. Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2013. Retrieved from 

www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Trends2010-2013.pdf. 12 United States Department of Agriculture. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2014. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/

sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2014.pdf.

modity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which provides monthly food packages 

from USDA commodities, is funded to not only maintain the current caseloads but 

to enable nationwide expansion. Currently, CSFP only operates in 46 states, the 

District of Columbia and two Indian reservations. 

While notable progress is being made to ‘‘close the senior SNAP gap’’—the gap between those eligible for the program and those who participate—gaps continue to 

widen between the number of seniors struggling with hunger and those receiving 

nutritious meals through the Older Americans Act (OAA) as the funding for these 

successful and effective programs have neither kept pace with inflation nor demand. 

The consequences are acute, such as adding even more seniors onto waiting lists, 

reducing Meals-on-Wheels services and days of operation, and in some cases, forcing 

them to close their doors altogether. A Government Accountability Office report released last summer found that about 83% of food-insecure seniors and 83% of physically impaired seniors did not receive meals [through the OAA], but likely need 

them.8 Currently, the Meals-on-Wheels network overall is serving 21 million fewer 

meals annually to seniors than we were a decade ago in 2005 9 due to declining Federal and state grants; stagnant private funding; and rising food and transportation 

costs. This slippery slope is concerning and, at a minimum, we must stave off this 

continuous decline not only for the health of our seniors, but for the health of our 

nation as a whole. 

This Subcommittee, Committee and Congress are best positioned to further support and strengthen proven and effective programs serving our most vulnerable seniors and to adopt legislation favoring the bipartisan recommendations outlined in 

the National Commission on Hunger’s just-released report, Freedom From Hunger: 

An Achievable Goal for the United States of America (https://

hungercommission.rti.org/). The Meals-on-Wheels network commends the Commission for acknowledging the evidence that our programs improve the health and quality of life for America’s most vulnerable older citizens; and for offering two recommendations to improve nutrition assistance options for people who are disabled 

or medically at risk. Accordingly, we urge Members of the Committee to consider 

the following policy priorities, and to commit to cross-Committee collaboration, when 

such recommendations may be outside of this Committee’s jurisdiction: 

1. Protect and Support Nutritional Access for Seniors via the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

SNAP is our nation’s largest Federal nutrition program, targeting households at or below 130% of the Federal poverty line, or an annual income of $15,180 for a 

senior living alone.10 However, only about 40% of eligible seniors are enrolled in 

SNAP11 due to a variety of factors including stigma, misconceptions about the application process, and mobility or access issues, among others. On average, seniors on 

SNAP access only $129 a month,12 however, it can mean the difference between 

having to choose between meals or prescriptions. We urge Congress to work with 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture to: 

• Ensure SNAP benefits are adequate.

• Support SNAP outreach and promote and disseminate state-level best practices 

for improving senior SNAP participation, such as simplified applications and 

screening in senior centers.

• Recognize the statute allowing states’ eligibility for surplus or ‘‘bonus’’ commodities through the OAA-authorized Nutrition Services Incentive Program.

• Maximize voluntary contributions for home-delivered meals via SNAP, as has 

been allowed under the law since 1971, by supporting mobile point of sale devices for senior nutrition programs; similar to pilot tests that have occurred in 

farmers’ markets.

• Analyze food security rates for all ‘‘elderly,’’ not just ‘‘elderly living alone’’ or 

‘‘households with elderly,’’ in the annual Food Security Report.

567

13 Administration for Community Living. Data Source: AGID State Profiles, and the National 

Survey of OAA Participants. Retrieved from www.agid.acl.gov. 14Meals-on-Wheels America. United States Fact Sheet (2015, March). Retrieved from 

www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/docs/default-source/fact-sheets/senior-fact-sheet-national.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 15Meals-on-Wheels America. (2016, January). Comments on Proposed Discharge Planning 

Rule for Hospitals, Critical Access Hospitals, and Home Health Agencies (80 FED. REG. 68126).

• Define elderly as ‘‘60 and older’’ for the annual Food Security Report, not 65 

and older, which is consistent with other USDA nutrition program definitions 

for ‘‘elderly’’. 

2. Fund, Reauthorize and Protect the Older Americans Act (OAA) 

The OAA has been the primary piece of Federal legislation supporting social and 

nutrition services to Americans age 60 and older since 1965. In 2013, the last year 

for which data exists, the OAA enabled more than 219 million meals to be provided 

to 2.4 million seniors.13 Despite the OAA’s longstanding bipartisan, bicameral support, it has been unauthorized since 2011 and remains woefully under-funded. As 

such, we urge Congress to: 

• Pass S. 192, the Older Americans Reauthorization Act of 2015. The Senate 

unanimously adopted, S. 192, the Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act of 

2015 in July of last year.

• Provide increased funding for OAA Nutrition Programs (Congregate, Home-Delivered and Nutrition Services Incentive Program) in FY 2017. We thank Congress for including a $20+ million increase in the recently passed Consolidated 

Appropriations Act.

• End sequestration for FY 2018 and beyond and replace it with a balanced plan. 

OAA programs were hit hard by the unnecessary and harsh cuts in 2013 and 

are still recovering. 

3. Modify Medicare and Medicaid to Meet the Nutritional Needs of Our 

Most Vulnerable Seniors 

As described above, the health consequences of inadequate nutrition are particularly severe for seniors. Proper nutrition, on the other hand, averts unnecessary visits to the emergency room, reduces falls, admissions and readmissions to hospitals, 

saving billions in Medicare and Medicaid expenses. It is notable that a senior can 

receive Meals-on-Wheels for an entire year for about the same cost of one day in 

the hospital or one week in a nursing home.14 Accordingly, we recommend the following: 

• Expand Medicare managed care plans to include coverage for home-delivered 

meals prepared and delivered by a private nonprofit for seniors with physician 

recommendation.

• Expand Medicaid managed care plans to include coverage, with a physician recommendation, for home-delivered meals prepared and delivered by a private 

nonprofit for individuals who are too young for Medicare, but who are at serious 

medical risk or have a disability.

• Allow doctors to write billable Medicare and Medicaid ‘‘prescriptions’’ for nutritious and medically-appropriate meals prepared and delivered by a private nonprofit for individuals prior to being discharged from a hospital. Seniors receiving 

short-term nutrition interventions post-hospital discharge, ranging from a daily 

hot meal to a combination of different meal types (i.e., lunch, dinner, snack, hot 

or frozen meals), has resulted in readmission rates of 6–7% as compared to national 30 day readmission rates of 15–34%.15

The time to act is now, especially given the magnitude of the senior hunger problem coupled with continued demographic shifts resulting in a rapidly aging population. The good news is that the infrastructure already exists to meet vulnerable, 

food-insecure seniors across a continuum of need, through successful programs currently administered through USDA and the Department of Health and Human 

Services if properly resourced. These programs support the most mobile seniors, 

who are able to shop for and/or prepare their own meals, to those who with a little 

assistance can socialize, exercise and eat nutritious meals together in congregate or 

group settings, to the least mobile, who are homebound and depend on that daily 

nutritious meal, friendly visit and safety check—that more than a meal service—

from their local Meals-on-Wheels program to enable them to remain independent in 

their own homes. Working together to ensure that no senior in need struggles with 

hunger and isolation is not only an investment in our nation’s fiscal future, but it 

568

is also a preventative prescription for significantly reducing Medicare and Medicaid 

expenses. 

Again, I want to sincerely thank the entire Subcommittee for your commitment 

to finding solutions to end hunger in America and the opportunity to testify before 

you. This is an issue that is not only within our reach to solve, but is also a moral, 

social and economic imperative. I hope my testimony has been both compelling and 

insightful, and I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Mr. Faris. 

And Mr. Schneidewind, please proceed with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC J. SCHNEIDEWIND, J.D., PRESIDENTELECT, AARP, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. SCHNEIDEWIND. Chairman Conaway, Subcommittee Chairman Walorski, Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for holding today’s hearing on SNAP, and 

for inviting AARP to speak about the program’s positive impact on 

older Americans. 

My name is Eric Schneidewind, and I am the AARP Presidentelect. 

SNAP is a critical part of the nutrition safety net available to 

low-income families and people in need, including the elderly and 

people with disabilities. It is exceptionally effective and efficient at 

reducing food insecurity. Program performance is better than it 

ever has been, with over 99 percent of participating households 

meeting all the program’s eligibility requirements in Fiscal Year 

2014. 

Along with helping low-income persons eat healthier, more nutritious food, SNAP also helps stimulate the economy up to $9 for 

every $5 in SNAP benefits spent; an economic effect that was part 

of the program’s design. 

While SNAP is at the cornerstone of all public food assistance, 

other programs under the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction also address 

senior hunger in tandem with the vast private charitable network 

that assists seniors every day. Programs such as the Commodities 

Supplemental Food Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, as well as 

home-delivered and congregate meals authorized under Title III of 

the Older Americans Act, serve millions of seniors. But there is no 

replacement for SNAP when it comes to fighting hunger in all population groups, and older Americans are no exception. 

I would like to take a moment to recognize Lisa Marsh Ryerson, 

President of AARP Foundation, a charitable affiliate of AARP, and 

to thank her for being here today. 

According to Foundation research, the younger segment of older 

Americans is often at deeper risk for food insecurity than their 

older counterparts. Even if they have specialized needs or limitations, they might not qualify for other nutrition assistance programs geared toward older Americans. However, low-income seniors face problems that their younger counterparts do not; namely, 

reduced ability to re-enter the workforce, fixed incomes and retirement, and significantly higher medical costs. 

Seniors struggling with food security were over twice as likely to 

report being in poor health. Health care for someone over 65 costs 

three to five times what it costs for younger people. And researchers have recently discovered that severely food-insecure individuals 

569

required an average of $4,000 in care, compared to $2,806 for moderately food-insecure individuals, and only $1,608 for food-secure 

individuals. As the senior population grows, food security issues 

will continue to pressure the public and private healthcare system. 

For many seniors, food security can mean better management of 

a range of chronic diseases. Given the costs of chronic disease management to the healthcare system, and particularly programs such 

as Medicare and Medicaid, we believe that there is a strong incentive for policymakers to look at hunger as a health issue. It can be 

key to bending the cost curve, especially for seniors. 

SNAP benefits help recipients afford other necessities such as 

housing and utility expenses. There may also be a positive effect 

on other health-related problems associated with food insecurity, 

such as postponing needed medical care, delaying or not taking 

prescribed medications, and increased emergency room use. By providing SNAP benefits to individuals in need, we can help people 

live at home and age in place, helping to delay or prevent more 

costly institutional care and unnecessary hospitalizations. This 

saves taxpayer dollars because caring for people in their home costs 

about 1⁄3 of the amount that institutional care costs, and it is the 

option that is overwhelmingly preferred by the recipients. 

Seniors participate in SNAP at a lower rate than any age group 

due to both societal and policy-related barriers. However, promising practices can remove barriers such as arduous application 

length, confusing medical expense deductions, asset tests, and inperson interviews for initial benefits and re-certification, which are 

difficult for homebound individuals. 

In Chicago, the AARP Foundation launched a mailer encouraging 

SNAP registration in targeted areas to link recipients with fresh 

fruits, vegetables, and proteins. The Foundation is also connecting 

fresh food supplies into food deserts, providing both application assistance and an ability to more easily use those funds on nutritious 

foods delivered into the community. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Mr. Schneidewind, I am afraid you are out of 

time. 

Mr. SCHNEIDEWIND. May I finish with my conclusions? 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Quickly. 

Mr. SCHNEIDEWIND. We recommend that Congress refrain from 

making any further benefit cuts, and avoid making any structural 

changes that would weaken SNAP’s ability to respond to increased 

needs due to economic changes. We recommend that you resist expanded work requirements, particularly on workers 50+, who typically take longer to find new permanent employment after being 

unemployed. We ask you to continue to protect categorical eligibility as in the last farm bill, which is essential to improving access 

to SNAP for low-income Americans of all ages, and that you invest 

in community-based initiatives to assist older adults and other vulnerable populations in better managing chronic conditions. You 

should simplify the application process, lengthening re-certification 

periods, and provide additional incentives to states to expand eligibility——

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schneidewind follows:]

570

1http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Measuring2013.pdf. 2http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(15)00226-3/pdf. 3http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2014.pdf. 4http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/quality-control. 5http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/134117/err103_1_.pdf. 6 CSFP served approximately 573,000 individuals in FY 2014: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/

default/files/pfs-csfp.pdf. 7SFMNP served 787,139 in FY 2014: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/sfmnp/

SFMNP%20Profile%20for%20Participating%20State%20Agencies%20-%20FY2014.pdf. 8OAA home-delivered and congregate meals served 2,405,394 seniors in FY 2013 http://

www.agid.acl.gov/CustomTables/SPR/Results/. 9http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/our-research/senior-hunger-research/

baby-boomers-executive-summary.pdf. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC J. SCHNEIDEWIND, J.D., PRESIDENT-ELECT, AARP, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Chairman Conway, Subcommittee Chairman Walorski, Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding today’s hearing on 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food 

stamps), and for inviting AARP to speak about program’s positive impact on older 

Americans. My name is Eric Schneidewind, and I am the AARP President-elect. 

AARP is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization, with a membership of nearly 38 

million ages 50+, that helps people turn their goals and dreams into real possibilities, strengthens communities and fights for the issues that matter most to families. 

Overview of SNAP 

SNAP is a critical part of the nutrition safety net available to low-income families 

and people in need, including the elderly and people with disabilities. It has been 

shown that participating in SNAP can lead to improvements in a household’s food 

security status, especially for those with very-low food security.1 The mechanism by 

which SNAP reduces food insecurity is simple—it increases a household’s food budget and enables them to buy more food than they would otherwise be able to purchase. Further studies show that while SNAP households see improved dietary intakes, there is still much work to be done, particularly with those on low benefit 

levels.2

Why SNAP is Effective 

SNAP is exceptionally effective and efficient at achieving its mission of reducing 

food insecurity. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, an average of 45.9 million individuals in 

22.4 million households received SNAP benefits every month. The average SNAP 

household had an income of only 58 percent of the Federal poverty line in 2014, 

with 82 percent of SNAP benefits going to households with a child, elderly, or disabled person.3 At the same time, program performance is better than it ever has 

been. In FY 2014, SNAP error rates stood at record lows with over 99 percent of 

participating households meeting all the program’s eligibility requirements.4

Along with helping low-income persons eat healthier, more nutritious food, SNAP 

also helps stimulate the economy—up to $9 for every $5 in SNAP benefits spent.5

This is not an unintentional effect. SNAP was designed to help more Americans during times of economic crisis and increased need, blunting the larger macroeconomic 

effects—including but not limited to reduced consumer spending on even essential 

items such as food—that are typically a result of higher unemployment and lower 

household incomes. The recent economic recession demonstrated the importance of 

SNAP in providing food assistance for families that would have otherwise gone without food. 

Public-Private Partnership Fighting Senior Hunger 

While SNAP is at the cornerstone of all public food assistance in the United 

States, we would be remiss if we do not mention other programs under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee that also address the issue of senior hunger in tandem 

with the vast private charitable network that assists seniors every day. Programs 

such as the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP),6 the Emergency Food 

Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program 

(SFMNP),7 as well as home-delivered and congregate meals authorized under Title 

III of the Older Americans Act,8 serve millions of seniors. 

According to Feeding America, approximately 28 percent of their food banks’ clients—13 million Americans—are over the age of 50.9 However, many of these Federal programs are appropriately targeted to seniors with significant limitations in 

their activities of daily living (ADLs), such as the ability to shop for and prepare 

their own meals, as well as seniors who are homebound. And while the significant 

571

10http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2014.pdf. 11http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/ppi/2015-03/The-Long-Road-Back_INSIGHT.pdf. 12http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/8-20-14fa.pdf. 13http://pdf.aarpfoundation.org/i/455086-aarp-foundation-findings-on-nutrition-knowledgeand-food-insecurity-among-older-adults. 14http://www.cdc.gov/features/agingandhealth/state_of_aging_and_health_in_america_

2013.pdf. 15http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/34/11/1830.full.pdf+html. 16http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/our-research/senior-hunger-research/orspotlight-on-senior-health-executive-summary.pdf. 17http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11340107. 18http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2015/08/10/cmaj.150234. 

charitable response is admirable, there is no replacement for SNAP when it comes 

to fighting hunger in all population groups—and older Americans are no exception. 

Importance of SNAP to Seniors 

Elderly households, which are defined as those with an individual over age 60, 

represented 19 percent of all SNAP recipients in FY 2014. Out of this cohort, 85 

percent received either Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security, and 

82 percent of elderly households receiving SNAP consisted of an elderly individual 

living alone. On average, elderly SNAP households received an average benefit of 

$129 per month.10

According to research by AARP Foundation—a charitable affiliate of AARP—over 

17 percent of adults over the age of 40 are food-insecure. Among age cohorts over 

age 50, food insecurity was worse for the 50–59 age group, with over ten percent 

experiencing either low or very-low food security. Among the 60–69 age cohort, over 

nine percent experienced similar levels of food insecurity, and over six percent 

among the 70+ population. This emphasizes the fact that the younger segment of 

older Americans are often at deeper risk for food security than their older counterparts, primarily because they have yet to receive Social Security benefits and—even 

if they have specialized needs or limitations—might not qualify for other nutrition 

assistance programs geared toward older Americans. 

However, low-income seniors face problems that younger low-income Americans 

do not, namely reduced ability to re-enter the workforce, fixed incomes in retirement, as well as significantly higher medical costs. AARP research shows that older 

job seekers are more likely to look for work longer, and when they do re-enter the 

workforce, often have no choice but to take part-time or low-paying jobs.11

In 2012, 88 percent of SNAP households with seniors reported medical expenses.12

The typical amount was $550 for the year, equivalent to $46 a month. AARP Foundation research shows that two in five American adults over age 50 had to cut down 

or skip meals in the last year because of a lack of food, and one in five have difficulty buying nutritious food.13

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the cost of 

health care of someone 65 and older is upwards of three to five times higher than 

the cost of care for someone in a younger cohort. And among the population over 

65, nearly 95 percent of health care costs go toward treating and managing chronic 

illnesses.14

Positive Impact on Health and Quality of Life 

For many seniors, food security can mean better management of a whole range 

of chronic diseases, and it can make the difference in being able to age-in-place with 

dignity or face no choice but to enter institutional care. Put in different terms, a 

marginally food-secure senior has a reduced nutritional intake equivalent to having 

$15,000 less in annual income when compared to food-secure seniors.15

Compared to food-secure seniors, those facing food insecurity are 53 percent more 

likely to die of a heart attack, 40 percent more likely to have congestive heart failure, 22 percent more likely to face limitations of ADLs, and are 60 percent more 

likely to suffer from depression.16 Overall, seniors struggling with food security were 

over twice as likely to report being in poor health.17 For example, as food insecurity 

worsens, health care utilization and total health care costs increases. Researchers 

recently discovered that severely food-insecure individuals required an average of 

$4,000 in care, compared to $2,806 for moderately food-insecure individuals and 

$1,608 for food-secure individuals.18

Given the costs of chronic disease management to the health care system, particularly programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, there is a strong incentive for policymakers to look at hunger as a health issue. If we ensure that SNAP is accessible 

and sufficient, it can be a key strategy to bending the health care cost curve, especially for seniors. One such example of how these causes are inexorably linked is 

572

19http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/1/116.full.pdf+html. 20M. Kushel et al., 2005. ‘‘Housing Instability and Food Insecurity as Barriers to Health Care 

Among Low-Income Americans,’’ Journal of General Internal Medicine 21:71–77. 21http://hungerreport.org/2016/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HR2016-Full-Report-Web.pdf. 22 A. Houser, W. Fox-Grage, & K. Ujvari, Across the States: Profiles of Long-Term Term Services and Supports 2012 16 (AARP PPI, 2012), http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/ltc/2012/across-the-states-2012-full-report-AARP-ppi-ltc.pdf. 23http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Trends2010-2013.pdf. 24https://apps.ams.usda.gov/fooddeserts/fooddeserts.aspx. 

a recent study that showed that risk for hospital admissions for hypoglycemia 

spiked 27 percent in the last week of the month—as compared to the first week of 

the month—when food and SNAP budgets of low-income populations have often 

been exhausted.19

Furthermore, SNAP benefits help recipients afford other basic necessities, such as 

housing and utility expenses, by freeing up household resources otherwise needed 

for food costs. There may also be a positive effect on other health related problems 

associated with food insecurity, such as postponing needed medical care, delaying 

or not taking prescribed medications, increased emergency room use, and more frequent hospitalizations among low-income adults.20

Another study showed that the costs of hunger to the entire health care system were an estimated $160 billion.21 As the senior population continues to grow, along 

with the incidence of chronic disease, food security issues will only continue to put 

more pressure on the public and private health care system. 

By providing SNAP benefits to those in need, we can help people live at home 

and age-in-place, helping to delay or prevent more costly institutional care and unnecessary hospitalizations, saving taxpayer dollars. Research demonstrates states 

that invest in home and community-based services, over time, slow their rate of 

Medicaid spending growth, compared to states that remain reliant on nursing 

homes. On average, the Medicaid program can provide services to help roughly 

three older adults and adults with physical disabilities live independently in their 

homes and communities for the cost of serving one person in a nursing home.22

Barriers to Senior Participation 

While the public and private implications of food security might be most significant for seniors, they participate in SNAP at a lower rate than any age cohort. 

Where the overall participation rate for eligible households is 85 percent, only 41 

percent of eligible elderly households participate in SNAP. While the participation 

rate is slightly higher for households with only one elderly individual, at 54 percent, 

these rates remain woefully low, despite recent increases.23

Many barriers to older adults’ participation in SNAP are societal—some seniors 

are under the misconception that if they accept SNAP benefits they will exclude 

other people, many are embarrassed to accept public assistance, and others might 

not know they are eligible. However, promising practices can remove policy-related 

barriers such as arduous application length, in-person interviews for initial benefits 

and re-certification which are difficult for homebound individuals, confusing medical 

expense deductions, and asset tests. 

USDA has taken steps to implement programs such as the Elderly Simplified Application Project—which shortens applications, waives interviews, and lengthens recertification periods—as well as the Standard Medical Deduction Demonstration, 

which allows elderly and disabled adults with more than $35 in out-of-pocket medical expenses to deduct a standard amount from their gross income in order to qualify for benefits. 

However, additional pilots, such as the Combined Application Projects—which 

screens individuals applying for Social Security and other benefits for eligibility in 

SNAP—create government efficiency while also improving outcomes for older Americans that might otherwise struggle with food security. And while asset tests have 

been phased out in most states, elderly individuals struggling with high medical expenses and limited incomes should not have to face such tests, especially when some 

states have asset tests as low as $3,250 for elderly and disabled adults. 

SNAP Outreach and Education Efforts 

SNAP outreach that can connect consumers directly to programs that serve the 

SNAP population can be effective. For example, in Chicago, AARP Foundation has 

launched a physical mailer encouraging SNAP registration in specifically targeted 

areas to link SNAP recipients with fresh fruits, vegetables, and proteins. The Foundation is also connecting fresh food supplies into food deserts—defined as urban 

neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food 24—providing both SNAP application assistance and an ability to more easVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
573

25http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/aarp_foundation/2015-PDFs/AF-Food-Insecurity2015Update-Final-Report.pdf via DataExplorer. 26http://www.wholesomewave.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2013_healthy_food_ incentives_cluster_evaluation.pdf. 27http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/FarmersMarkets-Shopping-Patterns-Summary.pdf. 28http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/HIP-Final-Summary.pdf. 29http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/2014-SNAP-Retailer-Management-Annual-Report.pdf. 30http://pdf.aarpfoundation.org/i/455086-aarp-foundation-findings-on-nutrition-knowledgeand-food-insecurity-among-older-adults. 31https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42054.pdf.

ily use those funds on nutritious foods delivered to their community. Based on this 

learning, the Foundation is exploring how to create a SNAP application on 

smartphones and easy pathways to utilize benefits at SNAP approved grocery stores 

or food delivery that can maximize the volume of nutritious food available on a 

SNAP budget. The goal of this work is to create easily replicable application pathways and immediately connect the recipient to healthy food options. 

New Innovative Approaches 

While addressing the issues of access to SNAP benefits is essential, it is also our 

belief that we must empower low-income older adults to be smarter, healthier consumers. To that end, it is important to implement and evaluate innovative programming that demonstrates addressing hunger as a health issue pays both private and 

public dividends. 

One of the AARP Foundation programs is a SNAP fruit and vegetable incentive 

program called Fre$h Savings. This program incentivizes the purchase of fresh 

fruits and vegetables by SNAP shoppers in Mississippi and Tennessee, where according to USDA 22 percent (Mississippi) and over 16 percent (Tennessee) of households are food-insecure. Among those households with members age 50 and older, 

over 16 percent in Mississippi are food-insecure, as well as over ten percent in Tennessee.25

At the ten currently participating grocery stores, for every $10 spent by a SNAP 

consumer on fresh fruits and vegetables, a coupon will print at check-out for 50 percent off the next purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables, with a maximum coupon 

value of $10 (maximum of two coupons per SNAP household, per month). At 16 currently participating farmers’ markets, when a SNAP customer spends up to $10 

with their SNAP card, they will get the same amount in Fre$h Savings tokens to 

spend on fresh fruits and vegetables. In both stores and farmers’ markets, educational materials are available to inform consumers about the Fre$h Savings program and its value for SNAP shoppers. 

Since September of last year, the program has distributed over 11,000 coupons at 

stores and over $2,500 in tokens at farmers’ markets. The coupons have been redeemed at a rate of 27 percent, almost twice the typical redemption rate for a normal coupon program at the participating stores. The program is already slated to 

expand into an additional 15 farmers’ markets and 12 more stores in Mississippi 

and Tennessee, and is beginning to build a business case for retailers to implement 

such programs on their own. 

Previous research on incentives at farmers’ markets 26–27 and from a retail pilot 

by USDA 28 have demonstrated these programs are effective at a much smaller 

scale; however, Fre$h Savings is one of the first such SNAP incentive programs to 

be implemented with a major, national retail grocer, which is where approximately 

33 percent of all SNAP benefits are spent and where 87 percent of all older Americans say they shop for food on a regular basis.29–30 The potential to scale this program could have significant implications not only for the health and well-being of 

low-income Americans, but for retailers of any size. 

2014 Farm Bill 

The 2014 Farm Bill included the following major changes and outcomes:

• Limited cuts to SNAP—larger cuts would have led to a less effective program 

to continue fighting hunger and food insecurity;

• Maintained ‘‘expanded categorical eligibility,’’ preserving benefits for over two 

million people in households, including low-income working families and seniors; 31

• Modified the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), but ensured that no current SNAP recipient was removed from the program;

574

32M. Nord and M. Prell, Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP 

Benefits, USDA Economic Research Report Number 116, 2011. http:/www.ers.usda.gov/media/

127913/err116.pdf. 33https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42054.pdf.

• Permitted nonprofits that purchase and deliver foods to the elderly and people 

with disabilities to accept SNAP as payment;

• Authorized Community Supported Agriculture Organizations (CSAs) to become 

authorized SNAP retailers, expanding potential grantee connections;

• Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) received an extra 

$200 million for commodities that will flow primarily through the food bank network;

• The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) now exclusively serves 

seniors, as pregnant and postpartum women and children have shifted to WIC;

• Improved Access to Healthy Food: Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) 

grants were authorized with $100 million to states and community-based organizations to increase the purchase of fresh produce where nutrition education 

is part of the anti-hunger strategy;

• New data exchange standards to help ensure SNAP can share data with other 

key Federal and state programs more efficiently and effectively; and

• Strengthened program integrity provisions while adding tools to combat trafficking and other program abuses, and restored bonus payments to reward program accuracy. 

Future Opportunities to Strengthen SNAP 

As the debate over SNAP moves forward, AARP recommends that we:

• Refrain from making any further benefit cuts under SNAP that would jeopardize the program’s ability to carry out its important mission and avoid making any structural changes that would weaken SNAP’s ability to respond to increased needs due to changes in the economy; (Research suggests that policies 

which increase SNAP benefits have been shown to improve food security among 

low-income households.) 32

• Resist expanded work requirements under SNAP above those already in place, 

particularly any new requirements on workers 50+ who typically take longer 

than younger workers to find new permanent employment after being unemployed;

• Continue to protect categorical eligibility—as was done in the last farm bill—

it is essential to improving access to SNAP for low-income Americans of all 

ages; 33

• Invest in community-based initiatives to assist older adults and other vulnerable populations in better managing chronic conditions through nutrition and 

physical activity;

• Simplify and improve the application process for SNAP: Preliminary evidence 

from USDA pilots show that simplifying applications, lengthening re-certification periods, and screening seniors applying for other public benefits are improvements to the administration of SNAP that create more efficient and effective government while also improving the quality of life of low-income older 

Americans. Some other programs, such as the Standard Medical Deduction 

Demonstration, help to give a more accurate estimate of medical costs’ impact 

on a senior’s income, thereby giving them more sufficient benefits;

• Allow grandparent and other non-parent caregivers to apply for benefits on behalf of the children in their care;

• Provide additional incentives to states to undertake reforms to expand SNAP 

eligibility for low-income households, such as eliminating asset tests for low-income older households and/or expanding income and resource deductions; and

• Closely monitor restrictions on outreach included in the 2014 Farm Bill to 

evaluate whether they are having a negative impact on SNAP for vulnerable 

populations that already face barriers to participation.

Again, thank you for holding this hearing and for understanding the important 

role of SNAP in addressing food insecurity among low-income seniors. I am happy 

to answer any questions.

575

The CHAIRWOMAN. Mr. Schneidewind, I am going to have to cut 

you off there, in deference to all the other witnesses, but I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. SCHNEIDEWIND. Thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Absolutely. 

Ms. Leibman, I wanted to direct my question to you. In addition 

to sitting as Chairwoman of the Subcommittee, I also sit on the 

House Armed Services Committee and the Veterans Committee as 

well, so I know all too well how the VA system is broken in so 

many ways. But in situations where there are delays in VA benefits, which is often for thousands of people, can SNAP be useful because of how quickly it can absolutely be brought into the system, 

and then can you just kind of talk to the fact of how SNAP is used 

as a bridge in some of these situations? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. Absolutely. The concept of having adequate food is 

an important part of the healing process for people, and helps them 

get back up on their feet. So obviously, the more quickly people can 

access those benefits, particularly people who are struggling with 

disabilities when they return from being mobilized, the better for 

them. And one of the consequences of the way in which the system 

is currently working at the VA is that not only are they having 

delays, sometimes they are not even asked about whether they can 

qualify, given opportunities to apply for the benefits themselves. 

And in thinking through the relationship between what the social 

workers, the medical professionals are being confronted with when 

someone comes in the door at the VA, they need to really address 

whether or not these people are struggling with food insecurity. 

They don’t even ask. I think at the outset, if they are asked about 

that, there will be a move in the direction of getting them application assistance, which, again, becomes a secondary issue because 

sometimes the application process itself is very onerous, and as I 

said, it can result in terrible delays. So expediting that process for 

veterans who are seeking qualification as disabled would do tremendous good in helping them to recover. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I appreciate it. 

And then just quickly, Mr. Faris, the Meals-on-Wheels Program 

in my district is phenomenal in the South Bend area that serves 

a regional area, and really is one of the models for a lot of the Midwest. I am just curious though, what are some of the impediments 

to seniors actually seeking out benefits; that generation of senior 

citizens. And it seems like it is so disproportionate, such a tiny 

amount of seniors actually reach out, yet they are so far down the 

list of food insecurity, what are some of the impediments that you 

have seen, because Meals-on-Wheels is a revolutionary program 

that works hand-in-hand with SNAP. So I guess twofold; what are 

some of the impediments from seniors reaching out, and then second, do you see SNAP as a program that has been an easy partner 

with, and perhaps, more organizations coming alongside? 

Mr. FARIS. Yes, ma’am. One of the most difficult tasks that 

Meals-on-Wheels organizations have in trying to encourage, when 

we see needy individuals who could certainly benefit from the 

SNAP benefits, is getting them to truly understand it. And what 

we are dealing with here is egos. They are not looking for a handVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
576

out. They don’t want to get too far out in front. They are proud people. That is first and foremost in it. 

One of the other things, they think that the process is difficult. 

When they have all of the life challenges bearing down on them at 

this advanced stage in life, it is sometimes more than they can 

handle. They think it is an onerous process to go through. And 

probably third, I would say that they think the benefit is too small. 

Most of them think they are not going to get anything. There are 

probably some out there that would think that they would be taking benefits from other people as well. 

It has been a difficult program to work for a lot of Meals-onWheels organizations. Speaking from our own, it is not as easy to 

get people signed up as it could be and should be. We would like 

to see a much more streamlined process. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

And, Ms. Leibman, one final question. I am back to VA, because 

I am thinking about casework that comes into our offices, all of our 

offices, Congressional offices around the country, and issues with 

delays, patient care, applications, phenomenal delays in disability 

assessments and those kinds of things. So when we are talking 

about, for example, if we made a move and we said we want to 

focus a lot more on these SNAP benefits toward veteran organizations, I cringe when I think about asking the VA to do one more 

thing because so many of the things that are happening are not 

done correctly. So if we were looking at a way to expedite that process or something like that, would this be something that we would 

work more on the USDA end and making sure those connections 

are timely and efficient, and that type of a thing, not just handing 

this over to the VA and having them reach back to the USDA? How 

does that sound? We are almost out of time, but maybe I can talk 

to you about it afterwards to at least plant the seed. How does that 

work? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. The good news is that the VA and USDA have 

begun a dialogue in which they are talking exactly about these 

issues, that they are demonstrating extraordinary leadership and 

innovation and trying to find ways to work together to resolve some 

of these issues. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Good. 

Ms. LEIBMAN. I think the movement forward has begun, and the 

support from Congress to see that happen is probably essential. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I appreciate it. 

Mr. McGovern is yielding to Ms. Adams, 5 minutes. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

And Ranking Member McGovern, thank you. And to all of our 

guests, thank you very much. 

Of the six counties that are represented by my district, the 12th 

in North Carolina, the Department of Health and Human Services 

estimates that 25,000 or more able-bodied adults without dependents will be impacted by the reinstatement of SNAP work requirements. This includes over 10,000 adults in Mecklenburg and 8,000 

in Guilford, where I live. And an able-bodied adult can continue to 

receive SNAP benefits only if they enroll in an employment and 

training program, but most counties do not have the funds necVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
577

essary to meet the Federal matching requirement for the SNAP 

employment and training program. 

Ms. Leibman, you mentioned in your testimony that ABAWD 

work requirements will impact 60,000 veterans nationwide. Where 

have you seen success in connecting ABAWDs to job training programs that allow them to continue receiving SNAP benefits? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. I am, personally, not aware of any stellar, outstanding programs that have been focused on moving veterans 

through the employment training system, and when they are also 

in the category of ABAWDs, into gainful employment. That is not 

a focus or an emphasis of what MAZON does, so it is possible those 

programs exist but it is not something of which I am aware. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. 

Mr. Schneidewind, my office is currently drafting legislation that 

will strengthen the SNAP Program, and make the standard medical deduction permanently authorized. This is going to allow seniors and the disabled to include their medical expenses when they 

apply for SNAP benefits, without having to itemize every out-ofpocket purchase they make just to receive more adequate SNAP 

benefits. Nationally, how much do you see the medical expense deduction being under-utilized by seniors and the disabled due to the 

lack of a standard medical deduction in all 50 states? 

Mr. SCHNEIDEWIND. Well, I don’t have estimates of that precise 

element, but I can tell you that seniors apply for SNAP at a rate 

almost 1⁄2 of the other populations, and we have found that very 

complicated requirements for application, frequent re-certification, 

requirement for many people to leave their home when they don’t 

have mobility to make that application, all of these factors have deterred or discouraged seniors from applying for those benefits. So 

we believe some of the complexities and the requirements in eligibility need to be simplified and certainly reduced to increase participation of seniors. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you very much. And I want to thank all of 

you for your testimony. And, Mr. McGovern, I thank you for yielding. And, Madam Chair, I am going to yield back my time. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

I now yield to Chairman Conaway, 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Thank you. Again, I thank the witnesses for being 

here. 

Mr. Faris, you mentioned that most Meals-on-Wheels programs 

had waiting lists or backlog lists. 

Mr. FARIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Can you walk us through why that is the case, 

and would all of those folks already be on the SNAP program, and 

then give us the mechanics of how SNAP interrelates with Mealson-Wheels. In other words, do you get payments from SNAP? Help 

us understand the program as to why there are backlogs. 

Mr. FARIS. In the Older Americans Act nutrition programs today 

there is a significantly smaller number of meals being served annually than what was being served 10 years ago. We are serving actually 21 million fewer meals this year than in 2005. 

One of the big challenges that we have out there is that funding 

for the Older Americans Act has not kept pace with the growth of 

the population. 

578

Mr. CONAWAY. And that is where the funding for Meals-onWheels comes from? 

Mr. FARIS. That is where the large part of Meals-on-Wheels funding comes from. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. Do you get funds from the SNAP Program 

as well? 

Mr. FARIS. In Texas, in our program, we have great difficulty utilizing SNAP. We should be able to, but we do not have the ability 

for the electronic funds benefit cards. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Is that a restriction on your side or on the state 

side, or the Fed side? 

Mr. FARIS. It is difficult working with the state. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

Mr. FARIS. So what we do is encourage the clients out there, the 

participants, recipients, needy seniors, to be using their SNAP benefits for other necessities there at the grocery store. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Right. And the backlog is caused by just the funding shortage? 

Mr. FARIS. That is the biggest problem. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Right. 

Ms. Tebbens, thank you for your story, and I appreciate that. Ms. 

Leibman, thank you as well for the work you do. 

Other than the basic housing allowance, which is hard to justify 

the differential between the treatment, that is clearly something 

we ought to address, are there other things that stand in the way 

of getting these veterans the help they need, or the active duty 

folks the help they need? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. Yes, sir. Excuse me. The difference between qualifying for SNAP and becoming food-secure is something that the 

Committee and Congress should pay attention to because the support of SNAP is essential to allowing people to have some support 

for purchasing power with regard to groceries, but it doesn’t mean 

that these individuals have become food-secure in their households. 

So some of this has to do with the complications that come from 

moving from state to state, when they are deployed from one place 

to another, so there is a lack of consistency in the ways in which 

people apply for benefits in states, that the rules can change, the 

qualifications for them can change. There are issues for them with 

regard to emergency financial situations that come up. So some of 

this is not uncommon to other parts of the population, but in a 

military context there is less support for addressing some of those 

needs, in part because of the stigma attached for seeking assistance, and then access to those programs and benefits that may or 

may not be close to base or where they are stationed. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. 

Mr. Faris, you mentioned that 92 year old lady in your testimony. Thelma? What was her name? 

Mr. FARIS. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. CONAWAY. The lady you mentioned, her name? 

Mr. FARIS. Yes, Emily. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Emily, excuse me. Is there a part of your program 

that tries to engage families? In other words, if Emily has no family at all, we have to get families involved. Is there a way that you 

579

guys look at that to try to augment support for these folks that get 

contact, other than just the Meals-on-Wheels? 

Mr. FARIS. We try as hard as we can. What we are now seeing, 

in individuals like Emily, so many of them are outliving their families and their friends, and the families that they do have left are 

too many generations down and they have lost interest, and so it 

is very difficult. We do everything we can to try to get them involved. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Yes. Are there legal barriers that we need to address that prevents you from actually doing a better job at that? 

Mr. FARIS. I am not aware of any legal barriers. No, sir. 

Mr. CONAWAY. Okay. Again, thank you for helping us understand 

these special populations, and we will continue to work to improve 

these programs. 

This is among that group that very few folks among us would say 

we shouldn’t be trying to help. Probably have a difference of opinion on the able-bodied adults with no dependents, but certainly the 

majority of the folks you represent are a population that all of us 

have a heart for, and we need to try and figure out how to do that 

better. Thank you for the work you do as advocates. 

And with that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I now yield to Congressman McGovern. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you. 

Well, first of all, let me thank you all for your testimony. And 

you all were incredibly eloquent, but I have to say that your testimony is sad. We live in the richest country in the history of the 

world, and we have a big chunk of our population that doesn’t 

know whether they can put food on the table. We have people who 

are hungry, and we all should be ashamed of that. This reflects a 

failure of government to respond adequately. We all have nothing 

but praise for charities, but let’s be honest, charities can’t do this 

alone. And I have advocated for some time that the White House 

put together a White House conference on food, nutrition, and hunger to connect the dots. 

Ms. Leibman, you talked about the conversation going on between the VA and the USDA. That is encouraging, but there needs 

to be conversations amongst multiple agencies and departments, 

not only at the Federal level, but Federal, state and local level, 

with the private-sector, with charities, with food banks, with organizations like AARP, and all the different groups out there that 

have anything to do with this. 

And Mr. Schneidewind mentioned that hunger should be treated 

as a health issue, and I agree with him. But the problem around 

here is that the budget for SNAP doesn’t come out of the budget 

for Medicare or Medicaid, and so, we are not very good at saving 

money over here if we have to spend a little bit over here. 

I began by expressing my concern about what happened over the 

weekend in South Carolina. I just want to ask for the record, does 

anybody here think that it is a good idea to block-grant SNAP? 

Anybody? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. No. 

Mr. SCHNEIDEWIND. No. 

580

Mr. MCGOVERN. Okay. All right. And based on the testimony not 

only from those of you here but from the other hearings we have 

had, the benefit that currently exists seems inadequate to be able 

to get people to a point where they are no longer food-insecure. In 

other words, most of these people who get on SNAP have to rely 

on other programs as well, or go to food banks or food pantries. So 

does anyone here think that the benefit is adequate? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. No. 

Mr. SCHNEIDEWIND. No. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. All right. Okay. I appreciate your direct answers. 

My colleague, Ms. Adams, raised this issue of ABAWDs again, 

and they tend to get a bad rap. And to make it clear for my colleagues, these are people we are told that in this year up to one 

million of the nation’s poorest adults who fit into this category will 

be cut off of SNAP, as a 3 month limit on SNAP benefits for unemployed adults who are not disabled, or raising minor children, returns in many areas. I think a lot of people don’t understand the 

very difficult circumstances that some of these people face. 

Now, up here in Congress, these so-called reforms have been put 

into place. But, no one in Congress is on food stamps, no one is on 

SNAP, and so it sounds like a reform. We will just incentivize people to work, or we will incentivize people to get job training. But 

one of the realities is that many of these poor individuals who will 

be cut off are veterans, they have honorably served our country, 

and some of them are now deeply struggling. 

Ms. Leibman, if you can just talk to us about the overlap between the veteran population and ABAWDs, that would be very 

helpful. 

Ms. LEIBMAN. Yes. There is a significant overlap, obviously. And 

I referenced the notion that there would be 60,000 veterans, is the 

best estimates that we have been able to gather, that would lose 

their benefits when the time limits are implemented, when they 

are now going to have time limits on when they can get SNAP. And 

the challenges that they face have to do with having adequate access to training programs, which Congresswoman Adams referenced, and that—and there is a program in Washington State, 

that my colleague reminded me of, that is, in fact, an efficacious 

program, so there is a model to look to. But there have to not only 

be enough slots in those training programs, the training programs 

have to be meaningful, they have to be relevant to the job market 

in that particular community, and then there have to be jobs available. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. 

Ms. LEIBMAN. And not all of that can come together at the same 

moment and the same time, for everyone who is looking. And for 

veteran populations that may become mobile, that is, they have to 

move again to look for work and start over again. And during all 

this period of time, they are no longer getting benefits so they are 

no longer able to sustain themselves. 

So there is a circle. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. These people are not lazy. 

Ms. LEIBMAN. No. 

581

Mr. MCGOVERN. They are not content at just being on SNAP, I 

mean they would like very much to have a job. But, because the 

situation is a lot more complicated than sometimes we make it, the 

situation that they face right now is that they may lose their benefit. 

Ms. LEIBMAN. That is correct. Nobody has an easy or comfortable 

life living on government benefits. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. 

Ms. LEIBMAN. It is not a boon, it is, in fact, a very limited existence, and one which virtually everybody on the program who is not 

currently employed, which a huge a percentage are, of course, is 

seeking a way to get off of government benefits, unless, of course, 

they are in a position where they are so vulnerable that they cannot find a way to get revenue in any other way, and then we need 

to find other programs that help to support them. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I now recognize Congressman Thompson, 5 

minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam Chair, thank you so much for this hearing. I want to thank you and thank Chairman Conaway, despite 

some of the things you might have heard, there are no preconceived 

conclusions here. We are having an honest dialogue, just like some 

other folks had an honest dialogue over the weekend. And in that 

dialogue, we are going to hear different ideas; some we may agree 

with, some we don’t, but unless we can have that dialogue, because 

we are not going to achieve our objective of making sure these are 

the best possible programs to meet the needs of folks who are out 

there. 

These are important issues to me. Thirty years ago, my wife and 

I were starting out with our family, first child, we were on the WIC 

Program. Ms. Tebbens, I remember how uncomfortable back then 

we were taking those vouchers to the local IGA, but how important 

that was in terms of ensuring that my wife and our unborn and 

newborn son, Parker, who is now a 31 year old pastor, was able 

to get the nutrition that he needed to be healthy. 

I am a military dad. I have a son and a daughter-in-law, the 

daughter-in-law is out of the Army now, but I am well aware of the 

military food insecurity, especially for those folks, when they go 

into the military, they are maybe a little older and they have a 

number of kids, just an E1, E2, E3, it is challenging, and I am glad 

I am hearing good ideas here of what we need to do. 

I am a former therapist and a licensed nurse home administrator, so I know that senior nutrition is about senior health, it is 

about independence, and so I look forward to working on the Older 

Americans Act. I am also a proud member of the Howard Area 

Lions Club, and we maintain a food pantry. There are many different ways we attack hunger and nutrition. SNAP is a supplemental nutrition assistance program. It is not meant to be the endall. I remember back when we were eligible for the WIC benefits, 

we also regularly received bags of groceries every time we left my 

in-laws. My mother-in-law packed the bag and my wife and I still 

reflect back on that, how important family was during those times. 

With our Lions Club, we have a food pantry, but we also do 

something—I don’t know if a lot of food pantries do this or food 

582

banks. Our members deliver. Not everything, but there are folks 

who just can’t travel. They live in remote areas, they have difficulties with transportation. And it seems to me it is really kind of interesting, as a former health care person and a rehab person, I just 

see the value in that because of what they see. It is contact that 

they have, these folks have, they are living by themselves normally, a little more isolated, and they get to see things. They may 

recognize health changes, they may talk about other needs. 

And so my question for you really centers around that. We have 

heard from various witnesses in our review of the SNAP that every 

person’s circumstances are different, and the best way to help a 

person is when you work with them to address their challenges 

from a holistic perspective. How does the personal connection, the 

person delivering the meals, better enable you to assist them with 

their needs beyond food assistance, and what sort of challenges are 

you able to recognize that one might not see if the groceries are 

simply left at the door? And anyone that would like to take that 

question on, I appreciate it. 

Mr. FARIS. I would be happy to. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Faris. 

Mr. FARIS. Congressman, thank you very much. Every situation 

is unique, and in the world of Meals-on-Wheels, we try to address 

each situation as uniquely as we can. 

The majority of the folks that we see are homebound, meaning 

they have difficulty getting out of the house easily. Some of them 

are able to take a parcel of food like you are talking about there 

in the box, and still able to do something with that, prepare their 

meals, some though, as I mentioned in my remarks about Emily, 

don’t have the ability to stand for long and prepare that meal. So 

it all depends on the individual situation. 

We start out with having a case manager go out and take a look, 

and just a general observation as to what is going on in the house 

and what the person’s needs are, and try to get our best assessment on that. It is followed up either by volunteers delivering the 

meals once they begin service, or it may be paid staff in some 

cases, but just ongoing observations, because things change. We are 

talking about a rapidly aging population, and things can change in 

the blink of an eye. Health can definitely turn when we least expect it. 

The volunteer checking on that person daily can observe that. 

Their cognitive skills may not be what they were. They may not be 

recognizing the person coming to the door like they were. Their appearance may have changed. And so we can get back. 

Chairman Conaway was asking about families. In cases where 

there are still families involved, we can pass that information onto 

them or other caregivers along the way, and hopefully there would 

be caregivers there. 

It could be a safety issue. There could be a smell of natural gas 

or something like that in the house. When you just have a box delivered to the door, that is not the exact same thing. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LEIBMAN. If I could add, Congressman, the notion that charity helps to support the government programs is an important concept and it is an important partnership. But, it is the government 

583

programs that provide the kind of consistent, stable, and baseline 

support that these families need, and that charity alone could 

never be responsive enough. In fact, I am sure, as you are aware, 

the pantries that provide assistance to families do so on a very irregular basis, meaning that you may be able to come in for groceries on one day on a particular week, and then not again for another month. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I have to cut you off there. Sorry. 

The chair recognizes Congresswoman DelBene. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to all the 

witnesses for being with us today. We really appreciate your time. 

I want to note, since we are discussing the needs of veterans as 

part of today’s hearing, I recently was volunteering at one of the 

food banks in my district, at Hopelink, and in my district, 40 percent of food bank client households have at least one person currently serving or who previously served in the military. And this 

number goes up to near 58 percent in King County in Washington 

State, and at least 62 percent in Snohomish County. And as part 

of that, Madam Chair, I wanted to ask unanimous consent to insert 

into the record a letter from Food Lifeline, which is an organization 

fighting hunger in our district, that elaborates on this even more. 

Thank you. 

[The letter referred to is located on p. 599.] 

Ms. DELBENE. I also wanted to go back to some of the discussion 

we have had on able-bodied adults without dependents, and the 

cliff that we see when folks are unable to find employment programs, or unable to find work. As we talked about earlier, nationwide the ABAWD cliff includes 60,000 veterans, 60,000, and according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, over 40 percent of this vulnerable population are women, close to 1⁄3 are over 

the age of 40, about 1⁄2 are white, 1⁄3 are African American and 1⁄10

are Hispanic, and we know that Native American populations will 

also be hit hard. 

I helped introduce legislation, the SNAP Work Opportunities Act, 

that would provide an exception to the 3 month time limit for those 

looking for work in states that don’t have the resources to offer 

them job training or workfare opportunities. As was noted, thanks 

to Ms. Leibman for pointing out, we have had a lot of work in my 

State of Washington on SNAP employment and training, education 

and training efforts, and we know that there are pilots now that 

we helped start in the last farm bill that will continue to hopefully 

come up with great ideas of how we can use SNAP E&T to again 

help folks not need SNAP programs anymore because they are able 

to find jobs that allow them to be self-sufficient. 

But I wanted to hear more broadly, from everyone on the panel 

today, about how the ABAWD cliff will hurt populations that you 

are representing. Ms. Leibman, you talked a little bit, but are there 

others who can tell us a little bit more about how this has affected 

some of the folks that you have been working with? 

Mr. SCHNEIDEWIND. Well, we at AARP, at least, know that there 

are potentially one million people affected, and it is serious enough 

so that we are looking at it and believe it may need revision, and 

that work will go forward to take a careful look at it. 

Ms. DELBENE. Go ahead, Mr. Faris. 

584

Mr. FARIS. One of the challenges we have is that once a senior 

hits the poverty level, it is very hard for them to climb out of that 

poverty level, and work opportunities are not there. And we are 

talking about able-bodied seniors here, as opposed to those that are 

homebound. It is very, very difficult for those that are needing 

work at that age when it is not available to them. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

Mr. Schneidewind, in your written testimony you ask for Congress to keep work requirements for SNAP at their current level. 

Can you elaborate on why you have made that suggestion in your 

written testimony? 

Mr. SCHNEIDEWIND. Well, pretty clearly, right now among seniors, as I have said, the participation rate in SNAP is already quite 

low, in the 40 percent range versus 80 percent range of otherwise 

eligible people. So we think that any heightened work requirements would further reduce the participation. And really, it is critical to keep an increased participation because this is really a 

healthcare cost issue. If we can keep people in their homes through 

SNAP benefits, they may then avoid institutional care, which can 

cost Medicare and Medicaid almost three times, particularly Medicaid, three times the amount that you would have to pay to keep 

them in home. And that is where they want to be is at home. So 

we think that, really, the requirements should be liberalized rather 

than tightened, because this is a program that can save taxpayers 

money through reducing institutional care. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. Thanks again to all of you. 

And I yield back, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Congressman Gibbs, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, thank you. Thank you all for coming to help enlighten us a bit with how these programs work and what the challenges and struggles are. 

I have really been hearing Ms. Tebbens talk about your experience, and thank you for your family’s service. Can you elaborate on 

why some military families choose to live on the base versus off the 

base? Is there a difference in cost? 

Ms. TEBBENS. Yes. When we first moved to Washington, I was 

under the impression that since the military is moving you, and 

the military has housing, that housing would just be a given. You 

would just show up at the housing office and they would tell you 

where you are living, and that would be it. But I came to find out 

that at most military bases there is actually quite an extensive 

wait list. It could be 6 months to a year, it could be even 21⁄2 years; 

a very, very long wait. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Ms. TEBBENS. So in those instances, you are forced to rent. The 

housing office does have binders and stuff there that you can look 

through of local properties and such. So when we started looking 

around, we knew how much we would be getting in BAH, and so 

we specifically chose an apartment that the monthly rent would be 

far enough under our BAH that the difference would also be able 

to cover our utilities so that it would kind of be flush. And also we 

were moving from Arizona, and so we kind of had to set up all of 

our military move stuff through the local Air Force base, which was 

585

really odd and difficult. And so when we moved up there, we actually had no idea that you are supposed to get up-front money before you move each time to help offset some of the costs. And because we didn’t know to put in the proper paperwork for it, we 

didn’t actually get any of that. So when we got the apartment, we 

actually had to ask my parents for a last-minute loan just to pay 

first month’s rent and deposit. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. So we need to figure out what is going on there 

to help facilitate that. 

Ms. TEBBENS. Right. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. And, Mr. Faris, through the multiple hearings we 

have had, we have talked quite a bit about the challenges in rural 

America versus the more populated urban areas when addressing 

hunger. People just normally assume that if you live in an urban 

area, you have more access to grocery stores in a close proximity. 

But, however, we have learned that not always might be the case. 

And can you maybe elaborate, the difference might be living here 

in Washington, D.C., versus living in my rural county back home 

in Ohio, some of the challenges you face as an organization, and 

what the similarities are fighting hunger, and then also the challenges in rural and urban? 

Mr. FARIS. Yes, sir. First off, we know that seniors living in rural 

areas are going to be much poorer than others across the population. Their food insecurity is going to be far greater. And so that 

is one of the challenges that starts off in the rural areas. The other 

thing in the more rural areas is resources are not there, and 

whether it is local community programs or governmental programs. 

Transportation is first and foremost; how do we get access to the 

resources that are available to them. So that is very, very difficult 

in the rural area. 

One might say that in the urban area that there would be more 

resources. Hopefully there would be more resources. Hopefully 

there would be transportation. That is not always the case. It varies from community to community. 

In the frail, elderly, homebound, extremely needy population that 

we are working with, that are behind closed doors, we are not sure 

exactly what we are going to find, and that is the same whether 

it is in urban or rural, because many times, by the time we discover what is really behind that door, it is often too late. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Mr. FARIS. So it is challenges in both spectrums. 

Mr. GIBBS. Right. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

The gentlewoman from Arizona, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, is not a Member of the Subcommittee but has joined us today. Pursuant to Committee Rule XI(e), I have consulted with the Ranking Member, and 

we are pleased to welcome her to join in on the questioning of witnesses. 

So, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, 5 minutes. Thank you. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for 

allowing me to participate in this hearing. I thank the Committee 

for having this hearing. 

586

I represent a very large rural district in Arizona, and hunger and 

food insecurity are major, major problems. I visit the food banks in 

my district and the food pantries, and one of the things I have observed over the years is younger families with children coming in. 

They are underemployed, they are talking with other people there 

about where they can find another job to help them get off of assistance. I think often about hearing from a pediatrician several 

years ago who said that she has seen more infants with malnutrition than ever before because the parents are diluting formula. And 

I have a 7 month old grandson and I know what a voracious appetite he has, and it really saddens me that parents are having to 

make that choice. 

And so my first question is for you, Ms. Leibman. I want to ask 

you about the Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance, FSSA 

Program, that was set up to help our military families. I know 

some of these families I am seeing are military families or veteran 

families, and that program is set to sunset. And so I have two 

questions. Why didn’t that program work, and what are we doing 

to make sure that these families, who are struggling to put food on 

the table, have the assistance that they need? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. When FSSA was created, it was created to serve 

more of a political purpose than a practical one, and it has been 

designed in its application process and approach to really deter 

people from accessing it. So you have to go through the chain of 

command in order to receive FSSA. And for many people who are 

currently serving in the military, not only is that simply not an option for them, they want to come in and speak to the commanding 

officer of the base. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Can you elaborate a little bit on that chainof-command? Is it just one person or multiple people? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. No, you must go all the way up the chain-of-command to the top ranking individual on the base. In part, you often 

have to do this because the individuals whom you normally would 

consult about support and assistance, the chaplain’s office. In the 

Air Force it is the sergeant majors who serve more as that access, 

but they don’t even know that there is a program called FSSA. 

Some of them don’t even know that active duty military members 

can apply for SNAP. FSSA is very similar in its support to what 

SNAP offers, but accessing it can be very challenging for these active duty military members. So there could be ways to fix it. The 

benefit level could be adjusted so it really was truly serving the realistic needs of members in the military. The application process 

could be streamlined, but the recommendations that we have seen 

are to sunset it, and we understand that, but it means that making 

SNAP not only available, but making individuals on the base 

aware of the fact that SNAP is available to active duty military 

members much more imperative because it will become their lifeline for support, especially at the lower-ranking enlisted levels. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. And what is being done to streamline the 

SNAP process? I mean, that is going to be what they have to rely 

on. 

Ms. LEIBMAN. Yes. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Are we educating them, are we streamlining 

that process to make it better for them? 

587

Ms. LEIBMAN. There is certainly a great deal of outreach that is 

being done. I know that one of the reasons that for MAZON this 

became a real priority issue was to do some outreach in addressing 

the lack of awareness about SNAP and its availability. But, the 

most important fix that we see as essential here is the treatment 

of BAH and the way that it is treated for other Federal nutrition 

programs, that is, that it must be excluded, or the ability to access 

those benefits will be moot because nobody will qualify. It is an inconsistency and government policy and law that really needs to be 

corrected. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you. I have just about 30 seconds left. 

I want to ask really quickly, I represent 12 Tribes in my district, 

and food insecurity and hunger are huge issues for Tribes and can 

you just quickly, in about 20 seconds, tell me what you know is 

being done for Tribal communities? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. Yes. I know that hunger and food insecurity 

among the Navaho Nation is at 75 percent, which is outrageous. 

There are programs and organizations working with government to 

try to address these problems that are not only systemic, but deeply rooted. And as many of these subpopulations are there, it is a 

complicated and challenging set of issues that have to be looked at 

and have to be addressed. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you. I thank the panel. 

I yield back. I thank the Chairwoman and Ranking Member for 

your courtesy. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

The chair now recognizes Congressman Crawford, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Leibman, I want to go back to the question that Mrs. Kirkpatrick raised. If I understand this right, walk me through this, 

you are saying that a junior enlisted person would have to ultimately meet with the installation commander to get authority to 

participate in certain benefits? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. They don’t have to go all the way up the chainof-command. What we have at learned anecdotally is that it is 

often the case, because those people that they normally would get 

information from and assistance from don’t know, and so they 

check up the chain-of-command. And that individuals have concerns about who is going to know that they have sought out these 

benefits, and what that might do to their security clearance, and 

what it might do in terms of their treatment by their colleagues 

and by their superior officers. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Ms. Tebbens, did you experience anything like 

that? 

Ms. TEBBENS. I actually never, in the 81⁄2 years that I was affiliated with the Navy, I never even heard mention of that program. 

I actually only learned of it about a year ago when I initially started working with MAZON, but I have never heard of it, even 

through other spouses or anything. I didn’t even know it existed. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. So when you started to apply for programs like 

WIC, which you mentioned that you availed yourself of was that 

application made off the installation, or was there an office on the 

installation that could help you get those benefits? 

588

Ms. TEBBENS. No, I went to our local WIC office, which was just 

a small office in our town in like a private office building——

Mr. CRAWFORD. Right. So it was administered by the county, so 

it wasn’t—there was no installation liaison or anything like that? 

Ms. TEBBENS. No. I know it can be different. Part of the problem 

is inconsistency between bases and where you are living, and at 

least in my experience where we were, when we went to the Navy 

Marine Corps Relief Society on the subbase in Bangor, all they 

really knew, and it might be different at other Navy Marine Corps 

offices, was just the Military Star credit card. That was the only 

advice they could give us. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Okay. Let me go a different direction here. You 

mentioned that you were on WIC for a period of time, and that 

once you improved your employment situation then you 

transitioned off of WIC. 

Ms. TEBBENS. Yes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Was that something that you just did on your 

own, or was there a requirement to re-certify your eligibility at any 

point in time? 

Ms. TEBBENS. When we moved from the Kitsap Peninsula over 

to just north of Seattle, since we were switching WIC offices, every 

6 weeks you get vouchers, so you have to go in, and I forget the 

timeframe for re-inputting all of your financials, and all of that. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. It is kind of an ongoing certification process for 

WIC. Is that your——

Ms. TEBBENS. Correct. Yes, you are not like just given vouchers 

for the whole year. I think it is in 6 week increments and that 

might have changed from then, but it is very short increments of 

time you get the bundle, and then you keep having to go in and 

meet with them about various things. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Okay. 

Ms. TEBBENS. When I found my full-time job, I was realizing that 

we weren’t using as much of the voucher each time, so I just realized, I told them at my next meeting I don’t need this program anymore. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Okay. Let me ask you this. I am a military brat, 

grew up on military installations, served in the military myself, 

and I know that at the time that I served, there was a thing called 

separate rations. So if you are an enlisted member, you would get 

a meal card, unless you were married or unless you were on a special duty where you couldn’t access the chow hall at specific hours, 

so you would be given separate rats. Does anything like that exist 

now? 

Ms. TEBBENS. The only thing that I know of is——

Mr. CRAWFORD. They might call it basic allowance for subsistence. 

Ms. TEBBENS. Yes. Yes. So the BAS. It depends. If you are deployed then you don’t get it because the ship is feeding you, but 

when you are back onshore, you do. So there were definitely times 

over the 81⁄2 years where sometimes we had it and sometimes we 

didn’t have it, just depending on what my husband’s point in his 

career was. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I understand. Thank you. I appreciate you sharing your testimony. 

589

And, Madam Chair, I ask that you might consider maybe a joint 

hearing with this Subcommittee and Armed Services to address the 

nutritional issues that have been brought up in this hearing. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Yes. Absolutely. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I yield back. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Congresswoman Lujan Grisham, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to 

the panel. 

I appreciate you being here. We are going to have a joint colleague effort here because of the statements that my colleague from 

Arizona, Representative Kirkpatrick, in addition to my colleague 

from Arkansas, Representative Crawford. In New Mexico, we have 

permanent SNAP lines at the commissary on the Air Force base, 

because we have such high poverty rates and such high rates of 

other issues, that it is more commonplace than it should be. And 

it really speaks to a larger problem. We certainly want to make 

sure that folks who are entitled to those benefits get those benefits, 

and that we don’t put the kind of barriers in place that those families are food-insecure. But, it speaks to a larger problem that we 

need those benefits for enlisted personnel in the military, and in 

so many other work environments in this country. And I really 

want to thank MAZON for working with so many New Mexico 

partners, including the Center on Law and Poverty, and Appleseed, 

and Road Runner Foodbank, because I state it all the time. I keep 

hoping that there is going to be a sooner-rather-than-later position 

from me here where I get to say that those rates are dramatically 

changing in my state, but we have some of the highest hunger and 

poverty rates in the country. 

And as a result, looking at different populations, we are now 

really struggling with the veteran population as a subset, and the 

high rate of food insecurity. The Road Runner Foodbank has told 

me that 26 percent of the clients that they are serving, contains at 

least one member of either serving or has served in the U.S. Military. In our state, the unemployment rate for post-9/11 veterans is 

nearing ten percent. This trend, unfortunately, is that it is growing, that we are not shrinking that. And while 50 percent of New 

Mexico veterans are employed after they exit, according to the Veterans Employment and Training Service, which is great, the average reported salary still makes a family of four eligible for SNAP. 

You highlighted in your testimony the number of military families 

that are, frankly, in danger of losing their SNAP benefits, and that 

you are expecting 60,000 veterans to lose their benefits because of 

the expiration of the work requirement waivers for able-bodied 

adults without dependents. I am very concerned about that very 

same thing, where New Mexico has a higher per capita average of 

veteran populations in our state and in my district. But, despite 

our severe economic issues in New Mexico, our Governor has not 

only chosen to reinstate the work requirements as of January 1, 

but is also planning to expand them now to include people aged 16 

to 59, and parents of children over 13 years. I have no doubt that 

this is going to further exacerbate the problem that you have testified about, and it means that these families never get a chance to 

590

become whole. We are not really addressing that opportunity aspect, if you will, by making sure that their basic needs are met. 

Can you tell me what we can do here, as Members of Congress, 

to really think about the weight balances, because I don’t think we 

do that very effectively, right? So, we want folks to get work opportunities, and we don’t want being eligible for public benefits to create an environment where you are not succeeding and moving 

ahead. We don’t want to create a requirement that makes someone 

choose between that job, or any job, or no job at all, and those benefits, and exacerbate these poverty issues and stigma issues. What 

can we do to create those balances more effectively, and recognize 

the populations that we really are hurting? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. I think that one of the challenges of having to access and rely on government benefits is whether or not those benefits are enough to provide the kind of financial stability that you 

need to move your family out of poverty, to provide the kind of security that you need in order to get an education, get a well-paying 

job, the jobs that people can access that are readily available in 

many communities pay below a living wage, which means that people cannot get off both assistance and maintain the job. So the 

challenge of the limitations on how long you can be on benefits, 

what the benefits are actually paying you, plays into a system that 

doesn’t provide adequate childcare or subsidized childcare, so both 

parents can’t work. For households that are headed by single parents, particularly those headed by women, those challenges are exacerbated by other kinds of barriers to getting gainful employment. 

So the complexity of the interplay between these issues means that 

Congress needs to take a good hard look at securing the level of 

benefits at a rate that provides people with financial stability, and 

is a realistic safety net that allows them to get security and then 

move off of benefits. For those for whom gainful employment is no 

longer an option because they are either disabled or they are too 

senior to work, then we need to think about systems and how those 

play into other kinds of supports that allow people to live with dignity as they age, and they can provide themselves and their families with the kind of support that they need. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHNEIDEWIND. Congresswoman, one of the things we are 

really concerned about at AARP is any attempt to expand eligibility 

requirements so they really negatively impact people above 50, 

there is some talk about raising eligibility to 59, and people in that 

age category have a much harder time finding new employment. 

That has been demonstrated. So any increase in the age requirement is going to be very harsh for those included. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Congressman Benishek, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank 

the witnesses for being here, particularly you, Ms. Tebbens. I really 

congratulate you for the courage to be here today and talk about 

your story. 

Ms. TEBBENS. Thank you. 

591

Mr. BENISHEK. I am a firm believer in public-private partnerships, and really believe that many of these nonprofit groups—such 

as you represent here today—are very helpful in knowing more 

about the individual than the Federal Government does, and able 

to better figure out the milieu in which that individual lives, and 

how to best help the people that you are serving. I believe that 

leveraging Federal dollars to help people like you, and other groups 

too, is really the best way to help people. 

I represent the northern half of Michigan, which is a very rural 

area. It is very-low-income. We have a lot of veterans. We have a 

lot of seniors. The things we are talking about here today at this 

Subcommittee are very pertinent to where I live. And I am also on 

the VA Committee. I am actually the Subcommittee Chairman for 

Health. And I would like to talk about our veterans a little bit. 

Private organizations working to help feed veterans could use a 

little help from the VA. And I would like to learn from each of the 

representatives of the organizations how they work with the VA 

currently, and what can be done either with SNAP or with the VA 

to make this easier for you all to help them. 

Ms. Leibman, would you start in trying to address that? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. Absolutely. We have done a webinar training for 

VA social workers and caseworkers, and we are about to do another 

one. We have been working with the VA to help them communicate 

with and partner with the USDA, especially because there is so 

much overlap between the issues of nutrition and health, and the 

access points for many veterans into the system have to do with 

their disabling conditions and/or their health conditions, and to 

make certain that those health professionals understand that there 

are resources available to help support the nutrition of those vets 

that are coming to them. The VA alone can’t resolve all of these 

challenges, and I think that is why we are here to look to Congress 

to make certain that there is strong direction here that looks to 

supporting those institutions and those government programs that 

are designed to provide them with adequate nutrition benefits, and 

that lies here with Congress. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Faris, do you have any input on my question 

that you——

Mr. FARIS. The relationship with the VA can always be improved. 

This past year, there was something like 500,000 veterans that 

were served by Meals-on-Wheels programs. Depending on where 

the program is located, it will be higher and lower. We are located 

just south of Dallas and Fort Worth. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Does the VA help you then? Does the VA contribute to the funding of this? 

Mr. FARIS. No, sir. No. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Schneidewind, do you have any comment? 

Mr. SCHNEIDEWIND. Well, I am glad you raised the issue of public-private partnerships because one of the things that we have 

tried to encourage is the increased uptake of fresh fruits and vegetables, and we have this AARP Foundation working with not only 

local farmers’ markets, but food retails to pilot programs where the 

individual citizen or recipient of SNAP could go in and get private 

incentives, in effect, to purchase more fresh fruits and vegetables 

from local vendors and also supermarkets. And we have had great 

592

success with that. And what we are looking toward is to encourage 

the private-sector to help us improve the health of recipients 

through increased use of fresh fruits and vegetables. So we think 

that has a lot of potential to improve health over long term and utilize the private-sector. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Faris, I would like to also ask you another 

question. We just have a minute left, or 1⁄2 a minute. My district 

is very rural. Is your area rural as well? We have a lot of difficulty 

with elderlies, people living remotely, how does that work? 

Mr. FARIS. Yes, sir. We have roughly a 1,700 mile2 service area 

where I am. Approximately 1⁄2 of it is suburban, the other 1⁄2 is extremely rural. And it is almost like a step back in time when you 

go down some of those county roads out there, and it is extremely 

difficult. Some of the more rural routes we have, it may take an 

11⁄2 to 2 hours to get to some of those, compared to Arizona or New 

Mexico, ours is a very small expanse compared to there, but it is 

quite difficult, adds to the cost, and it is the challenge. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you. I am out of time. 

Thanks, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Congressman Abraham, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank the witnesses for being here. 

Ms. Leibman, I will direct this question to you, but, Ms. Tebbens, 

you can surely jump in with your experience. 

As you recall, the 2014 Farm Bill did include some funding upon 

existing SNAP employment and training programs, and to test 

some new strategies to determine the, I guess, the most effective 

ways to help SNAP recipients gain and retain employment that 

leads to self-sufficiency. And I was pleased to see that the Washington Department of Social and Health Services was awarded a 

grant through this pilot program to help individuals with significant barriers, including veterans, through comprehensive case 

management and work-based learning opportunities. And many of 

these jobs that these men and women performed overseas are very 

difficult, we know that, and they are very different from the employment opportunities that we have here at home. What can you 

tell us about the unique nature of the employment challenges some 

of our veterans face? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. I think that it is important when we think about 

this question and these issues to bear in mind that the age range 

of veterans is extraordinary. It is not only individuals who have 

just demobilized and are in their twenties, but it is also people who 

served years ago and there are categories as veterans because they 

served our country honorably and are now in their fifties or sixties. 

And as my colleagues here from AARP and Meals-on-Wheels testified, the employment opportunities and access points for individuals who are in their fifties is very challenging. So you have a population that is not homogeneous, you have a population that for 

those who are younger are getting demobilized, they are getting demobilized in locations that may be unfamiliar to them, they may 

not be able to go home, they may not have family support systems. 

They may be in situations where they are getting retained for jobs 

and there are no opportunities, or those opportunities are being 

593

filled by people other than veterans. And there are the same kinds 

of challenges for those who have other kinds of employment challenges that exist for veterans as well. But it is complicated by the 

fact that they have been overseas at some period of time in their 

lives, or have been on-base for some period of time and now coming 

back into civilian population. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. Tebbens, do you have anything to add to that? 

Ms. TEBBENS. In terms of veteran employment, I am not really 

sure, but in terms of spouse employment, I know it can be really 

difficult, especially if you are in a position like I was as a teacher, 

or I have a friend who is a lawyer, or many other friends who are 

teachers or maybe hair stylists, anything that requires a license 

from the state, when you move every 3 years, it can be very difficult if you have already had a really career going or a client base, 

or anything like that, and then you up and move, a lot of times you 

are not only starting over, but if your new state does not recognize 

that license, which is also often the case, it can be a huge impediment. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. You have to retake the exam, or something like 

that. 

Ms. TEBBENS. Yes, retake the exam or other things, which can 

also be very expensive and very difficult when you are also trying 

to situate your children in new schools and things like that. And, 

for instance, where we moved to, the Kitsap Peninsula, which is 

right across from Seattle, is very small and often very rural, and 

there is not a lot of opportunity. When we moved across to Everett, 

I was able to get a really, really excellent job and then we were 

fine, but I would have had to commute over to Seattle while we 

were living in the Kitsap Peninsula, which was difficult because we 

had one vehicle and a newborn. And that is about an hour away. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Okay. 

Ms. TEBBENS. Yes. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. And, Ms. Leibman, one last question. 

Ms. LEIBMAN. Yes. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. If we run out of time, you can certainly reach out 

to me afterwards. Going through this child nutrition reauthorization, we have been successful in identifying ways to streamline and 

improve child hunger programs, with the goal to make them more 

effective and more efficient. We have a child nutrition safety net 

that makes meals available during the summer and after school to 

all children who are eligible. What recommendations would you 

identify to improve and streamline these hunger programs such as 

SNAP for our seniors and veterans to make them more efficient, 

effective in reaching and providing services for our hungry seniors 

and our hungry families? 

Ms. TEBBENS. In terms of the military, I would just say that even 

just informing military members that they might be eligible for any 

of the programs is really, really important. And then in regards to 

SNAP, removing the BAH component like they do with the WIC 

Program. And, last week, I just wanted to check and see, if I was 

in this same exact situation I was when I was pregnant, if I reconfigured it for now with SNAP what we would get, and if I omitted 

the BAH and also zeroed out all of the costs for housing, it would 

594

still only be $66 a month that we would be getting. So not a huge 

amount of money. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you. 

I am out of time, Madam Chair. Thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes Congressman Yoho, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you all being 

here. This will be the last questioning. 

And I come from the State of Florida, and as you probably are 

well aware, we are the third largest in the country. I live in a district that has the second largest VA community in the country. It 

has over 121,000. People joke that Florida is the state of the newlywed or nearly dead. I don’t know how you want to take that, but 

we serve a large area. We have rural and we have also a lot of military veterans, as I have talked about, both retired and active. And 

we also have checked with our office for this meeting and we get 

one to two inquiries about every other month for food assistance. 

And, of course, we automatically deal with them. And I can relate 

to G.T. Thompson because we have been on a WIC Program, my 

wife and I, about 100 years ago in our youth, and I know the importance of those. 

And, Ms. Leibman, you were talking about, there are 2,000 to 

22,000 veterans estimated of needing food assistance, and I was 

looking at the numbers in here, and my question is why has the 

participation been so low? And I know we have covered a lot of 

that, but again, I would like to hear your answers of why you think 

it is so low. Is it underreporting? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. Well, the 2,000 to 22,000 figure is in active duty, 

that is the estimate of the currently serving that are on SNAP. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. 

Ms. LEIBMAN. And so one of the things that we saw as a challenge when we began this work was that it is very difficult to get 

complete and accurate data, and that is why you could have a span 

of numbers that is quite that large, and——

Mr. YOHO. Okay. I want to cut you off there. And as I did your 

numbers here, and you went to the Blue Star Survey, which I have 

pulled up here, when I look at the numbers it said it was, seven 

percent of the 2015 reported, more than seven percent responding 

active duty military and spouses face food insecurity. And if I take 

that number of the 19,455 active duty, that comes down to 1,900—

well, 1,362 individuals. And I guess my question is, is this a program that we need to expand on a Federal bureaucracy, and increase the bureaucracy, or is it simpler to go into the military and 

say you need to pay these people more? 

Ms. LEIBMAN. So the——

Mr. YOHO. And I want to go to Ms. Tebbens after this. 

Ms. LEIBMAN. Far be it from me to suggest that the military 

should not pay people more money. I do think that that would be 

an important aspect of the entire picture here. But in the interim, 

until that would happen, and for those people for whom those additional funds would not be adequate enough to cover their family’s 

needs, the military does have a responsibility to make sure that its 

members are aware of and given access to the Federal programs 

that the rest of America accesses and enjoys as a part of our rights 

595

as citizens to be relying on our government to help us when we are 

vulnerable. And the challenge is that the numbers do not tell the 

story yet because we do not have accurate and complete numbers. 

Mr. YOHO. I have lost my microphone. I agree with that, that we 

need to make sure people are getting the assistance they need, but 

I don’t want to go down the road of increasing and growing a government program when there is a simpler solution. The government is not always the answer in this. 

Ms. Tebbens, in your experience, and you alluded to this that you 

guys moved how many times? 

Ms. TEBBENS. Gosh, three different duty stations. 

Mr. YOHO. In how long, 8 years? 

Ms. TEBBENS. Yes. 

Mr. YOHO. All right, three different duty stations. And I understand the disruption of the workforce. And you are a school teacher, correct? 

Ms. TEBBENS. Yes, I was, yes. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. And so each time you move, I understand there 

is a transition period that you have to go through, and in dealing 

with what you were talking about, cosmetology, or any other field, 

if you are not licensed in that state, we have addressed that and 

we have passed legislation to look at reciprocity between the states, 

and I think that is something that can solve this. 

In your active duty and your—or your husband, as a military 

family did you get a food allowance, because I know in the Coast 

Guard they get about $350 per month in food allowance? Did you 

have that, and does it go up with the size of your family? 

Ms. TEBBENS. Yes. I don’t recall if it increases with the size of 

the family. What I do remember about the BAS allowance is that 

it really hinges more on the active duty person and where they are 

in terms of being currently stationed. So, for instance, if my husband was around and just working on the base, we might get a few 

hundred dollars a month, let’s say, but then if he is deployed, the 

military is looking at it as, ‘‘Well, the galley on the ship is feeding 

him,’’ so because it is not really about the whole family, it is more 

focused on the active duty member. And so when they are gone for 

7 months on a carrier and that is removed, then that could be a 

couple of hundred dollars out of the larger family. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. And I appreciate you guys coming here because 

those are issues that we need to address. We just want to make 

sure we do it the most efficient way to serve the families of our 

military. And I am sorry I didn’t have time to go to the elderly, 

since I am one now, but I appreciate you all being here. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. 

I appreciate the panel’s help in understanding the challenges 

faced by seniors, veterans, and active military members. They are, 

indeed, special populations that we must consider as we look at 

ways to strengthen SNAP and the other food assistance programs. 

You have certainly given us plenty to think about as we continue 

to look at the past, present, and future of SNAP. No program is 

perfect, we understand, and we can always do better. 

Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional mateVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
596

rial and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to 

any question posed by a Member. 

This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition Subcommittee, is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

597

SUBMITTED LETTER BY HON. VICKY HARTZLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM MISSOURI; ON BEHALF OF ROGER P. ALLISON, VIETNAM VETERAN AND

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MISSOURI RURAL CRISIS CENTER

January 6, 2016

Hon. VICKY HARTZLER,

Member of Congress, 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Representative Hartzler,

I am writing today on behalf of The Missouri Rural Crisis Center (MRCC) regarding the upcoming hearing of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and special populations on January 12th. We know that this hearing has not yet been made public, 

but we hope that you will be able to attend. 

MRCC is a statewide farm and rural organization with over 5,000 member families across the great state of Missouri. For 3 decades we have worked to improve 

the lives of family farmers and rural families whose communities have historically 

depended upon agriculture and small businesses as their economic motor. With decreasing numbers of farmers and declining economies in rural communities, our programs have been crucial in rural MO. 

Since 1986, one of MRCC’s top priorities has been to address food and nutrition 

needs of rural families through our Rural Food Cooperative Program that helps provide limited resource families with access to fresh fruit and vegetables, bread, 

canned goods, staples and Missouri family farm raised meat. Literally tens of thousands of rural Missourians have participated in this program since its inception, 

many of whom are senior citizens and veterans. This year we distributed over 

200,000 pounds of food to rural families. 

MRCC sees first-hand every single month how the issues of food insecurity and 

hunger affect rural Missouri families. In your Congressional district, we operate 

MRCC Food Co-op Programs in Morgan County, Pettis County and Randolph County. In this year alone, over 1,500 people in those counties relied on our program to 

meet their food needs. Even with our Food Co-op program, many families still need 

to rely on the food stamp program in order to meet their basic nutritional needs. 

More and more, Missourians are faced with having to make decisions each month 

about whether to buy their medications or to buy food. This is just wrong. 

Although MRCC and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program have helped 

alleviate hunger in rural Missouri by supplementing the food budgets of thousands 

of limited-income households, for many rural households, food insecurity remains a 

serious problem in rural Missouri. In 2014 USDA reported that Missouri was the 

second worse state for food security among is citizens. 17% of Missourians reported 

skipping meals because of lack of money. 

Because rural communities have higher rates of senior citizens and veterans, 

these are the people who are often the most impacted by lack of adequate food and 

economic opportunity in their local communities. They are also the people who frequently step up to help their fellow Missourians. In Sedalia, our Food Co-op Program depends on people like Jerry and Rich and James who are all veterans who 

not only participate in the program, but who have also volunteered every month for 

10 years to help distribute food to people in their community. Our Food Co-op in 

Gravois Mills was started by Missouri Veterans and has been held in the local VFW 

every month since 1988. 

When times are tough, we count on veterans. They were there for us as Americans when they served our country, and now we should be there for them. 

This is why we are respectfully asking that you attend the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition Hearing on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) and special populations on January 12th. 

We are very pleased to learn that Abby Leibman from MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger will be testifying at the hearing about veterans and hunger. 

MAZON has been great partner in MRCC’s anti-rural hunger work, so we hope that 

it will be possible for you to attend the hearing. 

Thank you for your time and consideration on this vitally important issue.

ROGER P. ALLISON, 

Vietnam Veteran & Executive Director, MISSOURI RURAL CRISIS CENTER. 


11403110.eps
598

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY HON. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM NEW MEXICO; ON BEHALF OF NEW MEXICO ASSOCIATION OF FOOD

BANKS

New Mexico is the 5th largest state in terms of land mass (121,589 miles2). In 

contrast, we are 36th in population (with a population of just over 2,000,000). That 

translates to just over 17 people per square mile. 

Outside of the interstate corridors (I–25, I–40 and I–10), it is not uncommon to 

have a 40 to 60 mile drive to reach a full service grocery store or basic services like 

health care facilities (and in some areas the drive is even longer). Catron County, 

located in western New Mexico, doesn’t have a single grocery store in the entire 

county. These factors result in a large number of ‘‘food deserts’’ around the state. 

Couple the ‘‘food deserts’’ with the fact that New Mexico is an actual desert, with 

limited large scale agriculture, and you can see the scope of our food acquisition and 

distribution challenge. 

In addition, the large geographic area and sparse population creates ‘‘resource 

deserts’’ with large sections of the population having limited access to medical facilities and other support resources. 

Our next challenge is limited employment options, including, but not limited to:

Very few corporate employment bases—those that do exist are mainly on the 

I–25 corridor. 

A large number of jobs that traditionally pay higher wages are in cyclical industries like mining, oil & gas, and agriculture. This can result in seasonal layoffs or sudden increases in unemployment which places a great strain on support network resources (in recent years, there was a mining layoff in southern 

New Mexico that resulted in more than 20% of the workforce facing immediate 

unemployment).

In regard to special populations, many of the people we serve are either elderly 

or military veterans (and in many cases both). 21% of the clients we serve are over 

the age of 60, and 26% of our clients report having at least one member that 

is serving or has served in the military.

Our military veterans face challenges from limited employment opportunities, restricted or no access to full scale mental health services, and transportation challenges for those coping with physical disabilities. Our member food bank serves the 

thousands of veterans that need assistance through our statewide network of partner agencies (food pantries, soup kitchens, community centers, shelters, senior centers, mobile pantries and other meal provision programs). But the nonprofit emergency food sector cannot meet the full need of all those needing food assistance and 

support services. In addition to continued access to food programs like SNAP, our 

veterans need access to employment opportunities, health care and physical therapy, and mental health care programs. When those systems are in place to serve 

the needs of veterans, we see so many success stories like Michael. 

Michael is a Vietnam-era U.S. Marine Corps veteran and one of our former clients 

whom we met at the New Mexico Veterans’ Integration Center (VIC) recently. Ten 

years ago, Michael was living homeless in Albuquerque when VIC first opened its 

doors. 

‘‘I was beyond fortunate to find them when I did,’’ Michael told us. ‘‘I just didn’t 

know my odds of making it for much longer, no job, no steady food.’’ Once Michael 

settled into their short-term housing program, Michael said he dove into earning 

some money to save with VIC’s food distribution program while he built up cooking 

skills and looked for a steadier place to live. A few years later, Michael found that 

steady place to live right in Albuquerque with enough money saved up and a stable 

position to continue supporting himself. 

Yet, Michael was filled with gratitude for his time with VIC and to this day, he 

volunteers at VIC 4 days per week, starting each of those shifts by 7:35 in the morning. 

‘‘This place and what the food bank does to make the food possible here makes 

a great impact,’’ Michael reflected with us. ‘‘To go from homeless to having a place 

of your own just makes me want to help my fellow vets all the more.’’ With tears 

in his eyes, Michael looked across the room and thanked everyone who helped him 

not only get the food he needed for nourishment. He also thanked other VIC staff 

who assisted him in securing his full Social Security and veteran’s benefits which 

have helped him greatly arrive at where he is now. 

Michael’s story is just one of thousands from across New Mexico. We urge the 

Committee Members to continue their efforts to identify the needs of special populations like military families and veterans and to support food programs and related 

services that provide essential support to those populations. 

599

Thank you for this opportunity to tell you about New Mexico, and thank you for 

the time and energy that you are giving to protect the interests of some of our most 

vulnerable people. 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY HON. SUZAN K. DELBENE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM WASHINGTON; ON BEHALF OF KATHARINE RYAN, POLICY AND RESEARCH

MANAGER, FOOD LIFELINE

January 12, 2016

Chairman Conaway, Members of the House Committee on Agriculture:

Washington State is one of our country’s most abundant agricultural areas. We 

grow quality apples and onions that are known around the world. We also have a 

tremendous number of smaller farms, farmers’ markets and farm stands that create 

opportunities for access to those healthy, fresh items. 

At Food Lifeline, we focus on sourcing food from farmers, manufacturers, and grocery retailers in our state, knowing that a tremendous amount of food in our country goes to waste. Unfortunately, despite these efforts we know that in Western 

Washington one in seven people is hungry, and even more kids—1 in 5—are unsure 

where their next meal will come from sometime during the year. Each year the food 

pantry, meal program and shelter agencies we work with serve more than 700,000 

unique individuals, many of whom also rely on programs like SNAP to get closer 

to making their food budget ends meet. 

Of those clients we serve, we know that 17% of them are seniors. We also know 

that nearly 40% of the households our agencies serve have at least one person currently or previously serving in the military. In King and Snohomish Counties, where 

a 40% of our state’s population is located those rates are 58% and 62%, respectively. 

For those households with either a veteran or someone currently serving, 61% rely 

on SNAP to help feed their family. 

These groups face unique challenges, particularly in getting their food needs met. 

Food is one pivotal, grounding piece of a much larger puzzle that these individuals 

and families are trying to put together. Food should not be one of the things they 

should be worried about having enough of. Our shared values as Americans include 

taking care of those who are most vulnerable, including children and seniors, but 

also recognizing and taking care of our veterans who have served our country. 

Enough food on the table should be one of the things that should not be on their 

list of worries, concerns, and fears. 

Meals Provided by Hunger Safety Net

The charitable food system continues to distribute record amounts of food, but we 

cannot close the gap alone. In western Washington, SNAP provided an estimated 

66% of meals in the hunger safety net in 2014. Other Federal programs such as 

WIC, school and summer meals were 18%, and our vast network of agencies provided 16%. SNAP is a lynch pin in the hunger safety net, one that the rest of us 

do the best we can to work around and fill in the gaps. 

Food Lifeline supports efforts to bolster SNAP benefits, and to increase the reach 

of the program as far as possible, to help as many as possible. Seniors and veterans 


11403109.eps
600

are a huge part of the client population we serve, and we anticipate those numbers 

only increasing, moving forward. 

Thank you for holding a hearing on such an important topic, and we hope the 

Committee will take action to ensure that these key populations don’t have to worry 

about going hungry again. 

Sincerely,

KATHARINE RYAN, 

Policy and Research Manager, 

Food Lifeline. 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY HON. ANN KIRKPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM ARIZONA; ON BEHALF OF ANGIE B. RODGERS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA FOOD BANKS

January 14, 2016

Hon. ANN KIRKPATRICK, 

House Agriculture Committee, 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Representative Kirkpatrick:

As the Association of Arizona Food Banks representing our five member food 

banks feeding hungry Arizonans across the state, we are pleased to submit comments regarding the impact of food insecurity on veterans and military families. As 

the state with the third highest rate of food insecurity among children, we remain 

particularly concerned about military families with children. Thank you for hosting 

a Subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, January 12, 2016 to hear about SNAP and 

special populations. 

On an average, our member food banks serve approximately 128,000 individuals 

each week. This includes children, seniors, disabled and working individuals, active 

service members and veterans. Our five members collectively serve every county in 

Arizona reaching households in need at 1,200 locations. We continue to see high levels of demand at our food banks and pantries and Arizona’s unemployment rate remains at a stubborn 6.0% tied with Alabama and Mississippi for the 8th highest 

rate in the country. 

In the Hunger in America 2014: State Report for Arizona, client surveys reported 

that 23% of households have someone currently serving or has formerly served in 

the Armed Forces, military reserve or national guard. In 2016, our members are reporting that nearly 3% of the clients they serve are active duty military. For example, the Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona in Tucson estimates they 

served 6,300 individuals with veteran and military services. Desert Mission Food 

Bank in Phoenix served an estimated 1,076 veterans and 22% of these were over 

the age of 65. The Yuma Community Food Bank is just 25 miles from the Yuma 

Proving Grounds in a community with an unemployment rate of 20%. 

Many military families are too proud to access government benefits. For some, 

military housing subsidies may prevent them from receiving SNAP. Our servicemen 

and women deserve better. They are continuously focused on protecting our country 

and should not have to simultaneously be concerned about where their next meal 

is coming from. We urge you to take action to improve policies that will ensure our 

military and veteran neighbors and their families are well fed. 

Again, thank you for your attention and please contact me if you have additional 

questions. 

Sincerely,

ANGIE B. RODGERS, 

President and CEO. 


11403115.eps
601

SUBMITTED BRIEFING BY JACOBS & CUSHMAN SAN DIEGO FOOD BANK

Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank Legislative Briefing 

SNAP Eligibility for Low-income Military Families 

House Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Nutrition, SNAP and 

Special Populations 

About the Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank 

The San Diego Food Bank distributes food directly to people in need at 168 distribution sites throughout San Diego County every month. In addition, the Food 

Bank provides food to more than 400 nonprofits that operate feeding programs in 

communities throughout the county. These nonprofit partners collect food from our 

80,000′

2 warehouse in Miramar and then distribute the food through food pantries, 

soup kitchens, shelters, low-income daycare centers, senior centers, churches, 

schools, and care centers for the elderly and disabled. 

Serving Low-Income Military Families 

Last year, the Food Bank served more than 28,000 low-income veterans, activeduty military personnel, and their dependents every month. For many low-income 

military families, San Diego’s high cost of living makes it difficult to put nutritious 

food on the table. These families struggle with our region’s high rent, utilities, and 

food prices. In addition, military spouses have an unemployment rate of nearly 30% 

which is due in part to frequent relocation. Nationally, 25% of the nation’s total active-duty and reserve personnel receive food assistance from food pantries and charitable programs across the country. In San Diego County, the Food Bank distributed 

nearly 500,000 pounds of food to low-income military families last year. 

The San Diego Food Bank Advocates for SNAP Eligibility for Low-Income Military 

Families 

Food insecurity among low-income, active-duty and veteran families is a serious 

yet hidden problem. Roughly 95,000 active-duty military service members are stationed in San Diego County. While there are nonprofit food distributions solely for 

active duty and veteran families offered in San Diego and nationwide, this private 

assistance is not enough. 

SNAP, known as CalFresh in California, is a Federal food assistance program 

that provides a monthly benefit for food purchases via a debit-like card to low-income households. Several factors, including household size and income, determine 

SNAP eligibility and benefit level. The USDA estimates that every dollar of 

CalFresh/SNAP expenditures generates $1.79 in economic activity. 

Some military service members, particularly more junior members of the military 

with dependents, may qualify for SNAP. Military service members who live on base 

receive their housing as an in-kind payment, and this in-kind payment does not 

count towards their income for the purposes of determining SNAP eligibility and 

benefits. However, the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) that military households 

living off base receive is counted, creating a disparity between service members who 

live on versus off base. BAH appears on a service member’s paystub (LES), but is 

not counted as income for Federal tax purposes. 

From 2003–2011, California did not count BAH as income for the purposes of 

SNAP eligibility. However, the state was instructed by USDA that it must count 

BAH as income. In interviews and surveys of active duty military households coming to nonprofit food distributions, households who did apply for SNAP after enlisting typically cite their BAH as the factor that pushed them over the income eligibility line. It is unknown how many service members currently receive SNAP because military status is not required data when applying. 

No military family should go hungry. The Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food 

Bank advocates for the Basic Allowance for Housing to no longer be counted as income when calculating the eligibility and benefits level of military families for 

SNAP. 

TEFAP Serves Low-Income Military Families 

The Food Bank provides food assistance to low-income military families through 

the USDA’s TEFAP (The Emergency Food Assistance Program) which serves every 

zip code in San Diego County—at more than 90 distribution sites every month. 

Three of these distribution sites serve low-income military families in need of 

monthly food assistance.

On average, more than 4,100 military personnel and their dependents receive support from the Food Bank at TEFAP distributions every month in Miramar, 

Tierrasanta, and Oceanside. 

602

Recent Data on Low-Income Military Families 

• Military families spent $103.6 million in Food Stamps last year at commissaries.

• The unemployment rate for military spouses aged 18 to 24 is 30%.

• Frequent relocation makes it difficult for military spouses to secure employment.

• Base pay for a new soldier with a family is roughly $20,000, excluding housing 

and food allowances.

Pounds Distributed to Low-Income Military Families by the San Diego 

Food Bank 

FY 2014–15

Nonprofit Military Distribution Partner Pounds of Food Distributed 

2014–2015

Brother Benno-Camp Pendleton 10,313

Embrace 975

Jewish Family Service of San Diego 18,451

Ladle Fellowship 39,156

Navy Wives Food Locker 130,658

Military Outreach Ministries 119,731

San Diego Armed Services (YMCA) 121,095

San Diego USO Airport Center 14,451

Veterans Village San Diego 15,092

Total 469,922

The Faces of Hunger in San Diego County 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program

Families receiving food on TEFAP face short-term economic hardship. 

Many households, including San Diego military households, have at least 

one working adult but struggle to put food on the table.

TEFAP Income Guidelines 2015 **

Household size: Max. Household Income: 

150% FPL 

1 $17,505

2 $23,595

3 $29,685

+ + $6,090 per person 

** This program serves households living below 130% of the FPL. 

Quotes from Low-Income San Diego Military Parents 

‘‘I don’t know what we’d do without the San Diego Food Bank. I would 

be forced to feed my children top ramen, noodle soup, rice and pasta which 

aren’t nutritious.’’

EDNA MCCURDY.

‘‘People think that military families are completely taken care of, but we 

are just getting by. I’ve found it’s really difficult to get a job as a military 

spouse. When employers interview me, they ask why I move around all the 


11403111.eps
603

time. They ask, ‘Why were you here for a year, and here for 2 years, and 

here for only 6 months?’ Forget having a stable career as a military 

spouse.’’

ASHLEY PADGETT.

‘‘I’m very proud to serve, and the San Diego Food Bank helps my family 

so it’s one less thing I have to worry about when I am away overseas.’’

BRYAN WILSON.

For more information contact:

CHRIS CARTER, Vice President of Communications,

Jacobs & Cushman San Diego Food Bank, 

ccarter@sandiegofoodbank.org ≥ 858–863–5131. 

Edna’s Story

On a crisp, sunny morning in the San Diego neighborhood of Tierrasanta, Edna 

McCurdy, a young mother of three, holds her 1 year old son as she stands in line 

for food assistance at the Food Bank’s food distribution for low-income military families. 

‘‘I came out here today to get help from the San Diego Food Bank. We were transferred here from South Carolina a month ago, and we were shocked by the high 

prices. The cost of living is extremely high in San Diego. When we moved here, the 

Navy increased the housing allotment to cover the extra rent, but it doesn’t cover 

food. When we moved from South Carolina to San Diego they increased our Basic 

Housing Allowance but they do not increase my husband’s pay,’’ explains Edna. 

Edna’s husband, Duane, is an EN3 Petty Officer Second Class in the Navy and 

works as an engine mechanic. They have three children. ‘‘My youngest is Landon. 

He’s 1 year old. Hunter is 4 years old, and my oldest is Autumn. She’s 7 and in 

the first grade,’’ beams Edna as she smiles at Landon. 

This is Edna’s second time receiving help from the Food Bank. ‘‘The first time I 

came was last month because the only thing I had in the kitchen was a little bit 

of meat that my neighbor gave me. My husband was on deployment, and my neighbor suggested that I get help from the Food Bank, so I came and got enough food 

to get us through to pay day,’’ explains Edna. 

‘‘Despite the increased cost of rent for housing and the price of food out here, my 

husband’s pay doesn’t go up, so we deal with what we’re given, and the Food Bank 

helps us a lot. I still have car payments and my car insurance also increased when 

we moved out here,’’ says Edna.

‘‘I don’t know what we’d do without the San Diego Food Bank,’’ explains 

Edna. ‘‘I would be forced to feed my children top ramen, noodle soup, rice 

and pasta which isn’t nutritious. The food from the Food Bank that we receive is nutritious, well-rounded and meets my children’s dietary needs—


11403112.eps
604

the meats, the whole grains, the fruits and vegetables. It all helps so much 

because we can’t afford to buy them at the supermarket,’’ explains Edna.

‘‘My kids love the fresh produce and fruit that we get from the Food Bank. Back 

home in South Caroline we used to have a garden where we grew fresh vegetables, 

but you can’t do that here in San Diego. I used to grow watermelon, cantaloupe, 

bell peppers, zucchini, squash, broccoli, potatoes and corn. My kids would help me, 

and it was a great activity that they loved doing. I can’t do that here. There’s just 

no room and there are rules about digging where we rent,’’ says Edna. 

‘‘We love coming to this distribution site because we wait in the park for our number to be called, and the children get to play in the playground, and I can to meet 

other military moms which is great for me since we are new to San Diego.’’

Edna walks through the food line and she receives tomatoes, asparagus, bell peppers, zucchini, apples, oranges, canned soup, canned meats, canned vegetables, cereal, fruit juice, bread, oatmeal, and rice. As she receives the food, Edna explains 

how much the assistance helps her family. 

‘‘The donations help us out a lot, especially with a family of five living on a limited budget. The Food Bank truly is a blessing for us. We are thankful for all of 

the donations,’’ says Edna as she puts the last bag of groceries in her car. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY KRISTEN ASTER, MANAGER, HUNGER ADVOCACY NETWORK

Thank you to the Members of the Committee for the opportunity to submit the 

following written statement for this important hearing on special populations and 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP) program. 

The Hunger Advocacy Network (HAN) is a collaborative of organizations, including human service agencies, food banks, and advocacy organizations, working to address hunger in San Diego County through policy change. Launched in 2012, HAN 

seeks to empower San Diego organizations to make a long-term, systemic impact on 

hunger policy in addition to the critical community assistance they provide on a 

daily basis. HAN has been working on the issue of military hunger since nearly the 

collaborative’s inception. 

According to the San Diego Military Advisory Council, as of 2013 over 100,000 

members of the Navy and the Marine Corps are stationed in San Diego County. 

Both of San Diego County’s food banks report serving a significant number of these 

military personnel and their families. The Jacobs and Cushman San Diego Food 

Bank estimates that their distribution network serves 28,000 active duty military 

and their dependents every month. Feeding America San Diego estimates that 

roughly 27% of the 143,900 households (encompassing 473,500 people) they serve 

annually include a member who has ever served in the military, and that 10% of 

all households receiving food assistance include someone currently serving in the 

military. Together, they supply food to at least eleven distributions every month 

that are focused on active duty military families. Some of these distributions occur 

on base at Camp Pendleton, and others occur at military housing sites, schools with 

high enrollment of military families, and elsewhere around the County. 

Concerned with the prevalence of military families seeking emergency food assistance, the Hunger Advocacy Network, with its member and partner organizations, 

began researching why so many military families were seeking emergency food assistance in San Diego County. The theme that repeatedly emerged was that many 

of these military families had applied for, but not received, Federal Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food assistance. The primary reason cited for 

their ineligibility was the treatment of their Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). An 

additional recent survey of military families coming to one San Diego military food 

assistance provider found that roughly 20% of recipients had applied for SNAP, but 

that none were receiving it; nearly all reported the housing allowance as the factor 

preventing their enrollment in the program. Meanwhile, nearly 13% of survey recipients reported that in the last 12 months, there were times when they did not 

eat for an entire day because of a lack of money for food. This is not acceptable. 

Current law provides for military service members to be housed on base and for 

a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) to be provided to members for whom base 

housing is not available or who live in ‘‘military privatized housing.’’ As the military 

has modernized, the Department of Defense’s policy is to rely on the private sector 

for its housing rather than to build and maintain government owned base housing, 

and roughly 63% of military families live in housing paid for by the housing allowance. The BAH is based on geographic duty location, pay grade, and dependency 

status. BAH is meant to provide service members adequate and equitable housing 

compensation based on housing costs in local civilian markets. 

605

Military service members who live on base receive their housing as an in-kind 

payment, and this in-kind payment does not count towards their income for the purposes of determining SNAP eligibility and benefits. However, the BAH that military 

households living off base receive is counted, creating a disparity between service 

members who live on vs. off base. BAH can also can negatively impact the child of 

a military service member from accessing the National School Lunch Program and 

the National School Breakfast Program. BAH appears on a service member’s 

paystub (LES), but is not counted as income for Federal tax purposes. States also 

have the option not to count BAH as income for eligibility for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). 

From 2003–2011, California did not count BAH as income for the purposes of 

SNAP eligibility. However, the state was instructed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) that it must count BAH as income. It is unknown how 

many service members currently receive SNAP across the state or how many were 

affected by this change because military status is not required data when applying 

for the program. Similarly, estimates on military SNAP participation nationally 

vary widely, ranging between 2,000 and 22,000 military service members in FY 

2012. It has been reported, though, that there are food pantries operating on or near 

every single Naval and Marine base in the United States. 

The needs of military families in San Diego prompted California State Senator 

Ben Hueso to introduce the No Hunger for Heroes Act in 2013 (S.B. 134), which 

sought to remove barriers for active duty military and veterans to access SNAP. For 

active duty military, it would have required the state of California to apply for a 

Federal waiver from the USDA to exclude BAH as income when determining SNAP 

eligibility. Subsequent inquiries with the state agency that administers the SNAP 

program in California, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS), regarding an application for such a Federal waiver came to the conclusion that any change 

to the treatment of the BAH for SNAP eligibility and benefits must be accomplished 

through Federal legislation. 

Subsequently, in 2015, U.S. Representative Juan Vargas (D–51) sought to address 

the disparity between the treatment of on versus off base military housing for all 

taxation, nutrition, and public assistance purposes via a proposed amendment to the 

Federal Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In 

the Senate, a bipartisan group of Senators led by Senator Boxer (D–CA) and Senator Murkowski (R–AK) introduced an amendment to the FY16 NDAA that sought 

to exclude housing allowances as income when determining eligibility for SNAP, the 

Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA) program, and other Federal 

nutrition program. The Hunger Advocacy Network strongly supported both of these 

proposals. While these amendments were not ultimately incorporated into the FY16 

NDAA, they were important recognitions by Members of Congress for the need to 

address these disparities within our military, and the needs of our nation’s military 

families. 

However, Congress did sunset the domestic FSSA program in the FY16 NDAA following recommendations made by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC). In light of extremely low participation in the 

FSSA program, only 285 service members in FY13, the Commission recommended 

an end to this program in favor of military enrollment in SNAP, saying ‘‘[t]his program [FSSA] is duplicative with the Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP), which provides a more effective benefit for service members.’’ The 

Commission additionally noted that the SNAP program ‘‘is more generous and creates fewer potential social stigmas for recipient families’’ than the FSSA program, 

in part because a service member may be required to go through their local financial 

counselors and chain of command to enroll in the FSSA program. Now that military 

families have no other recourse for structural food assistance than the SNAP program, Congress must ensure that military families can meaningfully access the 

SNAP program. 

In addition, the House Armed Services Committee commissioned a Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) report into the state of military food insecurity and access to assistance. We are optimistic that this report will bolster limited existing 

data about the needs of our military families nationwide and provide meaningful 

recommended actions that Congress can take to address military hunger. 

No one in America should go hungry, and especially not the brave men and 

women and their families that already sacrifice so much in service of our country. 

We ask that Congress support common sense, bipartisan proposals to end the treatment of military Basic Allowance for Housing as income when determining eligibility and benefits for Federal food assistance programs. Thank you again for your 

attention to this important issue. 

606

1Widome R., Jensen A., Bangerter A., Fu S. (2015). Food insecurity among veterans of the U.S. 

wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION, 18, pp. 844–849. doi:10.1017/

S136898001400072X. 2Wang E.A., McGinnis K.A., Goulet J., Bryant K., Gibert C., Leaf D.A., Mattocks K., Fiellin 

L.E., Vogenthaler N., Justice A.C., Fiellin D.A., Veterans Aging Cohort Study Project Team 

(2015). Food insecurity and health: data from the Veterans Aging Cohort Study. PUBLIC HEALTH

REPORTS, 130(3): 261–268. 3 United States Census Bureau (2014). American Community Survey 5-year estimates. http:/

/factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF. 4Feeding America (2014). Hunger in America Report. http://www.feedingamerica.org/hungerin-america/our-research/hunger-in-america/. 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY RODNEY BIVENS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGIONAL FOOD

BANK OF OKLAHOMA; EILEEN BRADSHAW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY FOOD

BANK OF EASTERN OKLAHOMA

January 15, 2016

Hon. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Chairman, 

House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Hon. Frank D. Lucas, 

House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Re: Comments for Record: House Committee on Agriculture Hearing on Military and 

Veteran Food Insecurity (January 12, 2016)

Chairman Conaway:

The Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma and the Regional Food Bank of 

Oklahoma appreciate your efforts to address the important issue of food insecurity 

among military service members and veterans. Holding this hearing is an important 

step forward in acknowledging that our nation’s heroes are not immune to hunger. 

According to a study published in 2015, more than one in four Iraq and Afghanistan veterans reported being food-insecure in the past year.1 A separate 2015 study 

by the Yale University School of Medicine found that 24 percent of veterans who 

have accessed care through the Veterans Health Administration (VA) reported being 

food-insecure, and that being food-insecure was associated with diminished management of hypertension, diabetes, HIV, and depression.2 With more than 300,000 veterans in Oklahoma, 50,000 of whom are homeless, we are deeply concerned that 

these numbers indicate tens of thousands of our state’s former service members are 

struggling with hunger.3

Data for food insecurity among active-duty service members is scarce, as this is 

not something that is tracked nor even acknowledged to exist by the Department 

of Defense. However, Feeding America’s ‘‘Hunger in America 2014’’ report provided 

rates of food insecurity among military personnel for the first time. According to 

that report, 20 percent of Feeding America client households reported having at 

least one member who has served in the U.S. military, and four percent of households contain at least one member who is currently serving.4

The Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma’s Mobile Eatery serves hot 

meals to 25–30 military veterans each week. While it is an honor to serve these individuals, it is disheartening to see them anxiously await their meal knowing that 

excitement may be an indication of their struggle with food insecurity. We know 

there are many more veterans who would benefit from this program, and because 

of the demonstrated need, the Mobile Eatery program will be expanded to two additional locations in early 2016. It is vital that we have accurate data on food insecurity among veterans in Oklahoma so we can efficiently plan to meet the needs of 

this important population. 

In light of our increasing awareness of hunger among the military and veteran 

population, the Oklahoma Food Banks make the following recommendations:

Prioritize data collection on military and veteran food insecurity:

This can be accomplished by continuing to formally acknowledge the existence of the problem through hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Individual Representatives adding the issue to 

their policy priorities would thus encourage continued research and data 

collection by academic institutions and perhaps eventually by the Department of Defense. If even one military family goes without adequate food, 

we are failing to fulfill our responsibilities as a nation.

607

5White House (2015). Long Term Benefits of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/SNAP_report_final_non

embargo.pdf. 6MAZON (2015). Help our Heroes. http://mazon.org/our-response/our-initiatives/help-our-heroes/.

Track military and veteran participation in Federal safety net programs:

Federal programs including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and 

Women Infants and Children (WIC) are critical to keeping millions of people nationwide out of poverty. SNAP benefits lifted at least 4.7 million people out of poverty in 2014, including 2.1 million children.5 These safety net 

programs also play a critical role in the lives of our military and veteran 

families. Comprehensive data demonstrating their enrollment and participation would serve not only to illuminate the issue of food insecurity among 

this population, but also as compelling evidence for the case that Federal 

safety net programs should remain the cornerstone of national efforts to 

end hunger. 

Exclude Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) as countable income in 

SNAP determination:

There is an egregious inequity in Federal law that precludes some active 

duty military families from qualifying for SNAP benefits because their 

Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) benefits are counted as income in the 

determination of SNAP eligibility. We recommend a simple resolution of 

this problem: excluding BAH benefits as countable income in the SNAP determination process. This would eliminate the disparity that exists in the 

current way that SNAP eligibility is determined for military and civilian 

populations receiving Federal housing benefits.6

The Oklahoma Food Banks are deeply concerned about food insecurity among 

military and veterans. Due to our statewide service area, we have the ability to 

make meaningful differences in the lives of Oklahoma’s veterans and military service members, but we cannot do it alone. We encourage the Committee to take immediate action on the issue, and offer our sincerest appreciation for holding this hearing. 

Sincerely,

RODNEY BIVENS, Executive Director, EILEEN BRADSHAW, Executive Director, 

Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma; Community Food Bank of Eastern Oklahoma. 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY GINA CORINA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAHNS AGAINST

HUNGER

January 15, 2016

Hon. JACKIE WALORSKI, 

Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Nutrition, 

House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairwoman Walorski,

Utahns Against Hunger (UAH) watched with interest the January 12, 2016 public 

hearing: Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: Addressing Special Populations. As an 

organization we are concerned about access to SNAP, and how that access impacts 

all populations. We are especially interested in making sure that active duty military families and veterans in need have access to this important nutrition program. 

As UAH has learned about the access barriers many military families and veterans have to SNAP, we have become increasingly concerned about this issue, and 


11403114.eps
608

we join with MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger and urge Congress to act swiftly to address this urgent problem. 

The National Commission on Hunger (NCH) recently released their report and 

recommendations on how we can reduce and eliminate hunger in our country. These 

recommendations outline where Congress and the United State[s] Department of 

Agriculture should start to move forward to address the issue of hunger for active 

duty military families and veterans. 

UAH urges your Committee to do everything in your jurisdiction and power to act 

on the following recommendations from the NCH report:

1. Congress should enact legislation to exclude the Basic Allowance for Housing 

as income for the determination of SNAP eligibility and benefit levels for families who have an active duty service member.

2. Congress should direct the Department of Defense to undertake a comprehensive review of the Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance program and 

recommend reforms that are directed at improving food security in active duty 

military families.

3. In keeping with our country’s priority of national security, the USDA should 

work jointly with the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans 

Affairs to help with collecting data on food security, its causes and consequences, and SNAP participation among active duty military and veterans, 

and make this data available to Congress, the President, and to the public at 

regularly specified intervals.

We are failing as a nation if we are not providing for those who have and those 

who are serving and protecting our country. 

Warm Regards,

GINA CORINA, Executive Director. 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY CRISTIN ORR SHIFFER, SENIOR ADVISOR FOR POLICY AND

SURVEY, BLUE STAR FAMILIES

January 13, 2016

Hon. JACKIE WALORSKI, 

Chairwoman, 

Subcommittee on Nutrition, 

House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Re: SNAP and U.S. Military Families

Dear Chairwoman Walorski, Ranking Member McGovern, and Members of the 

Subcommittee,

On behalf of Blue Star Families (BSF), the nation’s largest chapter-based military 

family nonprofit organization, thank you for holding a hearing on the very important topic of ‘‘Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: Addressing Special Populations.’’ 

Financial readiness, including food security, is essential to overall military readiness 

and effectiveness. Further, it plays a role in attracting and retaining the best talent 

to assure the health of the All-Volunteer Force, and studies show financial and employment stressors to be one of the most prevalent stressors related to service member suicide. In a nutshell, military family food security is a national security issue. 

Results from our recently released 2015 Annual Military Family Lifestyle Survey 

(AMFLS), as Ms. Leibman of MAZON included in her testimony, include the concerning findings that 7% of active duty (and their spouse) respondents have experienced food insecurity within the past year and 6% have sought food assistance 

through a food bank, food pantry or charitable organization in the past year. 

As the Senior Advisor for Policy and Survey at Blue Star Families, I am also writing to express our support for a number of the recommendations presented during 

the aforementioned hearing and discussed below. Military couples and families face 

many of the same financial challenges as civilian families; however additional results from our survey indicate that respondents report every day financial tasks are 

more complex and challenging due to the unique and uncertain challenges of the 

military lifestyle. The financial stresses associated with military service—for examVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN

11403113.eps
609

ple frequent moves, substantial challenges to military spouse employment, current 

Basic Allowance for Subsistence policies, and the lack of uniform state policies regarding qualification for assistance—may make it additionally difficult for military 

families to qualify for and obtain needed assistance. 

In addition to supporting MAZON’s recommendations of improving agency collaboration and strengthening the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

for our veterans, I express deep concerns regarding the inconsistency associated 

with access to SNAP for our currently serving military. BSF supports efforts to remove a military service member’s Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) from SNAP 

eligibility determinations to remain consistent with requirements of the other Federal nutrition assistance programs such as Women, Infants, & Children (WIC). Our 

survey results support Ms. Tebbens’ testimony stating BAH often portrays the appearance of economic stability, in her words being ‘‘stable on paper only.’’ Seventyeight percent of our currently serving respondents reported they are paying some 

out of pocket costs beyond BAH for housing, with 22% reporting paying $400 or 

more per month. Finally, BSF supports Ms. Leibman’s testimony that qualifying for 

SNAP and becoming food-secure are not one in the same, and strongly support the 

need for additional data like our annual survey to identify solutions to end food insecurity in the military. 

Military troops and their families are committed to the service of our country. 

Ninety-four percent of survey respondents indicate desire to serve their country was 

a top reason for joining the military and 85%, indicated that financial stability was 

part of their motivation to serve as well. Service members and their families should 

not have to choose between service and financial security. They deserve the reassurance of knowing that our government understands the structural challenges associated with military life and if they should face inadequate access to food, confidential 

assistance outside of their military chain of command via SNAP and other programs 

are available for them. 

During this already uncertain time, when operational tempos are increasing while 

pay and benefits appear to be decreasing, access to an adequate supply of healthy 

food should not be adding to the challenges of service. 

Blue Star Families thanks you for your work on this important topic and for the 

opportunity to provide additional information to the official record. If I may be of 

further assistance please don’t hesitate to reach out. Our complete Blue Star Families Military Family Lifestyle Survey results are accessible at www.bluestarfam.org/

survey. 

Sincerely,

CRISTIN ORR SHIFFER, Senior Advisor for Policy and Survey, 

Blue Star Families. 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY KAREN WOODINGS, ADVOCACY MANAGER, CENTRAL

PENNSYLVANIA FOOD BANK

January 18, 2016

Hon. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Chairman, 

House Agriculture Committee, 

Washington, D.C.

RE: Challenges in Serving Vulnerable Populations

Dear Chairman Conaway:

It was my great honor to have the opportunity to meet and address you, as well 

as our Pennsylvania Congressional delegation on Saturday, January 9, at the Pennsylvania Farm Show listening session. I am writing this letter to you on behalf of 

the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank and the individuals the Food Bank serves 

throughout Central Pennsylvania. 

The Central Pennsylvania Food Bank began operation in 1981 and is a 501(c)(3) 

nonprofit organization registered as tax-exempt with the IRS. We are the largest 

nonprofit food distribution organization in the region, and are one of the top food 

banks in the nation for operational performance. The Food Bank is affiliated with 

Feeding America, the nation’s largest nonprofit hunger fighting organization which 

solicits and facilitates donations of product at a national level. 

The Food Bank’s mission is ‘‘Fighting hunger, improving lives, and strengthening 

communities.’’ We believe that service to others is fundamental to creating a hungerfree America. We operate with an acute sense of urgency that reflects the immediate 

610

needs of hungry people. We keep faith with the public trust through the efficient 

and compassionate use of resources entrusted to us and are mindful that our mission is accomplished through the generosity of others. 

The Central Pennsylvania Food Bank core service, known as the Food Security 

Network, which involves the solicitation, procurement, processing and distribution 

of food throughout a 27 county service area that covers over 18,000 miles2 in Pennsylvania. In FY 2014–2015, the Food Bank distributed 40 million pounds of food, 

an increase of 24% over the previous year. We currently serve approximately 60,000 

people weekly. In addition the Food Bank is committed to providing healthy food 

options and now more than 20% of our food distribution is comprised of fresh fruits, 

vegetables, dairy, and fresh milk. 

Feeding America and its nationwide network of more than 200 regional food 

banks, including the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank, recently conducted Hunger 

in America 2014 (HIA 2014), the latest in a series of quadrennial studies that provide comprehensive demographic profiles of people seeking food assistance. The 

study shows that the image of hunger in America is considerably different than it 

has been in the past and the individuals and families who rely on food pantries, 

soup kitchens and other programs to survive characterize an increasingly large and 

complex group due to the ever changing economic climate. 

Central Pennsylvania Food Bank was concerned by the results from HIA 2014. 

Knowing the anecdotal stories of the over 453,000 people we serve is significantly 

different than analyzing statistics about their lives. The Food Bank learned that individuals receiving food assistance must make serious, quality of life trade-offs between paying for food and paying for other necessities, such as rent, transportation, 

and medicine.

• 70% report having to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine 

or medical care at least once in the last 12 months.

• 70% of households chose between paying for food and paying for utilities.

• 59% of households chose between paying for food and paying for transportation.

• More than 30% of households face these choices every month.

Of the 55,800 households surveyed for HIA 2014, 26% have at least one family 

member who has served or is actively serving in the United States military. Our 

military families and veterans can be a challenging population to serve because families are difficult to identify because they are frequently too proud to seek help 

through Federal nutrition programs. 

The reasons for food insecurity can involve numerous factors including: low pay 

for enlisted troops, high unemployment rates for spouses, low wage or retirement 

for veterans, higher cost of living near urban centers, veterans living with disabilities, Congressional limits on pay raises, unemployment or underemployment, and 

stigma of using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. 

While the military currently offers the Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA) for low-income families, it has a low participation rate. Food pantries 

afford greater anonymity to active military families. Many military families do not 

want their commander to find out they can’t afford to feed their spouses and children. For many families, tax-free allowances for housing, clothing, and food are not 

adequate for maintaining household sustainability because these families still have 

the cost of rent, utilities, medicine, and additional food items the family needs to 

survive. It is also worth noting that the FSSA is due to sunset at the end of FFY 

2016. This will cause greater numbers of military families to seek assistance with 

the Food Security Network. 

The Central Pennsylvania Food Bank answer was to create our MilitaryShare 

Program. MilitaryShare is a means to provide access to fresh and nutritious food 

items to military households in our 27 county service area. The Food Bank partners 

with Pennsylvania’s state and regional Family Readiness Coordinators to institute 

this program that distributes fresh food items directly to food-insecure military 

households who are struggling with hunger. By bringing this wholesome food directly to our military households, the MilitaryShare program directly helps combat 

the issue of scant financial resources that makes it difficult for low-income military 

households to access the adequate nutrition they need by providing a monthly food 

distribution, at no cost. 

The other vulnerable population I would like to address is senior citizens. Pennsylvania has a disproportionately large number of senior citizens. According to HIA 

2014, 18.5% of the people served through Pennsylvania’s Charitable Food Network 

are in individuals over the age of 60. In Pennsylvania, over two million seniors are 

65 years of age or older and 169,499 seniors are living in poverty. Since 2001, there 

611

has been over an 85% level of growth in national senior hunger, most pronounced 

among Baby Boomers (i.e., the ‘‘young old,’’ ages 60 to 69). 

Central Pennsylvania Food Bank understands that the SNAP will help. Three out 

of five seniors who qualify for SNAP benefits, however, do not participate. Older 

Americans who qualify for SNAP are significantly less likely to participate in the 

program than other low-income demographic groups. Several factors contribute to 

the low participation rate including seniors face barriers related to mobility, technology, and societal stigma. Many seniors are discouraged to apply for SNAP benefits because of widespread myths about how the program works and who can qualify 

to receive benefits. 

The health consequences for hungry seniors are very disheartening. National 

studies state that seniors who are at risk for hunger are more likely to have mobility and activity limitations, as well as a decrease in their overall health. Poor nutrition impedes a senior’s ability to effectively recover from illness, limits intake of essential vitamins, reduces efficacy of prescription drugs, exacerbates problems from 

pre-existing health conditions such as heart failure, diabetes, and depression, and 

increases hospital stays, which can put undue strain on the community. 

In 2005, the Central Pennsylvania Food Bank began our ElderShare Program to 

meet the growing need to feed hungry seniors. The ElderShare program was solely 

grant funded and was designed to augment the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). In 2009, CSFP caseload was allocated to the Food Bank to serve 350+ 

seniors. As funding grew, so did our caseload. Central Pennsylvania Food Bank currently serves over 5,350 seniors through CSFP funding and an additional 750–1,000 

seniors a month through our privately-funded ElderShare Program. The Food Bank 

continues the privately-funded program to ensure no senior is hungry by serving 

those individuals on the ‘‘waiting list’’ for a CSFP opening. 

As Members of Congress, you can do much to decrease food insecurity for our veterans, active military families, and seniors. For active duty low-income enlisted military personnel, the Basic Housing Allowance (BHA) for housing is excluded as income in calculating income taxes and eligibility for some Federal programs, such as 

WIC and Head Start, but not all. The Central Pennsylvania Food Bank urges you 

to update eligibility guidelines to exclude BHA as income for all Federal nutrition 

programs. When SNAP considers BHA as income, this puts food-insecure military 

families at a great disadvantage and disqualifies many from received food assistance. This is driving more and more families to use the Food Bank’s Food Security 

Network. 

For seniors, simplify and improve the application process. This truly is a barrier 

for seniors to access SNAP benefits. Continue categorical eligibility, it improves access for all low-income Americans. Invest in community based initiatives to assist 

seniors and veterans in better managing chronic conditions through better nutrition. 

The Central Pennsylvania Food Bank urges you to resist from making any further 

cuts to SNAP benefits. SNAP helps the poorest Americans have access to nutritious 

food. SNAP took 2.4 million children out of severe poverty in 2005 and reduces the 

likelihood of being food-insecure for all populations. SNAP also helps to drive local 

economies. For each SNAP dollar spent, that dollar generates $1.79 in economic activity. This translates to increased farm production, new jobs, as well as enhanced 

self-sufficiency for those in need of food assistance. 

Challenging or difficult to serve populations implies that the needs of some people 

may be beyond the scope of services that are typically available. We Must make 

every effort to connect vulnerable populations with the Federal nutrition programs 

where they qualify to receive benefits. It is essential that Congress ensures that 

people who are food-insecure and are difficult to serve are not forced to choose between food and other basic necessities. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Sincerely,

KAREN WOODINGS, 

Advocacy Manager.

Cc:

Congressman GLENN THOMPSON,

JOSH PROTAS, MAZON, 

LISA DAVIS, Feeding America. 


11403116.eps
612

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY HON. SUSAN ZIMET, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HUNGER

ACTION NETWORK OF NEW YORK STATE

Testimony to House Agriculture Committee on Military & Veteran Food Insecurity 

On behalf of the many anti-hunger groups, we thank you for holding hearings on 

the growing crisis of hunger and the military. 

For over a decade I have had the honor of serving my constituents as an elected 

Town Supervisor and County Legislator. In that role I have had the opportunity to 

work with veterans on many issues. 

What is apparent when speaking with veterans is the pride they have in serving 

their country, their love for the country and their extreme disappointment in the 

difficulties they face when forced to ask for help. 

‘‘It is pure embarrassment. I hate it. I don’t like it. It’s like taking away the pride 

you have and making you humble. You have to go [to the food pantry] and I hate 

to say it but it makes you feel like you are begging for food.’’ Stated Mike Hernandez, a Navy veteran with a wife and three daughters. ‘‘If you look at my [military] record, it’s immaculate. And look at how bad I struggle. Why can’t there be 

some type of program to help us out? We didn’t do anything wrong. We come out 

of the military, next thing you know, we’re left to fend for ourselves and you just 

can’t make it.’’ 

Shirley Starkey, whose husband is a sergeant in the Marines and has been twice 

deployed to Afghanistan said ‘‘It’s hard to know that my husband is fighting for his 

country and he’s working long days and long hours and we still have to struggle 

to keep food on the table and gas in our car.’’

I am new to the field of hunger, having assumed the role of Executive Director 

for Hunger Action Network of NYS last year, and the unprecedented hunger in 

America was shocking to me. But the growing impact of hunger amongst those who 

are serving or who served our country, was a real eye opener:

• 620,000 households that include at least one soldier, reservist or guardsman—

or 25% of the nation’s total active duty & reserve are seeking aid from food pantries or charity program.

• 130, 000 veterans are homeless or hungry on any given night.

• 1.5 million veterans are at risk of becoming homeless and going hungry.

• Food stamp purchases at military commissaries have nearly tripled during the 

last 4 years between 2008–2011.

• According to Food Bank of NYC, 40% of NYC vets rely on food pantries & soup 

kitchens.

Hunger Solutions NY reaches out to military and veteran’s families to assist them 

in accessing SNAP benefits. In the first 2 years of providing the services, Hunger 

Solutions assisted more than 4.000 military & veteran’s families in New York State. 

Long Island Cares, the Harry Chapin Food Bank, understands the challenges 

faced by returning soldiers and their families as ‘‘troops transition from the front 

lines to the home front.’’ The organization offers several veteran service programs, 

two specific to hunger: 

Military Appreciation Tuesdays: Hosted each week at three Long Island Cares 

pantries, veterans and their families can access food, personal care items, household 

products, pet food and school supplies. 

Mobile Pantry: Delivers nutritious groceries to homebound, disabled veterans unable to access their local pantries. Long Island Cares Veterans Mobile Outreach 

Unit provided over 23,000 pounds of food & over 17,000 meals to veterans in 2015 

alone. 

Each Tuesday, they have between 150–200 veterans who come to the satellite locations to access emergency food and household supplies to veterans and their families as well as information and referral services from other nonprofits serving veterans. 

‘‘The numbers of veterans needing the services of the food pantry keeps growing, 

with 1–2 new veterans coming through the doors of the pantry every month,’’ stated 

Michael Haynes, Chief Government Affairs Officer for L.I. Cares. ‘‘We are so happy 

we can help, but it is so sad that these brave men and women who sacrificed themselves to preserve our freedoms are in need of this help.’’ 

Hunger Action Network of New York State testified in Albany, New York at the 

U.S. Hunger Commission hearings. Families of active duty service members and 

veterans should not have to struggle to put food on the table. 

We were delighted to learn that the U.S. Hunger Commission adopted the recommendations presented by MAZON.

613

1. Congress should enact legislation to exclude the Basic Allowance for Housing 

as income for the determination of SNAP eligibility and benefit levels for families who have an active duty service member.

2. Congress should direct the Department of Defense to undertake a comprehensive review of the Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance program and 

recommend reforms that are directed at improving food security in active 

duty military families.

3. USDA should work jointly with the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to help with collecting data on food security, its 

causes and consequences, and SNAP participation among active duty military 

and veterans, and make this data available to Congress, the President, and 

to the public at regularly.

Veterans have served and sacrificed their family’s stability on our behalf. Too 

many veterans are hungry and homeless. It is the obligation of our Country to give 

back to this brave men and women and ensure they live in dignity with food on the 

table and a roof over their head. 

Hunger Action Network of NYS stands ready to help in any way to ensure the 

needs of our military families are being addressed. 

Thank you so much for your time and attention to this issue.

Hon. SUSAN ZIMET, 

Executive Director, 

Hunger Action Network of New York State.

Submitted on January 15, 2016 to:

Congressman CHRIS GIBSON, 

Congressman SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, 

LISA SHELTON, House Agriculture Committee, 

Senator KRISTEN GILLIBRAND, 

Senator CHUCK SCHUMER. 

SUBMITTED LETTERS BY LOAVES AND FISHES, ST. STEPHEN AND THE INCARNATION

EPISCOPAL CHURCH

DAVID CHAMBERLIN, U.S. ARMY VETERAN

January 14, 2016

Dear Representative:

I am David Chamberlain and I was stationed with the Army in Missouri, Massachusetts and Central America in the mid-1980’s. When I left the Army I suffered 

from depression and received some disability and Social Security. When times were 

really tight I had to use the food shelf and now I come and dine with Loaves and 

Fishes for meals. 

I support anything that can be done to help vets with food options like SNAP, 

food shelves and meals. 

Sincerely,

DAVID CHAMBERLIN. 

DUANE A. MEIER, U.S. ARMY KOREAN WAR VETERAN

1/14/16

To my elected officials:

My name is Duane Meier and I was in the U.S. Army. I served for 18 months 

in the Korean War and was deployed to Korea. After the war I moved back to Minnesota where I met my wife and found a job hauling garbage and later driving semi 

oil tankers. 

We never used food shelves or food stamps but I do go to a meal program every 

night that they are open for a hot meal. I am 90 years old and get Social Security 

and VA Assistance. I believe that all U.S. Veterans should be helped with food and 

ask that you supp01i bills that help them get what they need.

DUANE A. MEIER. 


11403117.eps 11403118.eps
614

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY FOOD BANK OF ALASKA

Our Military and Veterans Should Never Struggle To Put Food on the 

Table 

The Food Bank of Alaska has a strong commitment to addressing military and 

veteran hunger. Alaska is home to many military bases, and has the highest number of veterans per capita of any state. We know from our extensive 2014 Hunger 

in America—Alaska Report that 23% of families served by the statewide Food Bank 

of Alaska network have at least one veteran in the household. This means that 

nearly 1⁄4 of all families visiting our food pantries, soup kitchens and meal programs 

have a former serviceman or woman in the home. What’s more, we know that many 

of our active duty military families are also turning to the charitable food sector for 

help. Statewide, 3% of families we are helping with food assistance are active duty 

military. In Anchorage, with its large military population, this figure is closer to 6%. 

While our pantry partners do not track the number of active duty military that visit 

their distributions, many have anecdotally reported an increase in the number of 

in-uniform active duty military they see. The Armed Services YMCA pantry on the 

Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson serves an average of 70 families each month. 

Helen’s story, and her testimony, provides examples of the challenges that military members and veterans face when they try to put food on the table. Helen and 

her husband are both veterans. Middle aged, they both have had full careers, but 

fell on hard times recently and moved back to Alaska in search of work. Not having 

any luck finding a job, they tried to apply for SNAP benefits, only to find out that 

they were $20 over the income limit, due to Helen’s VA Benefits. So instead, they 

rely on food pantries to help get them through the month. ‘‘Never in a million years 

would I think I would use food assistance,’’ said Helen. The first time we went to 

a pantry, my husband wouldn’t get out of the truck. He just said ‘‘I’m so ashamed.’’

Helen says she believes in ‘‘paying it forward,’’ and has helped a number of activeduty military families connect with local food pantries. Helen explains that they 

need the help, but don’t want to sign up for SNAP for fear of repercussions. There 

is often a heavy stigma associated with receiving benefits for members of the military. 

Though times are tough for Helen and her husband, she is starting school soon 

to finish her bachelor’s degree in business, with help from the VOC-Rehab Program. 

Ever the optimist, she explains, ‘‘this isn’t who we are, this is a situation.’’ One that 

hopefully doesn’t exist for her fellow servicemen and women in the future.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a powerful tool in the 

fight against hunger. Unfortunately, as Helen explained, stigma keeps many military families from pursuing this option, and for those lower enlisted members who 

do try, many find that they miss the cut off for SNAP by a few hundred dollars. 

While the military has a nutrition program similar to SNAP—the Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance (FSSA)—it is underutilized and is slated to be 

sunsetted domestically at the end of 2016. Veterans typically have low enrollment 

in the SNAP program, and some veterans who receive benefits are at risk of losing 

them, due to new Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) work requirements. To address the issue of hunger among active-duty military and veterans, we 

believe Congress should:

1. Remove policy barriers that deny active duty military families the nutrition 

assistance resources they need, including SNAP. Please consider legislation to 

exclude the Basic Housing Allowance (BAH) as income in determining eligibility for SNAP.

2. Gather and make available more data to accurately document food insecurity 

levels among active-duty military and veterans. Congressional briefings and 

the upcoming GAO study are great starts to these efforts; they should continue 

and reach farther.

3. Urge agency collaboration to ensure disabled and struggling veterans are better able to access food benefits through SNAP and other available programs.

We are happy that the critical issue of food insecurity among our veterans and 

active duty military has been getting some of the attention that it deserves. We believe that one of the best ways to show respect and care for the men and women 

who have served and sacrificed for our country is to ensure they have the basic resources to support their families. Our military deserves better than having to face 

hunger.

Food Bank of Alaska collected and distributed 6.8 million pounds of food 

in 2015 through 300 partner food pantries and meal programs statewide 

and advocates for policies to end hunger. For more information, visit 

www.foodbankofalaska.org. 

(615)

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM 

(THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: EXAMINING 

STATE OPTIONS) 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael 

Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Conaway, Goodlatte, Lucas, 

King, Thompson, Gibbs, Crawford, Benishek, LaMalfa, Davis, 

Yoho, Walorski, Allen, Rouzer, Newhouse, Kelly, Peterson, David 

Scott of Georgia, Costa, Walz, Fudge, McGovern, Lujan Grisham, 

Kuster, Nolan, Bustos, Maloney, Kirkpatrick, Aguilar, Plaskett, 

Adams, Graham, and Ashford. 

Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Jadi Chapman, Mary Nowak, 

Paul Balzano, Scott C. Graves, Stephanie Addison, Lisa Shelton, 

Liz Friedlander, Matthew MacKenzie, Nicole Scott, and Carly 

Reedholm. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture, 

Past, Present and Future of SNAP: Examining State Options, will 

come to order. I have asked Rick Allen to say a brief prayer for us. 

Rick? 

Mr. ALLEN. Let us pray. Father, we are grateful for our time 

here this morning. Lord, let us be mindful of your many blessings 

as we hear from these folks today that are going to give us the information we need to make wise decisions. Lord, we do pray that 

you give us the wisdom and the influence to make the right decisions, and to do what is right for this country. We pray for this 

country. We thank you for this body. We thank you for agriculture, 

and blessing this land. In His name we pray, amen. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want to welcome our witnesses to today’s 

hearing, and thank them for being here to continue our review of 

the past, present, and future of SNAP. This is our 12th hearing 

within this series. We have learned a tremendous amount about 

the complexities of SNAP, and even more about the diverse individuals and communities that it serves. As we continue our review, we 

will do so without preconceived notions, and with a commitment to 

616

strengthen the program so that it can best serve families, most efficiently utilize taxpayer dollars, and empower states to effectively 

implement the program, while protecting program integrity. Today 

our witnesses will help us get a better understanding of the various 

options and flexibilities that states have in implementing SNAP. 

Through our review we have learned that SNAP varies greatly 

from state to state, and can even vary within a state. While the 

Federal Government provides parameters for the program, SNAP 

statutes, regulations, and waivers provide state agencies with numerous policy options to adapt their programs to meet the needs 

of low-income people in their states. Certain options may facilitate 

program design goals, better target benefits to those most in need, 

streamline program administration and field operations, or coordinate SNAP activities with other programs for low-income families. 

When carrying out the program, states determine eligibility requirements, such as income thresholds, asset limits, work-related 

requirements. And, through categorical eligibility, states can utilize 

the participation from one means-tested program, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Family, or TANF, to defer eligibility for 

SNAP. 

When calculating and issuing monthly benefits for those eligible, 

states have the flexibility to determine the value of medical deductions, and the standard utility allowances. It is important to note 

SNAP does not operate in a vacuum. When administering SNAP, 

states have a multitude of programs they are overseeing. As we 

will hear today, other programs, such as TANF, and Supplemental 

Security Income Program, have an effect on how SNAP is administered within the states. It is important to look at how, as a collective whole, these programs are used by the people they serve. 

As we prepare for the next farm bill, this holistic understanding 

of the program will be important to make meaningful improvements. Understanding SNAP’s interaction with other government 

programs and state agencies will help to utilize the effectiveness of 

the Federal, state, and local governments as they administer 

SNAP. While it is important to empower states to employ the best 

policies to meet the needs of the low-income families they serve, 

we, as Federal lawmakers, must ensure the integrity of SNAP is 

maintained, and not compromised by those administrative efficiencies. State flexibility can be an important tool in helping a family move out of poverty, however, the American taxpayer needs confidence that government programs are being targeted to those most 

in need. 

I look forward to hearing our witnesses today as we explore how 

to best leverage the relationship between state and local communities, and to best serve recipients, and utilize taxpayer dollars. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

I want to welcome our witnesses to today’s hearing and thank them for being here 

as we continue our review of the Past, Present, and Future of SNAP. This is our 

twelfth hearing within this series, and we have learned a tremendous amount about 

the complexities of SNAP and even more about the diverse individuals and communities that it serves. 

617

As we continue our review, we will do so without preconceived notions and with 

a commitment to strengthen the program so it can best serve families, most efficiently utilize taxpayer dollars, and empower states to effectively implement the 

program while protecting program integrity. 

Today, our witnesses will help us gain a better understanding of the various options and flexibility states have when implementing SNAP. Through our review we 

have learned that SNAP varies greatly from state-to-state, and can even vary within 

a state. While the Federal Government provides parameters for the program, 

SNAP’s statutes, regulations, and waivers provide state agencies with numerous 

policy options to adapt their programs to meet the needs of low-income people in 

their states. 

Certain options may facilitate program design goals, better target benefits to 

those most in need, streamline program administration and field operations, or coordinate SNAP activities with other programs for low-income families. 

When carrying out the program, states determine eligibility requirements, such 

as income thresholds, asset limits, and work-related requirements. Through categorical eligibility, states can utilize the participation from one means-tested program, 

such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF, to defer 

eligibility for SNAP. 

When calculating and issuing monthly benefits for those eligible, states have the 

flexibility to determine the value of medical deductions or standard utility allowances. It is important to note SNAP does not operate in a vacuum. When administering 

SNAP, states have a multitude of programs they are overseeing. As we will hear 

today, other programs, such as TANF and the Supplemental Security Income program have an effect on how SNAP is administered in states. It is important to look 

at how, as a collective whole, these programs are used by the people they serve. 

As we prepare for the next farm bill, this holistic understanding of the program 

will be important in order to make meaningful improvements. Understanding 

SNAP’s interaction with other government programs and state agencies will help to 

maximize the effectiveness of the Federal, state, and local governments as they administer SNAP. While it is important to empower states to employ the best policies 

to meet the needs of low-income families they serve, we as Federal lawmakers must 

ensure that the integrity of SNAP is maintained and not compromised for administrative efficiencies. State flexibility can be an important tool in helping a family 

move out of poverty, however the American taxpayer needs confidence that government programs are being targeted to those most in need. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as we explore how to best leverage the relationship between the states and local communities to better serve recipients and utilize taxpayer dollars.

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I recognize the Ranking Member for 

any comments he has. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing, and I am looking forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

I have been urging for some time now that the Committee take 

a look at the flexibility states have when administering SNAP. I 

understand that this is done to simplify the process, but I worry 

that it has gone too far, and that we have now too much leeway 

for the states. During the last farm bill debate I offered a plan to 

reform categorical eligibility, and, of course, it didn’t happen. But 

I still have a hard time understanding how states with both Democratic and Republican governors are allowed to exceed Federal eligibility guidelines, and then charge the Federal Government for the 

additional expense. If we had a system like this, maybe we could 

balance the budget, if we could send the bill to somebody else. This 

creates a system, where we treat people differently in different 

parts of the country, and I just don’t think that is right. My district, for example, borders North Dakota. North Dakota and Minnesota have different income and asset tests to qualify for SNAP, 

618

so people in Moorhead, right across the river from Fargo, have a 

different situation. And it’s hard to understand why we are doing 

that. 

So I hope we will also be able to take a look at the impact of 

turning SNAP into a block grant, which, in my opinion, is not a 

viable option. I think it will only lead to the creation of an unaccountable slush fund for the states. Block granting SNAP has been 

supported by some in the past, but I hope we don’t find ourselves 

on that path again. So, again, I look forward to the testimony. I 

thank the chair, and yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The chair would request 

that other Members submit their opening statements for the record 

so our witnesses may begin their testimony to ensure that there is 

an ample time for questions. 

I would like to welcome to our witness table today Ms. Stephanie 

Muth who is the Deputy Executive Commissioner for the Office of 

Social Services, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, 

Austin, Texas, Ms. Stacy Dean, Vice President of Food Assistance 

Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities here in Washington, 

D.C., and Ms. Karen Cunnyngham, Senior Researcher, Mathematical Policy Research here in Washington, D.C. 

With that, Ms. Muth, you may start your testimony when you 

are ready. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE MUTH, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE

COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF SOCIAL SERVICES, TEXAS 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, AUSTIN, 

TEXAS 

Ms. MUTH. Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member 

Peterson, and Members. Thank you so much for the opportunity to 

be with you here today. And, as the Chairman said, I am Stephanie 

Muth, and I work at the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, where my responsibilities include overseeing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and eligibility operations for 

our integrated eligibility system, and I wanted to start by providing 

you with a little bit of information about the SNAP Program in 

Texas. We provide, on average, $435 million to 3.8 million SNAP 

recipients each month. Over 1⁄2 of the recipients in Texas are children, and just under eight percent are over the age of 60. And, like 

the rest of the nation, over the past 10 years Texas has experienced 

growth in SNAP participation. States around the country have 

been challenged to work within our existing resources to meet the 

demands of this increased case load, while remaining focused on 

program integrity. To meet this challenge, Texas has pursued some 

innovative solutions that increase client self-service options, and leverage third party data sources. So clients increased use of selfservice like our yourtexasbenefits.com website, and a mobile app, allows our staff the time to focus on what their core responsibility 

is, which is verifying the information that is provided, and making 

accurate eligibility decisions. 

The question posed to me was, how does Texas select which Federal options to implement in the SNAP program? Well, there is not 

one answer to that, but in general Texas selects options by considering state leadership direction, program integrity, business procVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
619

ess efficiencies, and the impact on the rest of the programs in our 

integrated eligibility system. Our state leadership is actively involved and engaged in shaping and directing policies for SNAP, 

and provides some direction through legislative actions. Texas values accountability and integrity of its publicly funded program, so, 

as a result, Texas chooses to verify most income sources and deductions, such as child support and medical expenses, and we do maintain an assets limit that considers liquid assets, as well as vehicle 

values. 

In addition to maintaining program integrity, Texas is committed 

to efficient business processes that reduce unnecessary client interactions, while ensuring that we produce an accurate eligibility determination, and provide benefits timely. We allow applicants to 

submit applications online, and we have waivers that allow on demand and telephone interviews. And Texas also utilizes an electronic correspondence option so people can opt-out of receiving 

mail, and receive information from us through e-mail and text. 

We consider the availability of resources that are required to implement additional state options or waivers in relation to the expected gain. Simply put, it is what kind of bang are we going to 

get for our buck. With limited resources, both staff and funding, we 

have to prioritize those state and Federal mandates, and also 

projects that will have the most impact, when we are determining 

what to do. Texas has sought to align eligibility policies across our 

program. Since we are an integrated eligibility state, we have 

aligned SNAP income and resources policies to mirror the state’s 

TANF program. And although states have some flexibility in the 

administration of SNAP, we believe there are additional opportunities to improve program integrity, and leverage technology to gain 

efficiencies. I would like to outline three of those for you today. 

First, Federal statute and regulations require that SNAP agencies accept an application with only a name, address, and signature. States are prevented from requiring any additional data elements to file an application, even an online application. Having the 

ability to require additional elements could strengthen program integrity in a virtual environment. It also could shorten eligibility 

processing timeframes, so we recommend some additional state 

flexibility in this area. 

Second, Federal regulations require states to interview SNAP recipients at initial certification, and at least once every 12 months 

at re-certification. We recommend additional flexibility in determining when an interview is required. This would allow us to better deter fraud at the front end, and to interview cases that are at 

higher risk because of the attributes of that case, like self-employment income, an error, or fraud. 

And last, Federal regulations require states to expunge SNAP 

benefits from accounts that have not been accessed after 1 year. 

But some SNAP cases are active, but they have benefits as old as 

12 months. This erodes the public confidence in the program. Why 

is somebody who is receiving SNAP still have the benefits from 12 

months ago? So we recommend additional flexibilities in that area 

as well. 

And that completes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Muth follows:]

620

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE MUTH, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE COMMISSIONER,

OFFICE OF SOCIAL SERVICES, TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION, 

AUSTIN, TX 

Background 

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) administers the 

Texas Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), one of the largest in the 

country, providing on average $435 million to 3.8 million recipients each month. In 

Texas, the most common SNAP household is headed by a female between the ages 

of 18 and 39, with one or two children under age 12. She has some form of income, 

and receives a monthly SNAP benefit of $274. Over 8,000 staff across Texas determine eligibility for SNAP jointly with Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance 

Program (CHIP), and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance using an integrated eligibility system. The Texas Workforce Commission administers the SNAP Employment and Training program. 

The Texas population continues to grow at a rate that is faster than the national 

average. Over the past 10 years, Texas, like the nation, has experienced growth in 

SNAP participation. In 2006, SNAP caseload in Texas was around 2.4 million while 

the current caseload is approximately 37 percent higher at 3.8 million. The state 

must work within existing resources to ensure capacity is available to handle future 

demands and to operate the program in a manner that ensures the highest level 

of program integrity. This requires the state to identify opportunities to identify and 

deter fraud, prevent cost inefficiencies, improve coordination of services, and implement process refinements where possible. To meet this growing demand for services, 

preserve limited resources, and maintain the program integrity within the system, 

Texas has pursued innovative solutions to increase client self-service options and to 

leverage third-party data sources to independently verify client-provided information 

needed to determine eligibility. Examples include the verification of income and employment data through Equifax workforce solutions (TALX, formerly the Work Number) and applicant identity through the Texas Department of Public Safety database. In addition the state is in the process of providing eligibility staff access to 

data on lottery winnings through the Texas Lottery Commission. 

Increased utilization of self-service allows staff to focus on their core responsibility 

of verifying information provided and determining eligibility accurately. Texas has 

increased self-service options for applicants and existing clients by developing and 

promoting a website as well as a mobile app that launched in 2014. The mobile app 

allows clients to upload eligibility verification documents, receive case alerts, check 

the status of their case, and report changes. With over 65% of applications submitted online and over 1.2 million documents uploaded through the mobile app, clients have demonstrated their strong facility with these tools. 

These tools have proven effective and have allowed the state to serve increasing 

caseloads without an increase in staff resources (See Figure 1 below). In 2009, only 

58% of SNAP applications were processed on time. Today, over 96% of applications 

are processed on time. Texas estimates the increased reliance on self-service and the 

website saved as much as $41 million in reduced printing, postage, and document 

imaging costs for the state between 2012 and 2014. In addition, payments for call 

centers and document processing fell $12.7 million between Fiscal Years 2012 and 

2014 while monthly caseload increased by more than 600,000 during the same time 

period. 

621

Figure 1: Average Monthly Benefit Recipients and Filled Eligibility Determination Positions, 1995 to 2015

Note: Total Recipients count for Medicaid/TANF/SNAP is not an 

unduplicated total—recipients may be in all three categories.

As the state has shifted to increase the use of self-service, there has also been 

a shift in the reliance of technology to prevent and detect fraud. For example, Texas 

has implemented an identity verification process in the online application, but due 

to Federal restrictions, the applicant has the option to not complete it. In addition, 

the state is implementing increased analytics to EBT card purchases, similar to the 

technology that credit card companies use to detect potentially fraudulent activity. 

In addition. Texas has begun implementing a new business process statewide focused on freeing up capacity by eliminating duplicate or unnecessary actions that 

do not add value, and maintaining staff’s ability to independently verify information 

provided on applications and to make accurate eligibility determinations as quickly 

as possible. The new process has reduced the number of days it takes the state to 

deliver eligibility determinations, overtime, mailing and printing volumes, and client 

calls. 

How Does Texas Select Options for SNAP? 

SNAP benefits are 100% federally funded, and as such many of the program requirements are standardized across the country. Since SNAP is interoperable and 

benefits are portable across state lines, there is a need to maintain some consistencies between states. States do have areas of discretion within the program as contained in Federal statute and regulations. Outlined below is a description of the 

principles Texas applies in selecting options, some examples of options the state has 

selected, and areas where the state believes there are additional opportunities for 

flexibility. 

When deciding which option works best in Texas, there is not one single determining factor. In general, Texas selects options by considering state leadership direction, program integrity, business process efficiencies, and its integrated eligibility 

system.

• State leadership is actively engaged in shaping and directing policies for the 

SNAP program and has shown interest in future policy changes to deter fraud 

such as photo identification on EBT cards and flexibilities such as SNAP purchase restrictions. The agency receives some direction regarding state options 

through legislation or through state appropriations decisions.

• Texas values accountability and integrity of its publicly-funded programs, and 

is selective in the SNAP options it adopts. Texas verifies most income sources 

and deductions in SNAP such as child support and medical expenses and maintains an assets limit that considers liquid assets as well as vehicle values. In 

2013, Texas requested similar flexibility from the Centers for Medicare and 

Medicaid Services to maintain an assets test for the Medicaid program. This request was denied in 2014.

• In addition to maintaining program integrity, Texas is committed to efficient 

business processes that reduce unnecessary client interactions while ensuring 

accurate eligibility determinations and timely benefits for eligible individuals. 

In addition to opting to allow applicants to submit applications online, Texas 

has active waivers that allow on-demand and telephone interviews in lieu of


11403119.eps
622

scheduled face-to-face interviews. Texas also utilizes electronic correspondence, 

and does not require re-certification interviews for households in which all adult 

members are elderly or disabled and have no earned income since these are lowrisk cases. Having this flexibility allows the state to focus resources on preventing and detecting potential fraud.

• Texas also considers the availability of resources required to implement additional state options or waivers, in relation to the expected gains that will result 

from the change. Limited resources—both staff and funding—require the state 

to prioritize Federal- or state-directed changes and projects that will produce 

the most impact for the multiple programs maintained within its integrated eligibility system. In recent years, a focus on implementation of major Federal policy changes has reduced the state’s capacity to initiate optional system changes 

for other programs. As a result, automation changes are carefully considered to 

ensure they are cost-effective, maintain program integrity, and preserve flexibility for future changes. Texas has also sought to align eligibility policies 

across the programs when allowable. For example, Texas has opted to align 

policies such as income, resources, and treatment of vehicles to mirror the cash 

assistance program, TANF. 

Additional Opportunities for State Flexibility 

Although states have some flexibility in administration of SNAP, there are opportunities beyond the current available options for states to improve program integrity 

and leverage technology to gain efficiencies.

• Federal statute and regulations require SNAP agencies to accept applications 

with only a name, address and signature whether submitted via an online process or paper process (in person, mail, or fax). This prevents states from requiring additional information needed to validate applications submitted online in 

order to confirm identity and to eliminate fraudulent activity. It can also result 

in incomplete information required to process applications and lead to additional client interactions, longer eligibility processing timeframes, and costs to 

the state. As more business moves online and less face-to-face interaction with 

clients is necessary, administrators must seek new ways to prevent and detect 

fraud. Texas recommends allowing flexibility for states to require additional information in order to accurately authenticate online applicants, reduce fraud, 

and protect confidential information. 7 U.S.C. § 2020(e)(2)(B)(iv). 7 CFR 

§ 273.2(c)(1).

• Federal regulations require states to interview SNAP recipients at initial certification and at least once every 12 months at re-certification. Though states may 

opt to perform a phone interview in lieu of face-to-face, the submission of information online or through automated phone response systems is not considered 

to meet the interview requirement. FNS recently allowed Oregon and Utah to 

conduct demonstrations in which the eligibility interviews at application and recertification were eliminated. A study of the demonstration project concluded 

that eliminating the interview may reduce error rates and decrease program 

churn. Texas recommends allowing states additional flexibility in determining 

when an interview is required. This would allow states to use analytics to identify high risk cases and target staff resources to focus on cases where fraud may 

be more likely to occur. Additional flexibility would allow states the ability to 

deter fraud at the front end, interview high risk cases, utilize technology to capture the same information that would be captured in an interview, and to better 

utilize staff time independently verifying information to make accurate eligibility determinations. 7 CFR § 273.2(e)(1).

• Federal regulations require states to expunge SNAP benefits from accounts that 

have not been accessed after 1 year. However, some households still develop 

high SNAP balances, which are allowed under program rules. This weakens 

program integrity by creating the perception that these households do not need 

or are not appropriately using their SNAP benefits. FNS has begun to address 

this issue by directing states to conduct verification checks on accounts with 

balances of $5,000 or more. In 2014, HHSC proposed additional actions to address high SNAP balances and further strengthen program integrity. HHSC requested and was denied a waiver to expunge SNAP benefits from active accounts that have been available for at least 12 months. This waiver would have 

allowed the state to expunge an additional 25,700 cases per month totaling approximately $254,000 in value, on top of the current average of about 42,000 

cases totaling approximately $2.3 million each month. Texas recommends allowing states this flexibility to strengthen program integrity and ensure appropriate use of public funds. 7 CFR § 274.2(h)(2).

623

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, ma’am. Ms. Dean, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF STACY DEAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR FOOD

ASSISTANCE POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY

PRIORITIES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. DEAN. Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and 

Committee Members, thank you for the invitation to testify today. 

I am Stacy Dean, Vice President for Food Assistance Policy at the 

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan policy institute located here in Washington. I am really pleased to have the 

opportunity to talk to you today about state flexibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. I have worked 

on the program for more than 20 years, and one of the most rewarding parts of my job is the opportunity to work directly with 

state officials to improve the program at the local level, including 

helping them to understand the flexibilities available to them. 

SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program. It 

currently helps 45 million low-income Americans to afford a nutritionally adequate diet. It has powerful short- and long-term impacts on low-income families and individuals. It helps families and 

communities weather tough times. It reduces poverty and food insecurity. It improves health, and supports work. The program has 

been proven particularly important to families with very young 

children, having lasting impacts on their health and development. 

SNAP’s success can largely be attributed to its national entitlement structure, its relatively uniform eligibility standards, its basic 

standards for program administration and integrity, and the fact 

that it is a food-based benefit. Although it is a national program, 

states administer SNAP, and are a key partner in the program’s 

success. States absolutely need some flexibility in SNAP because 

they operate it within a larger health and human services system, 

as you have just heard from Ms. Muth, and that can include Medicaid, child care, cash assistance, and other programs. 

So let me just highlight a few areas of flexibility that I covered 

in my written testimony. First, states can tailor the look and feel 

of SNAP to their health and human services systems, and we just 

heard about a few in Texas. The amount of SNAP benefits that 

similarly situated families receive across two states really is very 

consistent, but how they engage with and experience the state 

agency can be quite different. Some states emphasize online services, or in person, or both. Some commit to process benefit applications within hours. In other cases, it will take weeks. Some provide 

a comprehensive set of services through a single case worker, and 

in other places families are asked to go to multiple places and fill 

out redundant paperwork. These are all choices that states have. 

Second, the states have special flexibility to improve service delivery to the working poor. After the passage of the 1996 welfare 

law, states began to see that some of states’ rules were impeding 

their ability to connect eligible working families to the program, 

and as a result, Congress, through the farm bills, provided new 

state options designed to allow states to service working families, 

and these flexibilities have made a difference. States now serve 

close to 3⁄4 of eligible working poor families versus less than 1⁄2 in 

the late 1990s. And finally, states can test new ideas. USDA can 

624

waive certain SNAP requirements to test whether a change would 

be in the program’s interest. Now, I believe the Department is appropriately cautious about allowing unproven, sweeping new 

changes into the program that would compromise program integrity or program access. Nevertheless, USDA does work with early 

innovator states, and I would put Texas in that category, to test 

new ideas. 

Overall I really think Congress and USDA have struck a reasonable balance in maintaining SNAP as a high performing national 

program, while providing states with needed flexibility. States’ requests for more flexibility really have to be weighed with other considerations. Most notably, the program is highly effective at protecting vulnerable people from hunger and hardship, so state variation has to be carefully considered as to whether it will help the 

program meet that basic need, or put struggling people at greater 

risk. SNAP is fundamentally a food assistance program, and how 

it assesses what is a household, and that household’s ability to purchase food for itself is just necessarily different than how we might 

measure the same group of people’s ability and obligation to, for example, cover health insurance costs, or child care for each other. 

Federal SNAP rules require the highest level of rigor for any major 

benefit program with respect to assessing applicants’ eligibility in 

determining benefits. Many states’ request to change rules might 

save them time or burden, but would chip away at these very exacting standards. 

So I absolutely appreciate your desire to strengthen the program, 

and this hearing process. As you assess suggestions for further 

flexibility or modifications to the program, we encourage you to ensure that those proposals not undermine SNAP’s strengths. Proposals to sweep away some of the program’s key features, or that 

would shift benefits away from food, would run counter to the program’s goals and proven success. Block grants, capped funding, or 

merged funding streams all would eliminate the most important 

feature of SNAP, its national entitlement structure. Similarly, proposals that would weaken or deter access, or weaken the program’s 

strong focus on integrity, would also compromise its current success. Any of these types of changes to SNAP’s structure must be 

avoided. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dean follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STACY DEAN, VICE PRESIDENT FOR FOOD ASSISTANCE

POLICY, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Balancing State Flexibility Without Weakening SNAP’s Success 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am Stacy Dean, Vice President 

for Food Assistance Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan policy institute located here in Washington. The 

Center conducts research and analysis on a range of Federal and state policy issues 

affecting low- and moderate-income families. The Center’s food assistance work focuses on improving the effectiveness of the major Federal nutrition programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). I have worked on 

SNAP policy and operations for more than 20 years. Much of my work is providing 

technical assistance to state officials who wish to explore options and policy to improve their program operations in order to more efficiently serve eligible households. 

I also lead our work on program integration and efforts to facilitate and streamline 

low-income people’s enrollment into the package of benefits for which they are eligible. This work has included directing technical assistance to state officials through 

the Work Support Strategies Initiative run by the Urban Institute and the Center 

625

for Law and Social Policy. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities receives no 

government funding. 

My testimony today is divided into two sections: (1) SNAP’s role in our country 

as a Federal nutrition program; and (2) an overview of state flexibility and options 

in SNAP. 

SNAP Plays a Critical Role in Our Country 

Before turning to today’s hearing topic of SNAP’s state options and flexibility, it 

is important to review some of SNAP’s most critical features. The program is a highly effective anti-hunger program that is administered with relatively low overhead 

and a high degree of accuracy. Much of the program’s success is due to a consistent 

national benefit structure, rigorous requirements on states and clients to ensure a 

high degree of program integrity and a focus on providing food assistance. Congress 

and USDA have sought to provide states flexibility where it would enhance the program and without weakening SNAP’s success. 

As of November of last year, SNAP was helping more than 45 million low-income 

Americans to afford a nutritionally adequate diet by providing them with benefits 

via a debit card that can be used only to purchase food. On average, SNAP recipients receive about $1.41 per person per meal in food benefits. One in seven Americans is participating in SNAP—a figure that speaks both to the extensive need 

across our country and to SNAP’s important role in addressing it. 

Policymakers created SNAP to help low-income families and individuals purchase 

an adequate diet. It does an admirable job of providing poor households with basic 

nutritional support and has largely eliminated severe hunger and malnutrition in 

the United States. 

When the program was first established, hunger and malnutrition were much 

more serious problems in this country than they are today. A team of Field Foundation-sponsored doctors who examined hunger and malnutrition among poor children 

in the South, Appalachia, and other very poor areas in 1967 (before the Food Stamp 

Program was widespread in these areas) and again in the late 1970s (after the program had been instituted nationwide) found marked reductions over this 10 year period in serious nutrition-related problems among children. The doctors gave primary 

credit for this reduction to the Food Stamp Program (as the program was then 

named). Findings such as this led then-Senator Robert Dole to describe the Food 

Stamp Program as the most important advance in the nation’s social programs since 

the creation of Social Security. 

Consistent with its original purpose, SNAP continues to provide a basic nutrition 

benefit to low-income families, elderly, and people with disabilities who cannot afford an adequate diet. In some ways, particularly in its administration, today’s program is stronger than at any previous point. By taking advantage of modern technology and business practices, SNAP has become substantially more efficient, accurate, and effective. While many low-income Americans continue to struggle, this 

would be a very different country without SNAP. 

SNAP Protects Families From Hardship and Hunger 

SNAP benefits are an entitlement, which means that anyone who qualifies under 

the program’s rules can receive benefits. This is the program’s most powerful feature; it enables SNAP to respond quickly and effectively to support low-income families and communities during times of economic downturn and increased need. Enrollment expands when the economy weakens and contracts when the economy recovers. (See Figure 1.) 

As a result, SNAP can respond immediately to help families and to bridge temporary periods of unemployment or a family crisis. A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study of SNAP participation over the late 2000’s found that slightly 

more than 1⁄2 of all new entrants to SNAP participated for less than 1 year and then 

left the program when their immediate need passed. 

SNAP’s ability to serve as an automatic responder is also important when natural 

disasters strike. States can provide emergency SNAP within a matter of days to 

help disaster victims purchase food. In 2014 and 2015, for example, it helped households in the Southeast affected by severe storms and flooding and households on the 

west coast affected by wildfires. 

626

1 Congressional Budget Office, ‘‘The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,’’ April 2012, 

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/04-19-SNAP.pdf. 

Figure 1

SNAP Tracks Changes in Share of Population that Is Poor Or Near-Poor

Note: Poverty estimates are annual estimates and available through 

2014. SNAP share of resident population are annual averages. 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

SNAP’s caseloads grew in recent years primarily because more households qualified for SNAP because of the recession, and because more eligible households applied for help. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has confirmed that ‘‘the primary reason for the increase in the number of participants was the deep recession . . . and subsequent slow recovery; there were no significant legislative expansions of eligibility.’’ 1

While this increase in participation and spending was substantial, SNAP participation and spending have begun to decline as the economic recovery has begun to 

reach low-income SNAP participants. In 2014 and 2015 SNAP caseloads declined in 

most states; as a result, the national SNAP caseload fell by two percent both years. 

Nationally, for more than 2 years fewer people have participated in SNAP each 

month than in the same month of the prior year; about 2.5 million fewer people participated in SNAP in recent months than in December 2012, when participation 

peaked. 

As a result of this caseload decline, spending on SNAP as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell by four percent in 2015. In 2014 it fell by 11 percent, largely 

due to the expiration of the Recovery Act’s SNAP benefit increase. CBO predicts 

that this trend will continue, and that SNAP spending as a share of GDP will fall 

to its 1995 levels by 2020. 

SNAP Lessens the Extent and Severity of Poverty and Unemployment 

SNAP targets benefits on those most in need and least able to afford an adequate 

diet. Its benefit formula considers a household’s income level as well as its essential 

expenses, such as rent, medicine, and child care. Although a family’s total income 

is the most important factor affecting its ability to purchase food, it is not the only 

factor. For example, a family spending 2⁄3 of its income on rent and utilities will 

have less money to buy food than a family that has the same income but lives in 

public or subsidized housing. 

While the targeting of benefits adds some complexity to the program and is an 

area where states sometimes seek to simplify, it helps ensure that SNAP provides 

the most assistance to the poorest families with the greatest needs. 

This makes SNAP a powerful tool in fighting poverty. A CBPP analysis using the 

government’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which counts SNAP as income, and 

that corrects for underreporting of public benefits in survey data, found that SNAP 

kept 10.3 million people out of poverty in 2012, including 4.9 million children. SNAP 

lifted 2.1 million children above 50 percent of the poverty line in 2012, more than 

any other benefit program. 

SNAP is also effective in reducing extreme poverty. A recent study by the National Poverty Center estimated the number of U.S. households living on less than 


11403120.eps
627

$2 per person per day, a classification of poverty that the World Bank uses for developing nations. The study found that counting SNAP benefits as income cut the 

number of extremely poor households in 2011 by nearly 1⁄2 (from 1.6 million to 

857,000) (see Figure 2) and cut the number of extremely poor children by more than 1⁄2 (from 3.6 million to 1.2 million). 

Figure 2

SNAP Cuts Extreme Poverty Almost in 1⁄2

Number of Households With Children, in 2011, Living on $2 Or Less Per Person Per 

Day

Source: Shaefer and Edin, ‘‘Rising Extreme Poverty in the United States 

and the Response of Federal Means-Tested Transfer Programs.’’ National 

Poverty Center, University of Michigan, May 2013.

SNAP is able to achieve these results because it is so targeted at very low-income 

households. Roughly 93 percent of SNAP benefits goes to households with incomes 

below the poverty line, and 58 percent goes to households with incomes below 1⁄2

of the poverty line (about $10,045 for a family of three in 2016). (See Figure 3.) 

Figure 3

Two-Fifths of SNAP Households Are Below 1⁄2 the Poverty Line

Source: USDA Household Characteristics Data, FY 2014.


11403121.eps 11403122.eps
628

2 Hilary W. Hoynes, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Douglas Almond, ‘‘Long Run Impacts 

of Childhood Access to the Safety Net,’’ National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 

18535, 2012, www.nber.org/papers/w18535. 

During the deep recession and still-incomplete recovery, SNAP has become increasingly valuable for the long-term unemployed as it is one of the few resources 

available for jobless workers who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. 

Long-term unemployment hit record highs in the recession and remains unusually 

high; in January 2016, more than a quarter (26.9 percent) of the nation’s 7.8 million 

unemployed workers had been looking for work for 27 weeks or longer. That’s much 

higher than it’s ever been (in data back to 1948) when overall unemployment has 

been so low. 

SNAP also protects the economy as a whole by helping to maintain overall demand for food during slow economic periods. In fact, SNAP benefits are one of the 

fastest, most effective forms of economic stimulus because they get money into the 

economy quickly. Moody’s Analytics estimates that in a weak economy, every $1 increase in SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity (i.e., increase 

in economic activity and employment per budgetary dollar spent) among a broad 

range of policies for stimulating economic growth and creating jobs in a weak economy. 

SNAP Improves Long-Term Health and Self-Sufficiency 

While reducing hunger and food insecurity and lifting millions out of poverty in 

the short run, SNAP also brings important long-run benefits. 

A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study examined what happened 

when government introduced food stamps in the 1960s and early 1970s and concluded that children who had access to food stamps in early childhood and whose 

mothers had access during their pregnancy had better health outcomes as adults 

years later, compared with children born at the same time in counties that had not 

yet implemented the program. Along with lower rates of ‘‘metabolic syndrome’’ (obesity, high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes), adults who had access to food 

stamps as young children reported better health, and women who had access to food 

stamps as young children reported improved economic self-sufficiency (as measured 

by employment, income, poverty status, high school graduation, and program participation).2 (See Figure 4.) 

Figure 4

Children With Access to SNAP Fare Better Years Later 

Percentage-Point Change in Outcomes for Adults Who Received SNAP as Children, 

Compared to Adults Who Did Not Receive SNAP as Children

Source: Hoynes, Schanzenbach, and Almond, ‘‘Long Run Impacts of Childhood Access to the Safety Net,’’ National Bureau of Economic Research, November 2012. 


11403123.eps
629

Supporting and Encouraging Work 

In addition to acting as a safety net for people who are elderly, disabled, or temporarily unemployed, SNAP is designed to supplement the wages of low-income workers. 

The number of SNAP households that have earnings while participating in SNAP 

has more than tripled—from about two million in 2000 to about seven million in 

2014. The share of SNAP families that are working while receiving SNAP assistance 

has also been rising—while only about 28 percent of SNAP families with an ablebodied adult had earnings in 1990, 57 percent of those families were working in 

2014. (See Figure 5.) 

Figure 5

SNAP Work Rates Have Risen, Especially Among Households With Children 

and Adults Who Could Be Expected to Work 

Share of Households With Earnings

Source: CBPP tabulations of USDA household characteristics data.

The SNAP benefit formula contains an important work incentive. For every additional dollar a SNAP recipient earns, her benefits decline by only 24¢ to 36¢—much 

less than in most other programs. Families that receive SNAP thus have a strong 

incentive to work longer hours or to search for better-paying employment. States 

further support work through the SNAP Employment and Training program, which 

funds training and work activities for unemployed adults who receive SNAP. 

Most SNAP recipients who can work do so. Among SNAP households with at least 

one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than 1⁄2 work while receiving SNAP—and 

more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. 

The rates are even higher for families with children. (See Figure 6.) (About 2⁄3 of 

SNAP recipients are not expected to work, primarily because they are children, elderly, or disabled.) 


11403124.eps
630

3See the Fiscal Year 2014 error rates: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/quality-control. 4For both SNAP and taxes the figures represent gross estimates (i.e., before SNAP households 

repay overpayments, taxpayers make voluntary late payments, or consideration of IRS enforcement activities.) The net costs are somewhat lower. See: Internal Revenue Service, ‘‘Tax Gap 

for Tax Year 2006, Overview,’’ January 6, 2012, http://www.irs.gov/pub/newsroom/overview_tax_gap_2006.pdf. 

Figure 6

SNAP Households with Working-Age Non-Disabled Adults Have High Work 

Rates 

Work Participation During the Previous and Following Year for Households that Received SNAP in a Typical Month

Source: CBPP calculations based on 2004 SIPP Panel data. 

Strong Program Integrity 

SNAP has one of the most rigorous payment error measurement systems of any 

public benefit program. Each year states take a representative sample of SNAP 

cases (totaling about 50,000 cases nationally) and thoroughly review the accuracy 

of their eligibility and benefit decisions. Federal officials re-review a subsample of 

the cases to ensure accuracy in the error rates. States are subject to fiscal penalties 

if their error rates are persistently higher than the national average. 

The percentage of SNAP benefit dollars issued to ineligible households or to eligible households in excessive amounts fell for 7 consecutive years and stayed low in 

2014 at 2.96 percent, USDA data show. The underpayment error rate also stayed 

low at 0.69 percent. The combined payment error rate—that is, the sum of the overpayment and underpayment error rates—was 3.66 percent, low by historical standards.3 Less than one percent of SNAP benefits go to households that are ineligible. 

(See Figure 7.) 

If one subtracts underpayments (which reduce Federal costs) from overpayments, 

the net loss to the government last year from errors was 2.27 percent of benefits. 

In comparison, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates a tax noncompliance 

rate of 16.9 percent in 2006 (the most recently studied year). This represents a $450 

billion loss to the Federal Government in 1 year. Underreporting of business income 

alone cost the Federal Government $122 billion in 2006, and small businesses report 

less than 1⁄2 of their income.4


11403125.eps
631

Figure 7

SNAP Error Rates Near All-Time Lows 

Fiscal Years 1990–2014

Source: Quality Control Branch, U.S. Food and Nutrition Service.

The overwhelming majority of SNAP errors that do occur result from mistakes by 

recipients, eligibility workers, data entry clerks, or computer programmers, not dishonesty or fraud by recipients. In addition, states have reported that almost 60 percent of the dollar value of overpayments and almost 90 percent of the dollar value 

of underpayments were their fault, rather than recipients’ fault. Much of the rest 

of overpayments resulted from innocent errors by households facing a program with 

complex rules. 

Finally, SNAP has low administrative overhead. About 90 percent of Federal 

SNAP spending goes to providing benefits to households for purchasing food. Of the 

remaining ten percent, about seven percent was used for state and Federal administrative costs, including eligibility determinations, employment and training and nutrition education for SNAP households, and anti-fraud activities. About three percent went for other food assistance programs, such as the block grant for food assistance in Puerto Rico and American Samoa, commodity purchases for the Emergency 

Food Assistance Program (which helps food pantries and soup kitchens across the 

country), and commodities for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. 

Figure 8

90 Percent of Federal SNAP Spending Is for Benefits

Source: Department of Agriculture, Fiscal Year 2015. 

Note: Other nutrition programs include spending on nutrition assistance 

grants for territories, support for food banks, and the Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations. 


11403126.eps 11403127.eps
632

5 CBPP analysis of the Census Bureau’s March 2015 Current Population Survey. See Jennifer 

Wagner and Alicia Huguelet, ‘‘Opportunities for States to Coordinate Medicaid and SNAP Renewals,’’ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 5, 2016, http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/opportunities-for-states-to-coordinate-medicaid-and-snap-renewals. 

Balancing State Flexibility With Effective National Standards 

While SNAP is a national program with relatively uniform eligibility standards 

and basic parameters for program administration and program integrity, it is administered by states, which share in the costs of administering the program. States 

are a key partner in the program’s success and one of their primary considerations 

is that they do not administer SNAP in a vacuum or under a consistent set of local 

circumstances. All states have integrated SNAP into their broader health and/or 

human service systems for both efficiency and service considerations. In most 

places, SNAP is co-administered with many other programs. 

While Medicaid is the program with the most significant overlap with SNAP 

(about 3⁄4 of households receiving SNAP benefits in 2014 had at least one member 

receiving health coverage through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program),5 states also co-administer SNAP with other programs including child care, 

cash assistance, and refugee assistance. That means that they often are using the 

same set of staff, computer systems, local offices, and forms for many different programs. States are constantly working to integrate the major safety net programs 

into a coherent package for families, in order to support their stability while improving efficiency and program integrity. 

As a result, the program provides states with flexibility in how they operate the 

program to respond to local circumstances, particularly with respect to harmonizing 

SNAP operations with Medicaid and other local programs. 

In other cases, states have identified program rules that conflict with the program’s core goals. One of the key examples of this was in the late 1990’s after the 

passage of the 1996 welfare reform law. As many low-income families with children 

were leaving cash assistance as a result of policy changes to that program and the 

booming economy, states also saw a drop-off in food stamp enrollment that could 

not be explained by a drop in the share of eligible individuals. Many families were 

leaving cash assistance for work but were not earning wages that would disqualify 

them from SNAP. States began to see that some of SNAP’s eligibility and administrative requirements were undermining their ability to serve working-poor families. 

As a result, Congress enacted numerous new state options in the 2002 and 2008 

Farm Bills designed to allow states to improve service to working families. 

And, states often have ideas for ways to improve program administration or design that were not envisioned by Congress or USDA and that merit accommodation 

or testing. In many cases, the program allows for local customization. When flexibility is not explicitly provided, USDA has the authority to waive its SNAP requirements when it believes the requested change would be in the program’s best interest. Typically, USDA is cautious about allowing unproven sweeping new changes 

into the program. The department often seeks early innovators to test ideas and 

then identifies the best means to integrate (or reject) the ideas as state options. 

Congress and USDA have had to weigh states’ and localities’ requests for flexibility with other core values and considerations, most notably:

• At its core, SNAP is a food assistance program. How it assesses what comprises 

a household, and a household’s ability to purchase food, is necessarily different 

than how we might measure the same group of people’s obligation and ability 

to provide for each other’s health care or child care.

• SNAP is a national program meant to respond as consistently as possible to the 

needs of low-income people and families who cannot afford a basic diet no matter where they live. Currently, families with the same economic circumstances 

in two states can expect the same level of SNAP benefits under this national 

framework. The same is not true of many state-operated human services and 

income support programs. In fact, SNAP plays a key role in leveling out the disparate level of wages and support available to poor families and individuals 

across states.

• The program is a highly effective intervention that protects vulnerable families, 

seniors, people with disabilities, and others from hunger and hardship. Flexibility and state variation must be carefully considered as to whether it will augment the program’s ability to meet these basic needs or put needy people at 

greater risk.

• SNAP benefits are paid entirely by the Federal Government. Federal SNAP 

rules require the highest level of rigor of any major benefit program; with reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
633

spect to assessing eligibility and determining benefit levels to ensure that states 

are properly administering Federal funds. And, SNAP rules generally require 

a detailed assessment of a household’s current financial situation. Few other 

programs operated by states meet these standards.

• A consistent framework for customer service standards, such as the requirements for states to process applications within 30 days of receipt and for households to provide documentation of their income and circumstances, is important 

to ensure a shared sense of program requirements across states. Early experience with the program demonstrated that states were extremely uneven in how 

they operated the program and, in some cases, access was extremely limited.

There can be a tension between remaining true to SNAP’s goals of addressing food 

insecurity and hunger and providing states with flexibility to set SNAP policy. 

While the discussion and debate around the appropriate level of state flexibility is 

an ongoing one, I believe that Congress and USDA have struck a reasonable balance 

in maintaining SNAP as a high performing national program while according states 

sufficient flexibility. The program has valued maintaining a generally consistent national eligibility and benefit structure that demands a high level of rigor and integrity when assessing eligibility, as well as a common framework of what’s expected 

of clients and states in administering the program. Flexibility has been provided in 

a number of areas detailed in the section below. 

As you assess suggestions for further flexibility or modifications to the program, 

we encourage you to ensure that those proposals do not undermine SNAP’s 

strengths as a food assistance program targeted to individuals and families with the 

least ability to purchase food. Proposals to sweep away some of SNAP’s key features 

or that would shift benefits away from food assistance to other purposes would run 

counter to the program’s goals and proven success. Block grants, capped funding, 

or merged funding streams all would eliminate the most important features of 

SNAP—its national entitlement structure. Any of these types of changes to SNAP’s 

structure must be avoided. 

To be sure, despite the level of flexibility offered in SNAP, it is less flexible than 

various other programs state-administered health and human services programs. 

Programs with capped Federal funding such as the child care development block 

grant or the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant offer 

states more flexibility in setting program rules. Of course, those programs are extremely limited in in their reach and impact. And, programs that states administer 

that require a significant state financial contribution, such as Medicaid, establish 

basic minimum Federal standards but give states flexibility to expand the program’s 

eligibility and benefit package as well as tailor administration and operations within 

more general Federal guidelines. Because states also operate these other programs, 

SNAP can strike them as significantly less flexible by comparison. 

Areas of Flexibility in SNAP 

SNAP’s statute, regulations, and waivers provide state agencies with various policy options. State agencies use this flexibility to adapt their programs to meet the 

needs of their eligible, low-income residents. Certain options may facilitate program 

design goals, such as removing or reducing barriers to access for low-income families 

and individuals, or providing better support for those working or looking for work. 

Others focus on streamlining and coordinating SNAP with other programs, such as 

Medicaid. This flexibility helps states better target benefits to those most in need, 

streamline program administration and field operations, and coordinate SNAP activities with those of other programs. 

The following are several categories of flexibility within the program, with examples of the types of flexibility available in each category. The list is meant to provide 

a flavor of the available options versus providing an exhaustive catalogue within 

each category. 

Options that Provide Flexibility in Eligibility or Benefit Calculation Policy 

As a part of and since the passage of the 1996 welfare law, Congress has offered 

states several options to adopt less restrictive eligibility and benefit calculation 

rules in SNAP in order to coordinate SNAP with other programs, such as TANF 

cash assistance and Medicaid. In addition, this flexibility has made it much easier 

for states to serve working families.

• Vehicle asset test: Federal rules for counting the value of cars and other vehicles toward SNAP eligibility are restrictive and outdated. The Food Stamp Act 

of 1977 required states to count the fair market value of a car as a resource 

to the extent that it exceeded $4,500, an amount not indexed to inflation that 

has been raised by only $150 in almost 40 years. Because Federal policy was 

634

6Peter Ganong and Jeffrey B. Liebman, ‘‘The Decline, Rebound, and Further Rise in SNAP 

Enrollment: Disentangling Business Cycle Fluctuations and Policy Changes,’’ National Bureau 

of Economic Research, Working Paper 19363, August 2013, http://www.nber.org/papers/

w19363.pdf?new_window=1. See Dottie Rosenbaum and Brynne Keith-Jennings, ‘‘SNAP Costs 

and Caseloads Declining,’’ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, updated February 10, 2016, 

http://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-costs-and-caseloads-declining.

viewed as preventing low-income households, especially working families, from 

owning reliable means of transportation, and because many states had addressed this concern in other programs for which they set eligibility rules, in 

2000 Congress gave states flexibility to craft a food stamp vehicle asset rule 

that suits their needs. Instead of the Federal rules, states may use in SNAP 

the method for valuing vehicles that the state has established under a TANFfunded cash or non-cash assistance program so long as it is not more restrictive 

than Federal food stamp rules. After this change, many states imported into 

SNAP the vehicle rules they used in their TANF cash assistance or TANF-funded child care programs. Within a few years of the change, every state had modified its rules for counting the value of vehicles so that participants could own 

a more reliable car.

• Categorical eligibility: The 1996 welfare law provided states with an option 

to align two aspects of SNAP eligibility rules—the gross income eligibility limit 

and the asset test—with the eligibility rules they use in programs financed 

under their TANF block grant. Over 40 states have adopted this option to simplify their programs, reduce administrative costs, and broaden SNAP eligibility 

to certain families in need, primarily low-wage working families.

States use the categorical eligibility option to enable households with gross

incomes modestly above 130 percent of the poverty line (up to 200 percent of 

poverty in a few states) but disposable income below the poverty line—or with savings modestly above $2,250 (an asset limit that has declined by about 50 

percent in real, i.e., inflation-adjusted, terms since 1986)—to qualify for SNAP 

assistance in recognition of their need. 

In states that take the option, households must still apply through the regular application process, which has rigorous procedures for documenting applicants’ income and circumstances. But the option allows states to provide SNAP 

to certain working families with children or to households that have built a 

modest amount of savings who otherwise would not qualify for help affording 

food.

» Flexibility with the gross income limit favors low-income households with 

modest incomes and high living expenses. About $9 of every $10 in SNAP 

benefits that are provided to low-income households who qualify for SNAP because their state uses this option are provided to low-income working households. About $8 of every $10 in such benefits go to families with children. 

About 2⁄3 of these benefits go to households with gross income below 150 percent of the Federal poverty line.

» Without this option, states cannot provide SNAP to poor families who have 

managed to save as little as $2,251 or to seniors or people with disabilities 

who have saved as little as $3,251. Building assets helps low-income households invest in their future, avert a financial crisis that can push them deeper 

into poverty or even lead them to become homeless, avoid accumulating debt 

that can impede economic mobility, and have a better chance of avoiding poverty and greater reliance on government in old age.

Despite some claims, categorical eligibility was not the major driver of increased caseloads during the recent economic downturn. The economy and increased poverty as well as a rise in the participation rate among eligible people 

were the overwhelming drivers of caseload increases during the recession. 

Economists Peter Ganong and Jeffrey Liebman found that increased adoption 

of broad-based categorical eligibility accounted for eight percent of the caseload 

increase. (Because households eligible as a result of broad-based categorical eligibility receive lower-than-average benefits, this change accounted for a smaller 

share of the cost increase during the same period.) 6

• Transitional benefits: A change in the 2002 Farm Bill allows states to provide 

up to 5 months of transitional SNAP benefits to families that leave states’ 

TANF cash assistance programs. The provision was enacted in response to research that found that fewer than 1⁄2 of households that left TANF cash assistance stayed connected to SNAP, despite earning low wages and (in most cases) 

remaining eligible for SNAP benefits. The option allows states to continue a 

635

7 ‘‘Imposing a Time Limit on Food Stamp Receipt: Implementation of the Provision and Effects 

on Participation,’’ Mathematica Policy Research, 2001, available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/

sites/default/files/abawd.pdf. 8 Ed Bolen, et al., ‘‘More Than 500,000 Adults Will Lose SNAP Benefits in 2016 as Waivers 

Expire,’’ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, updated January 21, 2016, http://

www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/more-than-500000-adults-will-lose-snap-benefits-in2016-as-waivers-expire. 

family’s SNAP benefits when a family gains a job and leaves TANF cash assistance, based on information the state already has and without requiring the family to reapply or submit additional paperwork at that time. The continuity of 

SNAP can reward work and help make clear to families that SNAP is available 

to low-income families that do not receive cash assistance. Helping families retain benefits can help make the transition to work more successful and ensure 

that families are better off working than on welfare. In 2013, 20 states had 

adopted the option.

• Simplified income and resources: Two other provisions of the 2002 Farm 

Bill allowed states to simplify which income and resources count toward SNAP 

eligibility by excluding uncommon forms of income and/or resources that they 

exclude in their TANF cash assistance or Medicaid programs. More than 1⁄2 the 

states have taken advantage of the option to exclude such income or resources. 

The change has allowed states to simplify forms and reduce the administrative 

burdens of tracking down and verifying these obscure forms of income or assets. 

State Options Within SNAP’s 3 Month Time Limit 

Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) are limited to 3 months of 

SNAP in any 3 year period unless they are working at least half time, participating 

in a qualifying job training activities for an average of 20 hours a week, or doing 

workfare. States and localities are not required to help the affected people find jobs 

or provide a place in a job training program that would allow them to keep benefits. 

Very few do so, leaving it to the participants to find enough work or training to keep 

their benefits. As a result, states’ first choice within the time limit policy is whether 

to operate the rule as a work requirement—whereby they provide work slots to 

those willing to work—or as a time limit where they cut off individuals after 3 

months regardless of their willingness to work and whether they are searching for 

a job. Most elect to operate the rule as a time limit. 

As a result, the 3 month time limit for childless, non-disabled adults who are unable to find 20 hours a week of work is one of the harshest provisions in SNAP. 

By 2000, 3 years after it was first implemented, an estimated 900,000 individuals 

had lost benefits. Since the time limit has been in effect, it has severely restricted 

this group’s access to the program.7 Many of those who have lost benefits have faced 

serious hardship and have not been eligible for other kinds of public assistance. 

In addition to the choice of whether to operate the rule as a time limit or a work 

requirement, states have two main options within this program rule:

• Waivers for areas with sustained levels of relatively high unemployment. The authors of the provision in 1996, Reps. Kasich and Ney, included 

some modest state flexibility related to this provision. States can waive the time 

limit in areas with high unemployment, meaning that individuals residing in 

a waived area are not subject to the time limit. States request these waivers 

by submitting evidence to FNS that areas within the state, such as counties, 

cities, or tribal reservations, have high and sustained unemployment.

In the past few years, the 3 month limit hasn’t been in effect in many states. 

Many states qualified to waive the time limit throughout the state due to high 

unemployment rates during and since the Great Recession. But as unemployment rates have fallen, fewer areas are qualifying for statewide waivers (though 

in most states there are some counties or other localities that remain eligible 

for waivers because they continue to have high unemployment). 

In 2016, the time limit will be in effect in more than 40 states. In 23 states, 

it will be the first time the time limit has been in effect since before the recession. (See Figure 9.) Of these states, 19 must reimpose the time limit in at least 

part of the state; another four are electing to reimpose the time limit despite 

qualifying for a statewide waiver from the time limit because of continued high 

unemployment.8

636

Figure 9

States Newly Implementing SNAP Time Limits in 2016

Note: These are states that had o statewide waiver of the time limit for 

childless adults aged 18–49 without disabilities in 2015, but are implementing the time limit in some or all of the state beginning January 2016. 

The other states either began implementing the time limit in 2015 or earlier, or are eligible for and will waive the entire state from the time limit 

in 2016.

• Individual exemptions. In addition to the mandated exemptions from the 

time limit (for example, disability and pregnancy), states have additional flexibility to set their own exemption criteria. Each year, a state can exempt roughly 

15 percent of its caseload that is subject to the time limit. Once a year, FNS 

estimates the number of ABAWDs who are subject to the 3 month time limit 

who are not living in a waived area and calculates exemptions representing 15 

percent of that number. Each exemption may be used to exempt one individual 

for 1 month, though states can grant continuing exemptions to a single individual to exempt that person for a number of months. Many states find this 

flexibility difficult to use and do not take advantage of this option at all. 

State Options Within Disqualification and Sanction Policy 

SNAP gives states flexibility, within federally proscribed parameters, to tailor 

SNAP’s disqualification and sanction policy for participants’ noncompliance with certain program rules, including work requirements. The 1996 welfare law included 

several state options to ensure that states could coordinate sanction policy across 

cash and food assistance and options for additional SNAP-only sanctions.

• State options to conform SNAP sanctions with TANF work rules. The 

1996 welfare law included three state options to ensure that SNAP work rules 

and sanctions complement, rather than undermine, the rules states establish in 

their TANF cash assistance programs. First, states have the option to disqualify 

an individual from SNAP if she or he has been disqualified from TANF for failure to comply with TANF work requirements. States also have the option to decrease a household’s SNAP benefits by up to 25 percent when the household’s 

TANF benefits have been cut due to non-compliance with a TANF work requirement. Finally, states must impose SNAP sanctions on certain TANF households 

who do not comply with TANF work requirements. States have an option to disqualify SNAP benefits for the entire family for up to 6 months (unless the family has a child under age 6).

• State options for sanctions for non-compliance with SNAP work requirements. For SNAP households that do not include TANF recipients, the 

1996 welfare law also gave states more discretion over penalties for violating 

SNAP’s various work-related requirements (which are separate and distinct 

from the 3 month time limit that childless adults face.) Under SNAP’s rules, 


11403128.eps
637

an individual who does not comply with SNAP’s work requirements is ineligible 

for a designated period of time, with the duration of the sanction increasing 

with successive offenses. States have options for how many months the disqualification lasts and whether to terminate SNAP for just that individual or the entire household (for up to 6 months).

• Behavior-related sanctions. States have several state options related to behavior other than work.

» First, for TANF recipients who are sanctioned for violating a TANF requirement related to conduct other than a work requirement (i.e., where a family’s 

children who are students are required to stay in school or risk losing some 

of the households’ cash assistance benefit) the household cannot receive increased SNAP benefits because of the TANF benefit cut and states may cut 

the household’s SNAP benefit by up to 25 percent or import the TANF disqualification into SNAP (for the individual disqualified from TANF).

» States may disqualify from SNAP parents who are not complying with Child 

Support Enforcement. This includes custodial parents who are not cooperating with states’ efforts to establish the paternity of the child and obtain 

support payments, and non-custodial parents who are not cooperating or paying child support. States also have the option to sanction non-custodial parents who are in arrears on their child support payments.

• Prohibition on convicted drug felons participating in the program. A 

provision of the 1996 welfare law permanently disqualifies individuals from 

SNAP (and TANF) if they are convicted of a state or Federal felony related to 

possession, distribution, or use of controlled substances after August 1996 (the 

date of enactment of the welfare law). States may pass legislation to opt out 

of this provision. They also may impose certain conditions on former felons who 

seek SNAP. For example, a state may require the individual to periodically submit to a drug test. Or a state may opt to impose the ban on people whose offense was selling (rather than only possessing) drugs. Several states, including 

Alabama, Missouri, and Texas, have recently modified the drug felon ban (almost 20 years after it went into effect) as part of broad criminal justice reforms.

It is important to note that the primary goal of sanctions is to provide a mechanism to help bring the household into compliance with what is being asked of them 

rather than as a means to punish households who fail to perform required tasks. 

Very little research has been undertaken in SNAP to assess the overall effectiveness 

of sanctions on incentivizing the desired results. Research in the TANF program 

suggests that a large proportion of families that are sanctioned for failing to comply 

with program activities are those with barriers to employment such as health and 

substance abuse problems or low levels of education. These findings suggest that 

work barriers can impede a recipient’s ability to meet program requirements and 

may be the cause of the failure to comply with requirements, rather than a willful 

refusal to comply. This may be because the particular work activities to which a recipient has been assigned are inappropriate, based on her individual circumstances, 

or that appropriate supportive services to help the recipient overcome her employment barriers are not in place. Placement in an inappropriate activity could arise 

because the states failed to identify the recipient as having a barrier, or a state may 

not have appropriate activities available for individuals whom it identifies as having 

particular barriers to employment. 

Application Requirement Flexibility 

In addition to flexibility regarding certain eligibility and benefit rules, SNAP affords states considerable flexibility, within Federal standards, in the application and 

certification requirements they apply to households (for example, how often states 

require households to reapply for benefits, and which households they offer a telephone interview at application in lieu of a face-to-face interview.) This is an area 

of the program where the ‘‘flavor and feel’’ of the program can vary quite a bit 

across states. 

This flexibility is bounded by program integrity standards and backed up by fiscal 

penalties on states for poor payment accuracy. SNAP’s Quality Control (QC) system 

has long been one of the most rigorous systems of any public benefit program in 

ensuring payment accuracy. Every month states select a representative sample of 

SNAP cases (totaling about 50,000 cases nationally over the year) and have independent state reviewers check the accuracy of the state’s eligibility and benefit decisions within Federal guidelines. Federal officials then re-review a subsample of the 

cases to ensure accuracy in the error rates. States are subject to fiscal penalties if 

their error rates are persistently above the national average. 

638

In many areas, because of this rigorous QC backstop, Federal rules allow states 

flexibility in the procedures they apply to households. For example:

• Certification period length. States have options for how often they require 

households to reapply and have their eligibility reassessed. Federal rules require households be certified for fixed periods of time. States must require most 

households to reapply for SNAP at least annually, though states may allow 

households with more stable circumstances (i.e., households with elderly or disabled members who have fixed incomes) to reapply every 2 years. Within these 

Federal rules states have flexibility for determining how often different types 

of households must reapply.

• Reporting changes. SNAP participants also are required to keep the state informed between eligibility reviews about certain changes in household circumstances (such as in income or household members). Federal rules present 

two basic reporting systems—change reporting (changes must be reported within 10 days), and periodic reporting (which requires reports periodically, usually 

every 6 months, though states may require reports monthly)—and allow states 

to determine which households they assign to which type of system. SNAP 

households are frequently subject to other programs’ reporting requirements as 

well, most notably Medicaid but also child care and cash assistance through 

TANF or Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

• In-person or telephone interviews. SNAP rules require households to be 

interviewed at initial certification, and most households must be interviewed at 

least once a year thereafter. In recent years, in recognition of the burden that 

traveling to a local office can present to working families, seniors, and people 

with disabilities, and those with limited access to transportation, FNS has given 

states more flexibility in determining which households must visit an office for 

an in-person interview and for which households a telephone interview may be 

conducted.

• Verification. In SNAP certain items such as income, identity, and questionable 

information must be verified, either through a data match, household documents, or a contact with a reliable source. But states have a wide degree of latitude on what other items they require to be verified.

As mentioned, all of these choices operate within Federal standards, and the rigorous QC system provides assurances that states make carefully considered choices 

that protect Federal fiscal interests. 

State Operations and Basic Business Model 

Like with application and certification rules, states have a wide degree of flexibility for how they set up their SNAP program operations. Federal rules proscribe 

certain basic customer service standards; for example, most eligible households are 

expected to be provided benefits within 30 days of application (and, for the most destitute within 7 days). And, of course, states cannot discriminate, cannot turn people 

seeking help away, and must comply with other laws that protect privacy and people with disabilities, for example. 

But beyond these basic protections and standards, states have enormous flexibility to tailor their program operations—for example, how they staff their offices, 

coordinate with other programs, and deliver SNAP benefits. As a result, SNAP participants experience a wide range of different programs across the United States, 

and even within a given state, different counties and local offices may differ dramatically in their look and feel. Below are a series of examples of state flexibility 

in operations.

• Office structures. States have wide latitude over how they staff and structure 

their offices and develop and operate their own technology systems. So, for example, many, but all not all, states have online applications and other services 

such as the ability for applicants and participants to check their benefits online. 

Some states use call centers to centralize telephone operations, while others 

route inquiry calls to local eligibility offices.

• Staffing model. States can assign households to a particular eligibility worker 

or can operate on a ‘‘task model,’’ more like an assembly line, where staff share 

cases and different workers specialize in different certification activities, such 

as intake, interviewing, and case processing. Some might assign specially 

trained staff to address the particular needs of seniors or refugee groups. Some 

states make broad use of clerical staff, while others fully train almost all staff 

on the program’s eligibility rules.

639

• Coordination with other programs. States may offer SNAP as a stand-alone 

program, or may coordinate SNAP eligibility with other human services programs. Almost every state coordinates eligibility for SNAP with eligibility for 

TANF cash assistance (though employment and training may be separate), and 

about 40 states coordinate with health coverage through Medicaid. Some states 

also operate their energy assistance, child care, and/or refugee assistance programs in the same offices and using the same staff and eligibility systems as 

SNAP.

• Business process philosophy. Some states handle applications, mandated renewals or matches that require resolution as they come to the state. Other 

states seek to anticipate work and get ahead of it. For example if a client calls 

to report a change, a call-center worker might also check to see if the client is 

due for a renewal soon. If so, the worker could use that opportunity to conduct 

a quick interview with the client, run data matches and successfully complete 

the renewal. This proactive approach typically reduces workload for the state 

and provides better service to citizens.

• Speed of application processing. Even within the 7 and 30 day Federal processing standards, states vary significantly on how quickly they determine eligibility. Some states, for example Idaho, focus on same-day services—aiming to 

‘‘touch’’ each case only once, and finalize the eligibility determination for as 

many cases as possible the same day. Other states take the full 30 days allowed 

under Federal rules, waiting several weeks to schedule interviews and process 

verification. Both types of states are operating within Federal standards.

• Benefit issuance. States also have flexibility in how they time benefit 

issuance. Each household receives its benefits monthly, but some states spread 

the date of issuance out over the first week of the month or the first 20 days, 

for example.

• Technology. One of the areas where states diverge the most from each other 

is the quality of their technology. Some states use a single modernized computer 

system across multiple programs. These systems offer them the ability to undertake speedy data matches (while on the phone with a client), review scanned 

client documents, chat with clients and accurately apply current eligibility 

rules. Work can be moved to where resources are available because it is all 

digitized. Clients have access to online accounts where they can transact business and may even have a mobile app on their phones where they can upload 

documents or quickly answer the states’ questions. Call centers answer the 

phone within minutes and have access to the necessary information to complete 

tasks with clients over the phone rather than forcing the client to take time off 

of work and travel to the local welfare office. Other states are working with decades-old systems, paper files, traditional phones (i.e., no headsets for workers 

on the phone) and have to wait for batch matching with third-party data systems such as the Social Security system to be undertaken by a central office. 

These differences are substantial and have a large impact on how the state conducts its business and how flexible and nimble it can be. For states with old 

computer systems, the reprogramming necessary to simplify program rules or 

align SNAP with other programs can be very difficult, if not impossible, or take 

years to implement. 

Regulatory Waiver Authority 

Under Federal law, USDA can allow states to waive certain SNAP regulatory requirements in an effort to test innovative ways to improve program efficiency and 

to enhance client access. FNS has approved countless waivers using this authority. 

It keeps a public database of regulatory waivers; currently, there appear to be over 

400 approved waivers. 

For example, states have waivers to issue electronic notices to households that request them, in lieu of paper notices and to dispense with requirements on scheduling interviews if they commit to interview applicants ‘‘on demand’’ when they call 

a call center. Other examples are modest variations on benefit policy such as with 

respect to the calculation for how to average a student’s work hours. We would expect that early testing on electronic notices with a few states would result in guidance to all states on the use of such notices if they wish to use them. Similarly, 

the waivers on averaging student work hours might result in a revised policy that 

reflects states’ requests for more flexibility in that area. 

Demonstration Waiver Authority 

SNAP law has many state options built into its basic structure. In addition, in 

1996, as part of the welfare law, Congress substantially expanded the program’s 

640

9Dorothy Rosenbaum, ‘‘States Have Significant Flexibility in the Food Stamp Program,’’ Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 17, 2002, http://www.cbpp.org/archives/6-17-

02fs.htm. 

waiver authority to allow for greater state experimentation in SNAP. States can 

seek waivers to change virtually any aspect of the benefit structure and delivery 

system. The few limitations that Congress decided to retain after careful consideration are necessary to preserve the program’s fiscal integrity and to maintain SNAP 

as a nutritional safety net. 

For example, to preserve fiscal integrity, the 1996 welfare law prohibited states 

from waiving the requirement that states contribute 1⁄2 of administrative costs. 

Without this restriction, states could seek waivers that entail cutting benefits and 

converting the savings into an enhanced administrative matching rate. Similarly, 

states cannot waive the prohibition against giving SNAP to residents of most institutions. Without this prohibition, states could use benefits to fund meals in state 

prisons or mental hospitals and offset the costs through SNAP benefit cuts. 

To maintain the nutritional safety net, a handful of critical program rules cannot 

be waived. These include:

• The individual entitlement to benefits for eligible persons who are not violating 

work or other conduct requirements. Without this protection, states could make 

various categories of households ineligible for benefits or establish waiting lists 

in order to secure a source of funds for other purposes.

• The gross income limit for households that do not include elderly and disabled 

members. Without this prohibition, states could reduce benefits for poor and 

near-poor households to provide benefits for some groups of households at higher income levels, or could reduce the income limit for everyone to shift resources 

from SNAP benefits to other uses.

• Provision of timely service, such as the right to apply for SNAP when a household first contacts the SNAP office and to receive benefits within 30 days if eligible. Without these provisions, households in severe need could have to wait 

for long periods before receiving assistance.

Another important provision in current waiver authority appropriately distinguishes between demonstration projects that operate in several counties and are designed to test new approaches and waivers that simply allow a state to alter on a 

statewide basis a Federal policy it does not favor. In the first type of waiver, which 

represents the type of approach followed over the years in a number of carefully 

evaluated pilot projects in various low-income programs, states are allowed broad 

discretion to alter the program’s benefit structure. (States may not make entire categories of low-income households ineligible for SNAP if these households are fully 

complying with all work and other behavioral requirements, but they can test 

changes that result in large changes in the benefits levels for which households 

qualify.) In the latter type of waiver involving statewide policy changes, states can 

still change many program rules, but there is a limit on the proportion of a state’s 

caseload whose benefits can be cut by more than 20 percent.9

This provision was included in the 1996 welfare law to ensure that waivers cannot 

simply eliminate or sharply reduce SNAP on a statewide basis for major categories 

of low-income households so long as the households are faithfully complying with 

program rules. Congress included it as an appropriate protection for a program that 

is designed to enable poor families and individuals to obtain a minimum adequate 

diet and in which the Federal Government pays 100 percent of the benefit costs. 

Examples of demonstration waivers under this authority include demonstrations 

to test:

• the impact of simplifying the process by which eligible households can claim the 

medical expense deduction, and

• a simplified application process for seniors who qualify for SSI to be enrolled 

into SNAP.

While not required under Federal law, USDA has consistently required that these 

demonstration projects be cost neutral to the Federal Government to ensure that 

this authority is not abused to expand or contract the program. 

SNAP Employment and Training Programs 

SNAP employment and training (E&T) is one of the most flexible program features of SNAP. This ensures that states can design programs that are suited to 

their local economic conditions in terms of which populations they target with services, what services to offer, and in which localities. The primary limitation states 

641

experience under employment and training is limited Federal grant funds. States 

are, however, eligible for unlimited Federal matching funds to double state investments in operate SNAP employment and training programs. Under SNAP rules, all 

adult recipients are required to register for work unless they are elderly, disabled, 

caring for a child under age 6, already complying with a TANF or unemployment 

compensation work requirement, or otherwise not expected to work. States have 

very broad discretion to require work registrants to look for jobs, to participate in 

employment and training activities, or to work off their benefits. 

In 1996, Congress restructured the SNAP E&T program to serve primarily unemployed childless adults. As mentioned above, under the welfare law, such individuals 

may receive SNAP benefits for only 3 months out of any 3 year period unless they 

are participating in a work program. States criticized the provisions directing most 

Federal SNAP E&T money to unemployed childless adults as overly restrictive, and 

the reauthorization legislation enacted in May 2002 as part of the farm bill returned 

the E&T program to its prior, more flexible design. States once again have almost 

complete flexibility over how they operate their E&T programs. They may determine 

which populations to serve (for example, parents in families with children or unemployed childless adults) and select what types of employment and training services 

to provide. They may access Federal matching funds for these employment and 

training services and related work support services, including transportation and 

child care. 

As part of the 201[4] Farm Bill, Congress authorized ten pilot projects to test 

whether SNAP E&T could more effectively connect unemployed and underemployed 

recipients to work. The selected pilots, announced in March 2015, include a mix of 

mandatory and voluntary E&T programs. Several of the pilots target individuals 

who face significant barriers to employment, including homeless adults, the longterm unemployed, individuals in the correctional system, and individuals with substance addiction. Each pilot involves multiple partners to connect workers to resources and services already available in the community. These pilots will help both 

states and the Federal Government understand how SNAP E&T can best contribute 

to recipients ultimately securing jobs that provide economic security and end their 

need for SNAP. 

Other Flexibilities 

As I noted above, this section is meant to give a sense of the categories of flexibility in the program rather than a comprehensive catalogue of all the state options 

and choices within SNAP. Within each category there are other examples, many of 

them less significant or less popular than the listed items. And, other program features provide flexibility as well. SNAP provides a nutrition education grant to states 

under which states can pursue nutrition education programming of their choice so 

long as it is evidence based. States also have flexibility in establishing and operating outreach services to help connect eligible but unenrolled individuals and families with SNAP. And, if a state experiences a natural disaster, states have the option to establish special disaster-SNAP (D–SNAP) that is customized to the needs 

in the impacted community within certain parameters. 

States Are Not Always Aware of SNAP’s Flexibility 

I have worked on SNAP for more than 20 years. Much of my work is providing 

technical assistance to state officials who wish to explore options to improve their 

program operations. It has been my great pleasure to visit local offices and work 

with states all around the country. Most recently, I led technical assistance to states 

as a part of the Work Support Strategies Initiative (WSS)—a multi-year, multi-state 

initiative to help low-income working families obtain the package of work supports 

for which they are eligible, while enabling states to streamline administration. WSS 

worked directly with Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and 

South Carolina since 2011. Through grants and expert technical assistance, WSS 

helps states reform and align their systems for delivering work-support programs 

intended to increase families’ well-being and stability—particularly SNAP, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and child care assistance 

through the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Through WSS, states seek 

to streamline and integrate service delivery, use 21st Century technology, and apply 

innovative business practices to improve administrative efficiency and reduce burdens on both states and working families. 

Based on my experience, many states are not fully aware of the level of flexibility 

available to them. They often assume that their states’ SNAP program rules are 

mandated by the Federal Government. Instead, their program is a mixture of Federal rules and a set of choices by their predecessors in the state that was informed 

by circumstances or limitations that may no longer be relevant. This is particularly 

642

true of state computer systems—when states purchase systems that are inflexible, 

they often call on the Federal agencies to provide flexibility to let them align the 

programs with their technology. 

It also can be difficult for state officials to assess which rules were mandated and 

which are the result of prior state choices—now codified in state manuals and computer programming. This doesn’t mean there aren’t Federal requirements in SNAP 

and other health and human services programs—there certainly are. But, often 

states perceive SNAP as far more rigid than it is. One of the biggest areas that 

states struggle with is how to coordinate policies and procedures across programs. 

Perfect alignment isn’t possible, but there’s far more opportunity for coordination 

than many realize. We saw this recently when we interviewed states and conducted 

site visits on how states coordinate SNAP and Medicaid renewals. In many cases, 

the limitations of their computer systems were driving policy decisions, rather than 

policy choices driving the state’s computer system design. 

As states work to better coordinate their systems, they are discovering that there 

is often far more flexibility in Federal programs to align and coordinate, or crossleverage, information than they thought. Often disconnects are the result of their 

own making or a lack of understanding of the flexibility available to them. Other 

times, differences between programs are by design and originate from the programs’ 

differing goals. And, there are times when states discover differences between programs that raise reasonable questions. For example, several states have asked if 

they can use the wage and unemployment data that employers report to states and 

Social Security Administration to help verify household income as the basis for eligibility and benefit-level determination. Traditionally, this would not be allowed in 

SNAP because the data would be consider too old (up to 4 or 5 months) to use as 

a current assessment of household circumstances. Nevertheless, USDA is allowing 

a few states to test this approach in an effort to determine if this approach is workable, particularly for households with very stable income. Another example is that 

Medicaid allows and encourages states to use third-party data matches to verify income even if the information is a little dated, while SNAP historically has required 

states to gather current information, even from households with very stable employment arrangements. In such a case, the Federal Government can grant states waivers from Federal SNAP requirements to test whether allowing SNAP to use other 

programs’ rules is appropriate and cost effective. I believe Texas is currently testing 

this approach, which may help USDA determine whether and under what conditions 

this approach may be workable in SNAP. 

USDA can do more to assist states’ efforts to administer SNAP as part of the larger health and human services system. First and foremost, USDA’s oversight and 

policy development would be strengthened if its staff developed more expertise in 

other Federal assistance programs. When SNAP policy is different from policy in another major program such as Medicaid, it would be helpful for USDA to be aware 

of those differences, to flag them for states, and to be able to advise states on the 

flexibility they may have to harmonize the rules across programs. (The same holds 

true for HHS.) State and local governments, even individual caseworkers, ought not 

to be left on their own to disentangle differing Federal rules and regulations. It 

seems reasonable for the Federal agencies to navigate what we ask their state counterparts to manage. That having been said, USDA has taken steps to engage SNAP 

agencies in a conversation about how recent changes in Medicaid could be affecting 

SNAP operations at the local level. USDA can do more here, and I encourage them 

to do so. 

Conclusion 

SNAP is an efficient and effective program. It alleviates hunger and poverty and 

has positive impacts on the long-term outcomes of those who receive its benefits. 

And, SNAP has exacting standards with respect to eligibility determinations. 

Congress and USDA have worked hard to balance the need to maintain SNAP’s 

successful structure and design with some state flexibility to ensure the program is 

able to adapt to local circumstances, respond to the needs of under-served groups 

such as working families and seniors, and test new ideas to improve the program’s 

efficiency without compromising its effectiveness. In general, these options are 

meant to augment SNAP, rather than weaken or compromise its ability to meet the 

basic nutrition needs of struggling Americans. As you consider state flexibility and 

state options in the program, I urge you to keep that goal as your priority. 

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Dean. Ms. Cunnyngham, 5 minutes. 

643

STATEMENT OF KAREN CUNNYNGHAM, SENIOR RESEARCHER, 

MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. CUNNYNGHAM. Thank you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking 

Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify on state options and SNAP. Today I will demonstrate ways in which SNAP quality control data can be used to 

analyze the effective state policy options on the SNAP population. 

These data are derived from the monthly quality control reviews 

that states conduct on a sample of SNAP households. I will focus 

on what we know about how state options regarding SNAP eligibility and time limits affect SNAP participation. I will conclude 

with some thoughts on opportunities to continue building the evidence base to inform decision-making on SNAP. 

One key policy option available to states is the use of broadbased programs to extend categorical eligibility to households receiving a non-cash TANF-funded benefit. States may use this option to increase the number of people eligible for SNAP, and 

streamline the eligibility determination process. Although categorically eligible people are not subject to SNAP income and resource 

limits, benefits for these households are determined under the 

same rules that apply to other households. As a result, only those 

with income low enough to qualify for a benefit, or that quality for 

a minimum benefit, actually receive one. 

Thirty-nine states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands have established broad-based categorical eligibility programs. They have some flexibility in setting the eligibility criteria 

for these programs. Thirteen use the SNAP gross income limit for 

households without an elderly member, or a member with a disability; 28 implemented a higher gross income limit for those 

households; and one state allows households with a child to have 

a higher gross income limit. Most of these programs do not have 

a resource test, while five states impose resource limits that are 

higher than the SNAP limits. 

We estimate that, in Fiscal Year 2014, eight percent of SNAP 

households were eligible solely through state expanded categorical 

eligibility programs. Specifically, SNAP quality control data indicate that three percent of SNAP households were eligible through 

higher income limits. Less than one percent of all SNAP benefits 

went to these households. Their average monthly benefit was $58, 

compared to $260 for households that passed the SNAP income 

tests. Using supplemental data, we estimate an additional five percent of SNAP households will not have passed the SNAP resource 

test. 

States also make choices regarding work programs and time limits. Many non-elderly adult participants are subject to SNAP work 

requirements. Certain groups are exempt, such as people working 

at least 30 hours per week, or caring for a young child. Participants 

who are subject to the general SNAP requirements, under age 50, 

and not living with children must fulfill additional work requirements, such as participating in a qualified employment and training program. Those who do not comply are subject to time limits 

on SNAP receipt. States are allowed to provide exemptions to the 

time limits for up to 15 percent of their case load subject to time 

limits. States also may apply for waivers from the time limits for 

644

1Project team members Katherine Bencio, Esa Eslami, Kelsey Farson Gray, Sarah Lauffer, 

and Joshua Leftin, and additional Mathematica staff Steve Bruns, Scott Cody, Jennifer de 

Vallance, and Carmen Ferro contributed to the preparation of this testimony. 2https://host76.mathematica-mpr.com/fns/. 

participants living in areas with a high unemployment rate, or an 

insufficient number of jobs. Currently, seven states, the District of 

Columbia, and the two territories are approved for a state time 

limit waiver, and 27 states have waivers for certain areas. 

The SNAP quality control data show that the majority of SNAP 

participants do not fit the criteria for being subject to work requirements. In Fiscal Year 2014, 88 percent of SNAP participants were 

exempt, most because they were children, elderly adults, or individuals with a disability. Among those who were subject to work requirements, only 1⁄3 potentially faced time limits because they were 

not participating in an employment and training program, or otherwise fulfilling the additional work requirements. The majority of 

those facing time limits received a state exemption, or were in a 

waiver area. In all, just over 200,000 individuals a month were not 

meeting the requirements, and so were receiving time-limited benefits. 

One of the tools that USDA uses to examine categorical eligibility, time limits, and other state options is microsimulation modeling. Additional sophisticated data sets and tools could further advance the use of evidence and decision-making about SNAP at both 

the state and Federal levels. An example of a new resource is the 

data sets being created by the Census Bureau, in cooperation with 

USDA and states, that link state SNAP administrative data to survey data. Moreover, new analytic tools, such as rapid cycle evaluation, can help states determine whether the policy options they put 

in place have the desired effect on program access, administrative 

costs, and benefit accuracy. 

As Congress continues its full scale review of SNAP, sophisticated data and tools can lead to more informed decision-making, 

and a new perspective on the populations that the program is intended to help. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cunnyngham follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN CUNNYNGHAM, SENIOR RESEARCHER, MATHEMATICA

POLICY RESEARCH, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

What the Data Reveal About State SNAP Options 

Thank you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the 

Committee for the opportunity to testify on state options in SNAP. 

I am an associate director of the data analytics division at Mathematica Policy 

Research and the director of a project that measures SNAP access, trends, and impacts.1 For over 3 decades, Mathematica has been conducting related projects for 

the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA). As part of the current project, we develop and maintain the SNAP microsimulation models that FNS uses (1) to assess proposed changes to SNAP, (2) to develop annual budgets, and (3) to conduct supporting research. Mathematica also prepares the edited SNAP quality control (QC) data files, which are the primary source 

of information on the characteristics of the SNAP caseload. The data are used to 

assess the composition and demographic and economic characteristics of SNAP 

households and to measure the potential effects of legislative changes to program 

rules on SNAP participants. The annual SNAP QC databases are publicly available 

on USDA’s website.2

Through a variety of policy options, states have the ability to adapt SNAP to best 

meet the needs of their low-income populations and improve the efficiency of their 

645

SNAP operations. Such policy options allow states to simplify the application and 

eligibility determination process, streamline program administration, and expand 

SNAP eligibility within certain parameters. (The Appendix provides an overview of 

selected options and the number of states using them over time.) States also make 

choices about their employment and training programs and have some flexibility in 

determining which adults age 18 to 49, without disabilities, and living in households 

without children are exempt from time limits on SNAP benefit receipt. An evaluation currently underway is testing innovative strategies for increasing employment 

and earnings among SNAP participants and reducing their dependence on SNAP 

and other public assistance programs. The ten pilot programs offer diverse services 

and target different groups of SNAP participants. Findings from the evaluation will 

give policymakers and program administrators insight into effective strategies for 

increasing employment and earnings and decreasing public assistance. 

In my testimony today, I will demonstrate ways in which SNAP QC data and 

other resources may be used to analyze how the policy options selected by states 

affect the SNAP population. I will focus on two sets of policy options—those affecting the resource and income thresholds used to determine SNAP eligibility and 

those affecting work requirements and time limits. At the end, I will mention additional tools and opportunities for continuing to build the evidence base to help ensure that the program is efficiently and effectively serving the target population. 

State Vehicle Rules and Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility 

Federal SNAP eligibility policies limit the amount of income and resources that 

SNAP participants may have. However, through policy options, states have some 

latitude to adopt the eligibility criteria they deem best for their jurisdictions. For 

example, under Federal rules for determining whether a household’s resources are 

below the applicable threshold, the value of some household vehicles is counted toward the resource limit. States, however, may align SNAP vehicle rules with vehicle 

rules for a TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families)—funded program as 

long as the latter rules are less restrictive than the Federal SNAP rules. Currently, 

all but four states (Delaware, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Washington) and one 

territory (the Virgin Islands) have aligned their vehicle rules for SNAP households 

that face a resource test with those governing another state program. In doing so, 

29 jurisdictions exclude all vehicles from the SNAP resource test. The remaining jurisdictions have aligned their vehicle rules with programs that (1) exclude one vehicle per household, person, or adult; (2) exclude $10,000 to $15,000 from the equity 

or fair market value of one or more vehicles; or (3) rely on a combination of the 

above. 

States also have the option to use certain broad-based programs that provide a 

simple service—a TANF-funded brochure on domestic violence, for example—to confer categorical eligibility on a large number of households. In some states, households participating in narrowly targeted, noncash TANF-funded programs such as 

work support or child care may also be categorically eligible for SNAP. Given that 

categorically eligible households are not subject to the Federal income and resource 

limits, the SNAP application and eligibility determination process is simplified for 

such households. However, benefits for categorically eligible households are determined under the same rules that apply to other eligible SNAP households and are 

based on household income. Accordingly, some households may be categorically eligible for SNAP but not qualify for a SNAP benefit. 

Thirty-nine states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands have 

established broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) programs. States have some 

flexibility in setting the eligibility criteria for the noncash benefit provided by these 

programs. Five states (Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, and Texas) currently impose resource limits between $5,000 and $25,000 on some households while the rest 

have eliminated the resource test. (Pennsylvania used a resource test from mid-2012 

through mid-2015.) Thirteen states have retained the Federal SNAP gross income 

limit for most households without an elderly member or a member with a disability, 

28 states or jurisdictions have raised the gross income limit to between 160 and 200 

percent of the Federal poverty limit for those households, and one state, New Hampshire, raised the gross income limit for households with a child age 21 or younger. 

In Table 1, we show the average monthly percentage of SNAP households in FY 

2014 that met Federal income guidelines, including pure public assistance households, and the percentage that was eligible only through state expanded categorical 

eligibility policies. Nationally, 3.3 percent of SNAP participants in FY 2014 had income higher than the applicable Federal income thresholds. Among these households, 47 percent had income greater than the Federal gross income threshold; 39 

percent had net income over the Federal limit; and 14 percent would have failed 

both the Federal gross and net income tests. In states that used a higher gross inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
646

come limit for households without an elderly member or a member with a disability, 

almost five percent of participants would not have passed the Federal income tests.

Table 1. SNAP Households by Eligibility and Presence and Type of State 

Categorical Eligibility Policy, FY 2014

Total SNAP 

households 

(000s) 

Percent 

that passed 

Federal

income 

tests 

Percent 

that would 

have failed 

Federal

income 

tests 

All 22,445 96.7 3.3

State had no broad-based categorical eligibility policy 2,816 99.9 0.1

State used Federal gross income limits for most households 

without an elderly or disabled member 6,665 98.5 1.5

State had a higher gross income limit for most households 

without an elderly or disabled member 12,911 95.1 4.9

State had a higher gross income limit for households with a 

child age 21 or younger 53 94.3 5.7

Source: FY 2014 SNAP QC data file. 

As seen in Table 2, less than one percent of all SNAP benefits went to households 

that would have failed the Federal income tests but that were eligible for SNAP 

through state expanded eligibility policies. The average monthly benefit for these 

households was $58 compared to $260 for households meeting the Federal income 

criteria. Among states that used a higher gross income limit for most households 

without an elderly member or a member with a disability, 1.2 percent of SNAP benefits went to households eligible only through state eligibility expansions.

The average monthly benefit for households that would have failed Federal income tests but were eligible for SNAP through state expanded eligibility policies was $58 compared to $260 for households meeting the Federal 

income criteria.

The discussion thus far has focused on categorically eligible SNAP households 

that would fail the Federal income tests. Additional categorically eligible households 

would pass the Federal income tests but fail the Federal resource test. Because the 

SNAP QC data do not contain information on the resources of most categorically eligible households, other data must be used to estimate the latter group. In work for 

FNS to estimate SNAP participation rates, we use a regression equation estimated 

on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) to predict the 

probability that households meeting Federal income guidelines would fail the SNAP 

Federal resource test. We estimate that an additional 4.7 percent of SNAP participants would not have met the Federal SNAP resource test. In all, we estimate that 

about eight percent of SNAP participants were eligible solely through state expanded categorical eligibility options.

647

Table 2. SNAP Benefits by Eligibility and Presence and Type of State Categorical Eligibility Policy, FY 2014

Total benefits 

($000) Average benefit ($) 

Benefits going to households 

that passed Federal income 

tests 

Benefits going to households 

that would have failed Federal 

income tests 

Row percent Average ($) Row percent Average ($) 

All 5,689,647 253 99.2 260 0.8 58State had no broad-based categorical eligibility policy 724,699 257 99.9 258 0.1 113State used Federal gross income limits for most households without 

an elderly or disabled member 1,700,361 255 99.7 258 0.3 48

State had higher gross income limit for most households without an 

elderly or disabled member 3,253,279 252 98.8 262 1.2 59

State had higher gross income limit for households with a child age 

21 or younger 11,308 215 97.4 223 2.6 96

Source: FY 2014 SNAP QC data file. 

648

Work Requirements 

States also have some options about the employment and training programs they 

offer andwhich SNAP participants face time limits. Many working-age SNAP participants are required toregister for work, accept suitable employment if it is offered, 

not voluntarily quit a job or reducework hours, and participate in an employment 

and training program if the state agency makes aprogram referral. Exceptions are 

made for individuals determined to be:

• Mentally or physically unfit for employment.

• Employed at least 30 hours per week.

• Responsible for the care of a dependent child under age 6 or an incapacitated 

person.

• Attending school at least half-time.

• Complying with TANF work requirements.

• Receiving unemployment insurance.

• Participating in a drug addiction or alcohol treatment program.

SNAP participants who are subject to the general SNAP work requirements and 

are (1) age 18 to 49, (2) residing in a SNAP household without children, and (3) not 

pregnant are generally subject to time-limited participation unless they fulfill additional work requirements. Specifically, these individuals are restricted to 3 months 

of SNAP benefits in any 36 month period unless they (1) work or participate in a 

qualified employment and training program for at least 20 hours per week or (2) 

participate in a workfare program for the number of hours equivalent to their SNAP 

benefit divided by the minimum wage. Participants are exempt from the time limit 

if they live in a waiver area or have been granted a discretionary exemption by the 

state. States may apply for waivers for certain geographic areas, including the entire state if applicable, if (1) the area has an unemployment rate exceeding ten percent or (2) the state can demonstrate with other economic criteria that the proposed 

waiver area has an insufficient number of jobs to provide employment. States are 

allowed to provide discretionary exemptions for up to 15 percent of their SNAP caseload subject to the time limit. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) allowed states to suspend 

time limits on benefits from April 2009 through September 2010. Subsequently, 

states that met the criteria for extended unemployment insurance benefits continued to have the option of suspending time limits. Currently, only seven states, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands are approved for a statewide 

waiver of time limits. Another 27 states have time-limit waivers approved for certain areas of the state. 

The majority of SNAP participants do not fit the criteria for being subject to work 

requirements and time limits. The group subject to time limits is particularly small, 

in part because members of the group may receive SNAP benefits for only a short 

period. In FY 2014, a monthly average of 87.7 percent of SNAP participants were 

not subject to work requirements (Table 3). The majority were children (44.2 percent 

of all participants), adults age 60 or older (10.1 percent), or individuals with a disability (9.7 percent). Almost 2⁄3 of SNAP participants subject to work registration, 

or 7.8 percent of all SNAP participants, were not subject to time limits. The majority of work registrants not subject to time limits was over age 49 or residing in a 

SNAP household with a child. Among the 4.5 percent of all SNAP participants potentially subject to time limits, 80 percent, or 3.7 percent of all participants, were 

in a waiver area or received a state exemption. (In FY 2014, 42 states qualified for 

a statewide time-limit waiver.) Half of the remaining one percent of SNAP participants (a monthly average of 203,000 individuals) did not meet work requirements 

and therefore were receiving time-limited benefits.

Table 3. SNAP Participants Subject to Work Requirements and Time 

Limits, FY 2014

Number 

(000s) Percent 

Total SNAP participants 45,874 100.0

Not subject to work requirements 40,246 87.7

Under age 18 20,271 44.2

Over age 59 4,651 10.1

With a disability, as defined by SNAP rules 4,461 9.7

Employed at least 30 hours per week or minimum-wage equivalent 3,690 8.0

649

Table 3. SNAP Participants Subject to Work Requirements and Time 

Limits, FY 2014—Continued

Number 

(000s) Percent 

In SNAP household with child age 5 or under or person with a disability (one 

caregiver per SNAP household) 2,983 6.5

Receiving cash TANF or unemployment compensation or reported as participating in non-SNAP employment and training program 929 2.0

Enrolled at least half-time in a qualifying school or training program 39 0.1

Reported as exempt from work registration for other reason 3,222 7.0

Subject to work requirements 5,628 12.3

Not subject to time limits 3,563 7.8

Over age 49 1,106 2.4

In SNAP household with a child 1,899 4.1

Reported as not subject to time limits for other reason 558 1.2

Subject to time limits 2,065 4.5

Employed at least 20 hours per week or minimum-wage equivalent, or reported as meeting work requirements 184 0.4

Reported as in a waiver area or receiving a state exemption 1,678 3.7

Receiving time-limited benefits 203 0.4

Source: FY 2014 SNAP QC data file. 

Note: Sets of subgroups are mutually exclusive. 

In FY 2014, the average monthly percentage of a state’s population subject to 

work requirements ranged from fewer than three percent in Delaware, Massachusetts, and Oregon to over 20 percent in Florida and Michigan (Table 4). The percentage subject to time limits varied from less than 1⁄2 a percent in Maryland, Massachusetts, and Nevada to nine percent or more in Florida, Georgia, and Mississippi. 

The average monthly benefit per person was higher for participants subject to work 

requirements ($162) and subject to time limits ($178) than the average benefit per 

person for all participants ($124).

Table 4. SNAP Participants Subject to Time Limits by State, FY 2014

Total SNAP

participants 

(000s) 

Percent subject 

to work

requirements 

Percent subject 

to time limits 

Percent receiving 

time-limited

benefits 

All 45,874 12.3 4.5 0.4

Alabama 893 14.4 6.1 0.0

Alaska 87 16.7 6.2 0.0

Arizona 1,011 10.1 1.4 0.0

Arkansas 476 12.8 5.3 0.0

California 4,256 13.6 6.0 0.0

Colorado 497 6.2 2.0 0.8

Connecticut 428 19.1 0.7 0.0

Delaware 149 2.4 2.0 1.1

District of Columbia 140 12.7 5.1 0.1

Florida 3,526 20.9 10.6 0.0

Georgia 1,784 19.5 9.0 1.2

Guam 46 0.1 0.1 0.0

Hawaii 191 13.6 6.1 0.0

Idaho 208 4.4 1.8 0.0

Illinois 1,954 11.1 7.5 0.0

Indiana 877 11.7 3.9 0.0

Iowa 405 7.5 2.1 1.7

Kansas 293 8.7 1.9 1.5

Kentucky 803 19.2 8.9 0.0

Louisiana 874 15.9 6.1 0.0

Maine 229 9.8 4.8 0.0

Maryland 779 7.1 0.0 0.0

Massachusetts 853 2.4 0.3 0.0

Michigan 1,664 21.4 6.8 0.0

Minnesota 521 8.2 3.5 2.5

Mississippi 655 19.7 9.1 0.0

Missouri 853 8.3 3.3 0.0

Montana 121 16.0 4.5 0.0

Nebraska 172 5.0 0.8 0.5

Nevada 375 11.8 0.4 0.0

New Hampshire 108 6.0 1.4 1.1

New Jersey 874 9.0 0.8 0.1

New Mexico 426 5.8 4.5 0.0

New York 3,039 9.5 1.2 0.3

650

Table 4. SNAP Participants Subject to Time Limits by State, FY 2014—

Continued

Total SNAP

participants 

(000s) 

Percent subject 

to work

requirements 

Percent subject 

to time limits 

Percent receiving 

time-limited

benefits 

North Carolina 1,555 12.6 5.1 0.0

North Dakota 53 7.7 2.1 0.7

Ohio 1,732 11.7 4.3 3.0

Oklahoma 592 12.7 3.1 2.0

Oregon 782 2.6 1.5 0.0

Pennsylvania 1,782 8.5 2.6 0.0

Rhode Island 174 18.5 7.6 0.0

South Carolina 832 17.5 6.7 0.1

South Dakota 99 10.0 3.8 0.9

Tennessee 1,303 19.2 4.9 0.0

Texas 3,838 7.1 1.5 1.1

Utah 227 6.0 1.1 0.8

Vermont 92 4.6 1.6 1.1

Virgin Islands 28 12.3 4.0 0.0

Virginia 914 13.6 4.3 3.0

Washington 1,085 3.7 2.0 0.0

West Virginia 354 14.2 0.8 0.0

Wisconsin 831 7.3 2.7 0.1

Wyoming 35 7.9 1.2 0.9

Source: FY 2014 SNAP QC data file. 

Additional Tools for Assessing Effects of State Options 

In addition to the SNAP QC data, microsimulation models can provide policymakers with valuable insights into the potential effects of program changes on 

SNAP eligibility, participation, and benefits. For example, the models can estimate 

the effect of changes to SNAP resource limits or income deductions. Mathematica 

has developed two models for FNS—one based on the SNAP QC database and another based on SIPP and Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement data. 

Even more sophisticated data sets and tools could further advance the use of evidence in decision making about SNAP at both the state and Federal levels. An example of a new and valuable resource is the data sets being created by the Census 

Bureau in cooperation with USDA and states that link state SNAP administrative 

data to survey data. These data sets allow USDA to better understand the circumstances of SNAP participants, including how individuals who live together form 

SNAP households and, in some cases, the resources available to SNAP participants. 

Moreover, new analytic tools, such as rapid cycle evaluation, can help states determine whether the policy options they put in place have the desired effect on program access, administrative costs, and benefit accuracy. As Congress continues its 

full-scale review of SNAP, more sophisticated data and tools can lead to more informed decision making and a new perspective on the populations that the program 

is intended to help. 

APPENDIX

Table A.1. Selected State Options and Number of States Using Them Over 

Time 

States using option 

Oct. 

2003

June 

2009

Sep. 

2013

Broad-based categorical eligibility 8 27 43

SSI combined application projects 5 15 18

Income and resources: 

Vehicle policy for noncategorically eligible households: 

SNAP rules 9 4 5

Some additional vehicles or vehicle value excluded 27 20 19

All vehicles excluded 17 29 29

Align income and/or resource exclusion with TANF or Medicaid 24 44 32

Simplified determination of cost of doing business 16 19

Child support expense excluded from gross income 6 13 18

Deductions: 

Simplified deduction determination (non-monthly expense averaging) 4 7 9

651

Table A.1. Selected State Options and Number of States Using Them Over 

Time—Continued

States using option 

Oct. 

2003

June 

2009

Sep. 

2013

Standard medical deduction 7 14

Simplified homeless housing cost 25 27 25

Mandatory standard utility allowance 30 44 47

Program disqualifications: 

For not meeting requirements of other program 13 19 24

For failure to cooperate with child support enforcement 5 6 7

For drug felony 41 34 32

Life-time ban 21 15 15

Modified ban 20 19 17

For failing to comply with work requirements 

Extended beyond statutory minimum 14 14 12

Entire household disqualified 14 13 9

Disqualification permanent after third occurrence 3 1 2

Requirements for reporting changes in household circumstances: 

Simplified requirements for reporting changes 35 50 53

Act on all changes known to the agency 18 34 38

Transitional benefits 10 19 21

Employment and training pledge states 18 11 6

Online application 25 43

Call centers 27 34

Regional 15 9

Statewide 12 25

Document imaging 20 41

Process improvement waivers: 

Elderly and disabled re-certification interview 12

Electronic notices 7

Postpone expedited service interview 9

On-demand interview 9

Modernization initiatives 51

Source: USDA State Option Reports and additional correspondence with FNS and state agencies. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank our witnesses. The chair would remind Members they will be recognized for questioning in order of 

seniority for Members who were here at the start of the hearing. 

After that, Members will be recognized in order of arrival. And I 

appreciate the Members’ understanding. I recognize myself for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. Muth, in implementing the category eligibility, states have 

the flexibility to set the gross income limits at up to 200 percent 

of poverty. Texas has set an income limit of 165 percent of the Federal poverty level. Can you walk us through some of the factors 

that Texas used to determine that particular level? 

Ms. MUTH. Absolutely, and I also just want to add that Texas does apply the assets limit of the $5,000 as well to this population. 

And in Texas, this was an example of a change that came out 

through a legislative direction. So we did have state legislation in 

the early 2000s that directed the agency to implement the policy, 

and defined the level at which it would be implemented. 

The CHAIRMAN. So it is a state statute that sets the limit at 165 

percent, and the asset test at $5,000? 

Ms. MUTH. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Were you around when the legislature went 

through that exercise? 

Ms. MUTH. I actually was not. This was an exercise in research 

that I had to do in preparation for today, to pull up the legislative 

history. 

652

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Ms. Cunnyngham, speaking of that 

asset test, you said there are five states that currently impose 

them, somewhere between $5,000 and $25,000. What is the benefit 

for a state to not test assets when determining SNAP eligibility, 

and could waiving this test hurt the integrity of the program? You 

need your microphone. 

Ms. CUNNYNGHAM. It is an interesting question. That states can 

benefit by waiving the resource test means they don’t need to collect any information on resources. So there is an administrative 

burden that is lifted there. There is not enough data currently to 

know whether that is the appropriate balance between administrative ease and other policy options. We don’t know the asset holdings of current SNAP participants. With better data, we would be 

able to determine whether that correct balance has been struck. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Ms. Cunnyngham, you said there are 

approximately 1.5 million households that do not meet the Federal 

income requirements, and that they average about $58 month for 

the benefit. That is about $87 million a month. Is that an accurate 

statement? 

Ms. CUNNYNGHAM. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. All right. I now yield now to Mr. Scott, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of 

all, it is important for us to note that there are 1.7 million veterans 

that depend upon SNAP. And this is according to the CBPP, which 

is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In every state, thousands of struggling veterans use SNAP to put food on the table. 

Low-income veterans, many unemployed, some working in low 

wage jobs, many disabled. And on top of that, many who are returning from military service return minus a leg, minus an arm, 

suffer from mental problems, and they face serious challenges in 

finding work. But 1.7 million should gravitate this nation to realizing this is more than a national crisis. It is a national disgrace. 

It is very, very important that we recognize this as one of the primary challenges that we face. 

Stars and Stripes reported that food purchases paid for with 

SNAP at commissaries tripled from 2008 to 2011. Feed Our Vets, 

a nonprofit group that establishes food pantries for veterans, has 

estimated that nearly three million veterans and their families 

don’t get enough food to eat each month. This is devastating. SNAP 

is a critical support for our heroes, and it is very important that 

we understand how important SNAP is. I also want to call attention to this Committee that the Farm Bureau has an excellent program called The Patriot Project. It is a mentorship program that 

connects military veterans, beginning farmers and ranchers, with 

experienced Farm Bureau members who are farmers and ranchers. 

This way, veterans who want to be involved in agriculture will be 

able to learn firsthand from an experienced farmer. 

This is a creative approach to that, much like many of us here 

in Congress are doing to reach another group, the African Americans, with our 1890s land-grant universities, to increase the opportunities for young students to be able to get the kind of scholarship 

and aid to go into agriculture, and into business. I say that because 

we have to do a better job of lifting agriculture up to the significant 

653

level of importance it is, and no statistic emphasizes this more 

than 1.7 million veterans, and their families, depending upon it, 

and their struggle. So I wanted to mention those in my opening. 

I have a minute left, so, Ms. Stacy Dean, you work with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Much of the information that 

I just mentioned comes from you. In your testimony you mentioned 

that Congress, and the policy of Congress, must not do things to 

undermine SNAP’s success. What things might you be talking 

about? Would block grants be one of those? 

Ms. DEAN. Yes, Congressman, Our organization would be deeply 

concerned if SNAP were converted to a block grant. If its funding 

were capped, and couldn’t respond to need, I believe the Ranking 

Member used words I wouldn’t, but he called it an unaccountable 

slush fund. It is a little strong, but that is, in fact, what we have 

seen in TANF. And, of course, it is a shrinking pool of funding 

available for states to meet the needs of poor children and families. 

So that would be of deep concern. But also I would imagine, for 

this Committee, the ability to divert benefits away from food to 

other purposes, which we have also heard about as an idea, would 

be of deep concern to us. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Goodlatte, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

holding this hearing, and I just want to say at the outset that unless we reform programs like the SNAP Program, and a number of 

other entitlement programs, there is going to be a shrinking supply 

of funds for all of these programs, given the fact that we now have 

$500 billion to $1 trillion annual deficits, totaling a $20 trillion national debt. 

But, Ms. Muth, I wanted to ask you a question about Texas. You 

mentioned that your state has shown interest in photo IDs on EBT 

cards. Massachusetts and Maine have implemented this option, to 

certain levels of success. What have been some conversations 

around this option? 

Ms. MUTH. During the last legislative session we had a proposal, 

and there is continued interest. During the last session it did not 

pass. I think one of the barriers is that there is a cost to implement 

that. There is a cost to have that photo ID on each of the cards. 

And so Members of our legislature are watching very closely the 

experience in states that have implemented it. 

The other issue is that the retailer at the point of sale does not 

limit purchases to the individual that is pictured on the card, and 

so the impact of having the photo is more of a deterrent, a potential deterrent effect, which is also difficult to measure in that costbenefit analysis, is that something that we want to invest in, in 

Texas? But there does continue to be interest, and we are watching 

the experience of the other states closely. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And you indicate in your testimony that Texas 

has implemented an identity verification process in the online application, but, due to Federal restrictions, the applicant has the option not to complete it. Can you elaborate on what Federal restrictions are in place preventing states from seeking more complete online applications? 

654

Ms. MUTH. Absolutely. There is a provision that requires us to 

count an application as filed with the state with only the elements 

of name, address, and signature on that. And the thought behind 

that is that file date is when the benefits start for the individual, 

if an eligibility decision is made. But when you are in an online environment: first of all, in Texas, we have a lot of people that have 

the same name, so it is very difficult to identify somebody by just 

name, address, and signature. We would like to have that ability. 

The Federal citation is there in the written testimony. I think 

there is a happy medium of you don’t necessarily need people to 

complete every element on a lengthy application, but we could require additional elements that would help us make sure we validate identity. Just like we do for an individual who applies for a 

bank loan, you ask questions based on third party data sources to 

confirm the identity. Because we are not seeing these people in our 

office. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, let me ask a question of Ms. Dean about 

this. So many states are now utilizing, in fact, a majority of states 

are utilizing online applications, and over the phone initial interviews. Why are the states heading in this direction, and what has 

been the outcome, as states have made their way to this model? 

Ms. DEAN. There are two reasons. First is the technology is 

there, that it is workable, and can help support states’ business efforts. I don’t think 10 years ago, or 15 years ago, the technology 

would have allowed states to take online applications the way that 

they are. And second, the recession really drove states to innovate, 

to find ways to do more work, given that so many more families 

were at their doors, with less. And it is not just online applications, 

it is document imaging. So if all documents are scanned, that 

means that you don’t just have to work with an office, or a unique 

case worker who has your paper file. You can call, and wherever 

the available work resource is in the state, your work can be diverted to them. So states are getting very innovative. 

I will just say, on identity proofing, a back-end option to validate 

identity in order to reduce verification burdens on clients is really 

interesting, and Texas and Florida testing that is terrific. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, let me ask Ms. Cunnyngham, I understand the administrative efficiencies that can be obtained through 

the use of categorical eligibility. However, nearly four million people are eligible for SNAP through these policies that do not meet 

Federal requirements. Are there ways in which we can retain these 

administrative efficiencies while more closely aligning these policies with Federal requirements? And I will ask Ms. Dean to respond to that, as well as Ms. Cunnyngham. 

Ms. CUNNYNGHAM. I will answer, again, that it is difficult to 

know without more data. Right now it is hard to determine whether we have struck the correct balance. So I will say that people who 

are actually receiving a benefit are receiving the certain benefit criteria set by the Federal Government. So people need to have low 

enough income to receive a benefit. However, if you are interested 

at looking at their resources, we need more information to know 

whether we are striking the right balance on that. 

What is interesting is that states have chosen a variety of options. Of the states that have chosen broad-based categorical eligiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
655

bility programs, five of them do impose a resource limit. Of the 

states that aren’t, seven of those states actually don’t count the 

value of all vehicles. So there is a lot of information out there. It 

would be interesting to talk to states, find out why they made the 

choices they did, what administrative costs they avoided or incurred that way, and what the results were. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. My time is expired, but let me just say that it 

is easy to make decisions when the Federal Government has to 

come up with the resources to pay for it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. Fudge, 5 

minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all 

for being here today. Ms. Dean, in your testimony you mentioned 

that most states do choose to operate SNAP’s 3 month restriction 

as a time limit where individuals are cut off from assistance, despite their willingness to work. You characterize this as one of the 

harshest options within the SNAP program. Can you please explain 

a little bit more? 

Ms. DEAN. Sure. First I would say the Federal statute obligates 

states to impose a 3 month time limit on individuals between the 

ages of 18 to 49 without children. They have to be working 20 

hours a week. Working 18 hours a week, you would still be limited 

to 3 months of benefits. States have an option to waive the rule in 

areas of high unemployment within their state. Every state, except 

Delaware, at some point since the rule’s origin has waived out part 

of their state. Because of very high unemployment, they don’t believe that individuals there could legitimately find a job within 3 

months. 

Another quick reason why they waive out is the work test that 

Congress—and I should just say not this Committee, it arose as a 

floor amendment in the 1996 welfare law, the work test that is set 

for those individuals is quite extreme. It is a 20 hour a week slot, 

and job search does not count. Most states don’t have the funds 

available to create work slots for these folks, and they don’t, and 

therefore it is a time limit. Often they will waive the rule because 

they want to create a more meaningful work engagement for these 

folks, to actually test their willingness to work, and help build their 

skills. 

In your own state, unfortunately, I know the City of Cleveland 

qualifies for a waiver due to its high unemployment, but surrounding county, Cuyahoga, does not. And as a result, even though 

you are a county administered state, and a lot of authorities devolve to counties, made the election for Cuyahoga not to waive the 

City of Cleveland. 

Ms. FUDGE. All right. But you would think, then, since you know 

a little bit about my state, 75 percent of all of the minorities in the 

state live in our largest counties, like the cities I represent, Cleveland and Akron. However, when the governor sought a waiver, he 

only sought it for rural communities. Does that make any sense to 

you at all? 

Ms. DEAN. Well, the way I interpret the state’s choice was that 

they only sought waivers for the entirety of counties. I know that 

Lima, Toledo, and Dayton, are also cities that qualify, but the govVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
656

ernor chose not to waive out those cities because he couldn’t waive 

the entire county. 

Ms. FUDGE. So he was looking more at land than at people? 

Ms. DEAN. I can’t speak to his decision. 

Ms. FUDGE. I mean, it just doesn’t make any sense. We want the 

states to have these authorities, but then the states make decisions 

that are not based upon the highest need. 

Ms. DEAN. Right. And, of course, if the county was able to waive 

individuals in the city, versus the balance of the county. There 

could be an administrative reason not to do it, but in the case of 

Cuyahoga, that wasn’t the case. 

Ms. FUDGE. So that is why I am so afraid about doing something 

like block granting SNAP to states, because they make those kinds 

of decisions. It is interesting to me that we look at ABAWDs as the 

least deserving among the poor. We really do. We put them in a 

category that is almost separate and apart from everybody else 

that ever uses SNAP. Your organization has estimated nearly one 

million people would be cut off SNAP as a result of these time restrictions, these limits. Describe the unique realities of what we are 

doing when we put a million people off of SNAP. 

Ms. DEAN. Right. That is this year, in 2016. At least 1⁄2 million, 

and potentially up to a million individuals who will be cut off the 

program as a result of this time limit. This is an extremely poor 

group. While on the program, their incomes are about 20 percent 

of the poverty line. They have very limited education. Many of 

them are working, but they are not working 20 hours a week. They 

have no other form of support. There is no cash assistance. Half 

the states don’t offer medical assistance to them through the Medicaid expansion, and they just face extraordinary barriers. One 

group I would call out are ex-offenders. Those with a felony conviction will face enormous barriers to entry into the workforce, and so 

taking away their food assistance doesn’t make it easier for them 

to find a job, and potentially risks their positive re-entry. 

Ms. FUDGE. Well, the other problem is that we have so many restrictions on what ex-felons can do. Most ex-felons can’t even come 

to most states and get a license to cut hair, or to do anything else 

that they are probably capable of doing. 

Ms. DEAN. Yes. 

Ms. FUDGE. So we make it more difficult for them to find work, 

based on all the restrictions that we put in law. Thank you. Mr. 

Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Lucas, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Muth, please continue along with the discussion that has been going on here with 

my good colleague from Ohio, my understanding is Texas has 

pledged to offer a qualifying work slot in 2016 to every able-bodied 

person without a disability, of course, subject to the 3 month time 

limit, which is, obviously, a very noble and impressive goal. I assume this is accomplished through your SNAP E&T program. The 

National Commission on Hunger’s report discussed the complex 

rules covering E&T, and recommended easing those rules to give 

states more flexibility to find work and work related things. Visit 

with us for a moment, have you found the current rules to be big 

657

challenges in accomplishing Texas goals, and what is your perspective on more flexibility in the program? 

Ms. MUTH. I should clarify one thing. In the State of Texas, we 

have a unique arrangement in that we have an entire agency, the 

Texas Workforce Commission, that is focused on all of the employment services, and so they actually administer the SNAP E&T Program, so I can’t offer you my opinion on that particular issue, but 

I would be happy to follow up with my sister agency and provide 

their perspective on that question. 

Mr. LUCAS. So your observation, looking across the bureaucratic 

way, how has their success affected the number of people in your 

program? 

Ms. MUTH. It is very difficult for me to respond to that question. 

I think they have been extremely successful in assisting people in 

finding employment services across the various programs that we 

interact with them on from both TANF and the SNAP Program. 

But it is just not an area that I have any direct knowledge with. 

Mr. LUCAS. Absolutely. For a moment, Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to note my colleague’s concerns about block granting the programs. Sir, being one of the Members on this horseshoe that has 

been around for a little while, this was a major discussion in 1996 

in the farm bill. And at that time, in that unique environment, it 

almost happened. But the Chairman at the time made the decision, 

as my memory serves me, sitting on this Committee way down 

there, not to proceed. And that is the only time that it has really 

ever almost come to fruition, a very long time ago, in a different 

kind of an environment. But clearly, until we get the national economy moving forward, and more opportunities exist, the necessity 

for these programs are going to exist. 

And with that said, I realize every state implements its standards a little differently. Texas, at 165 percent of the poverty level, 

Oklahoma at 130, we have a different perspective there. As the 

good lady alluded to earlier, different asset requirements in Texas 

than in Oklahoma. That was one of the issues in 2012 that the 

lady and I worked on, was trying to standardize a few things, and 

received great pushback from a variety of directions, and was not 

accomplished. But reform is necessary, and making sure the good 

folks that benefit from the programs are not subjected to the program barriers is ultimately our goal. And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. McGovern, 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you very much. And I am sorry the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, left, because he suggests that 

we need to reform this program because of the deficit, and all of 

our budgetary problems. I want to remind him that SNAP is one 

of the most efficiently and effectively run programs in our Federal 

Government, with one of the lowest error rates of any program. If 

we want to deal with the deficit, maybe we ought to talk about reforming the Department of Defense. Some of their contracting practices, quite frankly, leave a lot to be desired. 

But we are talking about food. This is what this is about. And 

the notion that we are going to impose more requirements, more 

hoops for people to jump through in order to somehow lower the 

658

number of people who can take advantage of the SNAP Program, 

to me, is cruel. The gentlelady, Ms. Fudge, talked about the 

ABAWD situation. We are talking about veterans in that category 

too, people who fought for our country. And because they are single 

adults, and they can’t get enrolled in a work training program, and 

they can’t find a job, we are going to throw them off a food benefit. 

I can’t think of anything more cruel, and more ungrateful than 

that. 

And so when we talk about reforming the program, what we 

ought to be thinking about is how do we make sure that people in 

this country who are needy have access to this benefit? And by the 

way, the gentleman from Virginia mentioned the photo ID program. I am from Massachusetts. Believe me, it is expensive, and 

there are lots of problems, and it has caused lots of confusion. So 

if anybody is thinking of going down that road, I am happy to talk 

to you about some of the problems. 

This is our 12th hearing on SNAP since the start of last year, 

and we have heard the word flexibility thrown around. That is the 

favorite word around here, and I worry about what that really 

means. It means one thing to me, it means something else to some 

of my other colleagues. I worry that it is code for block grants. I 

think that would be a disaster. I think it would be catastrophic. 

Block granting, or cap funding, or merge funding, whatever you 

want to call it, would be a mistake. It would undermine one of the 

fundamental strengths of the program, which is that it can respond 

quickly and effectively in times of great disaster or economic downturn. 

If you want to get people off of SNAP, then we ought to get this 

economy going. We ought to make sure that we are investing in job 

training, that we are investing in jobs. Maybe we ought to be talking about raising the minimum wage to a livable wage, because the 

majority of people on SNAP who are able to work, work. I mean, 

some of them are working more than one job, and they are earning 

so little that they are still in poverty, and they still have to rely 

on this benefit. What the hell else do we want them to do? Now, 

having said all of that, I should also remind people that the benefit 

itself is woefully inadequate, $1.40 per person, per meal, per day. 

Sometimes, the way we will hear it talked about here, you would 

think that it is the most overly generous benefit that you could possibly imagine. 

Now, I understand that states already have a number of options 

available to them that they can use to make sure that everyone 

who is eligible for SNAP is enrolled, but the problem is that many 

of the states aren’t even aware of these options, and don’t take advantage of them. So there is already flexibility within SNAP to 

help states enroll eligible families to feed the hungry. Ms. Dean, in 

your testimony you elaborated on the options and flexibility that already exist. Maybe you could identify one or two of the most important, but underutilized options? 

Ms. DEAN. Sure, thank you, Congressman. I think a recent option that has been made available that states aren’t necessarily 

aware of, because it crosses over SNAP to Medicaid, is that in Medicaid, when a family is up for renewal, the state is actually supposed to look at available data that it has, before asking the family, 

659

in order to determine whether the family stays eligible. They actually have the ability to go into SNAP records and say, based on 

that robust assessment of eligibility, and all the data that we have 

on who this family is, and where they live, and what they are earning, we can use that in order to, as Ms. Muth said, use third party 

information to just automatically renew their Medicaid. 

I want to make sure folks understand, there is a high degree of 

rigor there. But importing that information over ensures continuous coverage in health insurance. And given the extraordinary 

overlap between SNAP and Medicaid, those are the two programs 

with the most overlap, finding ways to do more there is really important. 

But I think that our issue there is that FNS, as part of USDA, 

and CMS, as part of HHS, are not always cognizant of each other’s 

programs, and they don’t always know how to engage states. Actually, Ms. Muth and I were having coffee this morning, and talking 

about that very problem, that there is a lot of experimentation in 

service delivery and Medicaid that FNS isn’t always aware of, and 

might be more cautious than their sister agency. 

I think another area is senior service. There is actually an obligation on the Social Security Administration to help low-income 

seniors apply for SNAP at Social Security, and my assessment is 

that they are not doing as much as they could to help poor seniors 

apply at SSA, and therefore not have to go down to the local welfare office. And I would love if the Committee would consider exploring that issue, and how to improve service to seniors. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Yoho, 5 

minutes. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you all being 

here, and I want to thank everybody for taking the time to come 

here today and provide your testimonies. What I would like to 

focus on is the issue of how states can further crack down on the 

SNAP fraud and abuse, and I will talk about this and clarify this. 

In my home State of Florida, concerns have consistently been 

voiced by leaders at the Department of Children and Families that 

while there is a significant qualitative data on fraud, it is virtually 

impossible to quantify. 

And I just want to echo what Chairman Goodlatte’s comments in 

regards to our ensuing financial crisis that somehow we seem to ignore up here. And knowing that about 80 percent of the 2014 Farm 

Bill is dedicated to the nutritional programs, what I would like to 

hear from you is the best ways we need to reform not just the nutritional program, and we are looking at all programs, and not just 

in ag, but across the board, because this is a situation, as he pointed out, we are not going to have a choice. It will not be an option 

in 4 or 5 years if we don’t address it now. 

And in the State of Florida we talked with our people that administer this program, and they put in the work requirement, as 

you know, 1st of January. From January to the end of February, 

the people that were on SNAP that had work requirements instituted at the beginning of the year, less than eight percent have resigned up for the SNAP programs. And then we look at what happened in Maine, and 85 percent of their enrollment went down. 

660

And we know what happened in 1996, when Bill Clinton reformed 

the welfare program. So it was the largest drop in our history, and 

the largest reform, and it was because of the work requirements. 

And I guess my question is, Ms. Muth, can you speak of the 

issues—that is not the question I have for you. Have you heard of 

any state, or in your state, have there been any detrimental effects 

from work requirements for SNAP on the individual or a family? 

Ms. MUTH. So, again, In our agency we don’t administer the 

work requirement piece, but from the eligibility side, I am not 

aware of any issues. And, if I may, can I speak a moment to your 

issue of fraud? 

Mr. YOHO. Please. 

Ms. MUTH. Because I do believe that states, just like in the private-sector, there is a wealth of information that is available. If 

your credit card is compromised, your credit card company knows 

immediately that there is suspicious——

Mr. YOHO. Boy, they sure do. 

Ms. MUTH.—purchasing activity, before you do in most cases. 

And really, we have an opportunity, and states are doing more and 

more of this, to apply those same technological skills, and use that 

same technology, like, on EBT purchases. So when you see patterns 

that are potential fraud, that it will alert the state that we need 

to investigate. Not just at the individual level, but also at the retailer level. And so technology opens up so many tools in preventing and detecting fraud that we are beginning to utilize more 

and more. 

Mr. YOHO. Let me ask you that, since you brought that up, who 

would be best to do that? Would that be state, or is that something 

that should be farmed out to a credit card company, or somebody 

that can do that, and they do it efficiently, and they do it right 

now, real time? 

Ms. MUTH. In the State of Texas we recently went through a new 

procurement for our EBT system, and that is one of the tools that 

we are getting. And it is a financial company that is going to be 

our EBT vendor. So it is the same technology that they are applying. Obviously the patterns are different, the algorithms are different, but it is the same technology, so they come with that. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. 

I appreciate your input. Ms. Dean, let me ask you, since you are 

on a national scene, let me ask you that same question. Have you 

heard of any body that has been required to have the work requirements? And we have seen the results in Florida. Granted, it has 

only been 2 months, and I am sure more people will sign up, but 

with, like, the State of Maine, where you saw an 85 percent reduction, or going back to 1996 under Bill Clinton, when he enacted the 

welfare reform, are there any reports that show the detrimental effect on an individual, or a family, and if so, can you state those, 

and give me maybe written testimony on that? 

Ms. DEAN. Sure. 

Mr. YOHO. Or direct me in the right direction? 

Ms. DEAN. Absolutely. I think the concept of a work requirement, 

I share the Congressman’s belief and the Center has always believed that work requirements are very reasonable. The question is 

whether what we are asking of the individual is something that 

661

they can do. When they don’t comply, is it because they failed to 

comply, or is it because they refused to comply? And I think that 

that is where we often see an extraordinary mismatch, we ask 

someone to do something they are simply not capable of doing, and 

then they face the penalty because we made a mistake. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. I am out of time, and I need to yield back, but 

I also asked them about the work requirement. If you are looking 

for a job, they said that does qualify for the work requirement, in 

our state. 

Ms. DEAN. I can follow up with you. It does in January. It won’t 

in April. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Aguilar, 

5 minutes. 

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Dean, I appreciate 

the data that you shared with us today about the benefits of the 

program. Over here, sorry. Unfortunately, some like to portray the 

SNAP program as a Federal benefit that incentivizes low-income 

individuals to support themselves through Federal funds rather 

than seeking employment, and the data shows that difference. 

However, I have always believed that the SNAP program is a Federal benefit that serves as a bridge to help families out of poverty. 

Your research demonstrates some of the incredible outcomes in 

the program, and in your written testimony you cite evidence that 

demonstrates caseloads for SNAP are declining as the economy improves. Additionally, the data shows that the SNAP program 

helped keep millions out of poverty, including 4.9 million children 

in 2012. So, looking forward, how do you foresee the SNAP Program evolving as economic times continue to improve, and what 

role will SNAP play in building a more financially stable future for 

low-income families? I am interested especially on the economic 

side, which your data shows every $1 of increased SNAP benefits 

results in $1.70 in economic activity. 

Ms. DEAN. Sure, thank you. Well, as the economy improves, and 

most importantly as poverty declines, we have seen elevated poverty, despite an improving unemployment rate. The number of people who quality for SNAP will go down, and as a result we will see 

a decrease. SNAP caseloads have been declining, albeit slowly, for 

the last 2 years, but preliminary data from the last few months 

suggest actually it will be coming down at a more rapid clip. And 

I suspect that that relates to an improved economy. 

So if we have fewer eligible, fewer people need the program. 

However, we are serving more eligible people in the program. The 

program is much more successful at reaching needy people, particularly low-income seniors and working families. Those are the 

groups that are participating at higher rates. I don’t think we want 

to do anything to compromise those gains, so if we are now serving 

80, 85 percent of eligible people, hopefully we can continue to do 

better in reaching under-served groups. So that will still be there. 

And what we will see, again, if the economy truly does improve, 

and heats up in a way that we would all like, the program will be 

going to individuals and communities, as it always does, but those 

that most need it. And it will remain a powerful support for those 

families and communities. But hopefully there will simply be fewer 

folks who need it, because the economy improves. 

662

Mr. AGUILAR. Thank you. Ms. Muth, talking about technology, 

you have talked about that in response to a few of the questions 

earlier. I am interested to learn about the mobile app that you 

touched on, and that your testimony mentions, the self-service side. 

With 1.2 million documents uploaded in 2014, I am curious about 

the rollout process not only for the users, but on the staff side, and 

specifically, Ms. Dean talked about under-served communities, including low-income seniors. How have seniors responded to the online application piece? And if we have time left, I will ask you 

about the appeals process, and how that works within the interface. Go ahead. 

Ms. MUTH. Okay. So I will start with the mobile app. Obviously, 

any of the technology tools that we offer are optional, so you don’t 

have to provide information to us through a mobile app. But we did 

research to look at why are people coming into our office, and, 

again, we have to be efficient. We are running a business. So what 

are those non-value added tasks, both for us, and for the individuals that we serve, that are occurring? And 1⁄3 of the people that 

came into our office were coming in just to drop off documentation, 

which then, as Ms. Dean mentioned, we image that so that information is available, and we can distribute workload across the 

state. 

Well, there is a cost to imaging that document, so we thought, 

well, if you are going to deposit a check with your bank, I no longer 

have to go to the bank. I can use a mobile app, I can take a picture, 

and that image is right there for the bank to process. And we applied that same concept to our mobile app, and it is a tool that is 

available. 

So the vast majority of people are still not utilizing the mobile 

app, but for those that do, it can save them a trip to the office, and 

it is efficient for the state because we don’t have to pay our vendor 

to produce that image, and we don’t have to touch the document. 

It is just automatically associated with their case. A worker gets 

notified, we have been provided this documentation, and they can 

complete that eligibility determination. 

So we built a business case around what things would be a value 

add both for the state and for the client in offering the product. 

Mr. AGUILAR. And as the use for devices goes up, then hopefully 

that piece as well, helping you reach your timeliness of responses 

as well. That was an interesting part of your testimony. Thank you 

so much. 

Ms. MUTH. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thanks, Pete. 

Mr. Gibbs, 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Muth, I want to talk 

to you about something, in your testimony you talk about SNAP 

balances, and trying to expunge those balances. The reason I am 

so interested in this, in Ohio, one of my local media TV stations 

did a little expose ́, and they found out we had some people on SNAP balances, some as high as $22,000–$23,000, trying to figure 

out how to address that. 

So I see in your testimony that your agency requested, and was 

denied, a waiver to expunge the SNAP benefits on active accounts 

that have been available for at least 12 months. So do we need to 

663

pass some Federal legislation, what is Texas trying to do to address 

this balance issue, and what are your limits and limitations? What 

do you need, exactly? 

Ms. MUTH. I believe it is a change in regulation that is required, 

and we must have had the same reporter move from Texas to your 

state, because we had a similar number of expose ́s, which attracted 

a lot of interest. I think the limitation right now is if an account 

is not an active account, you can expunge those benefits, but active 

accounts we can’t. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. Thanks for the clarification, inactive, what is 

the definition of——

Ms. MUTH. If you use that account even once in that 12 month 

period, that is considered an active account. So that is sort of the 

limitation that we have. 

Mr. GIBBS. So currently if somebody hasn’t used their account in 

a 12 month period, you can expunge those——

Ms. MUTH. That is correct. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. 

Ms. DEAN. Can I just jump in on——

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. 

Ms. DEAN. The 2008 law is very clear that states can take the 

account offline after 6, and then they must expunge after 12, but 

it is the activity that is the issue. 

Ms. MUTH. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. 

Ms. DEAN. I will say that, to the extent that there is a problem, 

and the balances that you describe are clearly an issue, but where 

there are smaller amounts, states often find that it is senior and 

disabled households who actually don’t know how to access their 

account. Maybe they thought they were supposed to get a second 

card in the mail. So what we would like to see is to make sure 

states are engaging with the household on why aren’t you using it, 

then you could revisit the expungement rule. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

It would be reasonable to have some dollar amount, $5,000, I 

don’t know what that is, I am just throwing it out. And if it has 

been more than 6 months, that would be reasonable to say that 

states could freeze those accounts, and require those people to contact them and find out what is going on. 

Ms. DEAN. Yes, and USDA is encouraging that, but it is not obligated under the statute. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. 

Ms. MUTH. And that is freezing an inactive. I think that it is also 

that question of what the activity levels are, and how old those 

benefits are. So I certainly think there is opportunity to tweak how 

that is currently done today. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, another question, the obvious question, since 

you had this issue in Texas, when I am sure Texas and Ohio are 

not unique to the country on this issue. It must be nationwide. 

How in the world does anybody get those kind of balances? 

Ms. MUTH. And I think that is the big question that erodes the 

integrity of—that is what our public asked. If you need SNAP benefits, obviously there is not trafficking going on in that case, because 

they are accumulating very large benefits. But if you meet the eliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
664

gibility requirements, why wouldn’t you need to be utilizing those 

benefits. I think there are some situations, as Ms. Dean mentioned, 

where people might not be fully aware of the amount, but there 

certainly are a small number of cases where you see extremely 

large benefits that aren’t explained by that explanation. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. Well, you raised the question about eligibility 

criteria, parameters. Would you have a suggestion or a recommendation, maybe, that the—we need to dig in deeper to the eligibility, and I want to make sure the people that need the help are 

getting it. But, when you see balances like that—and it is not, in 

the scheme of things, it is a handful of people, but it is pretty good 

sized dollars in the aggregate. 

Ms. MUTH. Right. 

Certainly, we want to look at those cases for what is going on 

in that case, it is a red flag, or an alert for potential fraud. I think 

the issue is less on the front end, and more on what is happening 

in that individual case, because there are a handful of those that 

there is really no logical reason for why you should have accumulated such large balances. 

Mr. GIBBS. Now, would you agree with me that the states, since 

this program is funded total—100 percent by the Federal Government, and then states kind of, at least in Ohio, administer through 

the counties, the states don’t really have an incentive to really be 

involved anyway. Is that typical in Texas too? 

Ms. MUTH. We have some skin in the game, with the 50 percent 

of the administrative cost, and, certainly, in our state our philosophy around the programs is that we believe that it is taxpayer 

dollars, and whatever the source, that we want to maintain the integrity of the program. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I appreciate your testimony bringing this to 

light, because we need to try to figure this out so people that need 

the help get it. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. Adams, 

5 minutes. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much 

each of you for your testimony. As many of you are aware, Congresswoman DeLauro and I are circulating a letter stating Member 

opposition to SNAP being converted to a block grant program as 

part of any budget resolution. So I would encourage other Members 

to join the 60+ Members who are already on the letter, if they 

haven’t done so. 

Ms. Dean, the State of North Carolina has decided to stop all 

waivers for SNAP work requirements for ABAWDs by July of this 

year. And while many states no longer have blanket waivers due 

to lower overall unemployment, there are still areas of the 12th 

District, that I represent, where jobs are just not available. What 

flexibility is North Carolina giving up by not requesting waivers for 

areas experiencing high unemployment? 

Ms. DEAN. Well, they are certainly giving up the flexibility to 

provide food assistance to very poor, unemployed individuals. And 

they are limiting the flexibility of local food banks by increasing 

the number of folks who need to turn to them, possibly having to 

ration food across more folks. 

665

But, most fundamentally, what they are taking away from themselves is the ability to engage these folks in meaningful work programs, job training, and job search. Again, the work rule under the 

time limit, which is very different than what Mr. Yoho was talking 

about, in terms of employment and training, is a 20 hour a week 

engagement with no, or extremely limited job search. That is expensive for states to pull off, and they could much more meaningfully engage these individuals and help them with employment if 

they weren’t facing the pressure of the time limit. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. In a written report by your organization, 

it mentions that the SNAP program already has a strong work incentive. For every additional dollar a SNAP recipient earns, their 

benefits decline by only 24¢ to 36¢, much less than in most other 

programs. Families that receive SNAP thus have a strong incentive 

to work longer hours, or to search for better paying employment. 

So how can we model the already strong work incentive for the 

SNAP Program for other income support programs? 

Ms. DEAN. Thank you, that is a great question. Medicaid shares 

SNAP’s work incentive, in the sense of if you go to work, earn 

more, your benefits are not put immediately at risk, in terms of 

health coverage, and that is very powerful. But other programs 

that are capped, or where the funding is only available to serve one 

in four or one in six eligible people, as someone gets a job, often 

very quickly the benefits could be taken away. Let us say someone 

loses a job. If you are receiving child care assistance when you have 

had employment, and then you lose the job, child care could be cut 

off. But, of course, that undermines your ability to go look for work 

and get another job. 

Taking a more holistic view of wanting to support and incent 

work, and ensuring that we cover working families, the fundamental way to do that is by financing the programs, not capping 

them. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. Ms. Dean, we have discussed in previous 

hearings that many states do not offer a standard medical expense 

deduction for seniors and the disabled to document their true costs 

of living when they apply or re-certify for SNAP benefits. In states 

that do offer a standard medical deduction, have you seen more 

seniors claiming the deduction in order to increase their monthly 

SNAP benefits? 

Ms. DEAN. Yes, and so this is a part of the program where seniors, or people with disabilities, can deduct their medical expenses, 

because the cost of those expenses can obviously impede their ability to purchase food. So not all households, but just seniors and 

people with disabilities can deduct those expenses. 

It is actually a very complex area of the law, and when we look 

at the number of seniors on the program, and who are claiming 

medical expenses, it is extremely low, much lower than you would 

expect. And it is just very hard. The statute is actually pretty complicated about what it takes to claim those expenses. So states 

have come up with a way to simplify it and make it easier to demonstrate that they have out of pocket medical expenses, and the 

take-up there is great. That having been said, seniors need detailed, robust engagement. They need help through the process, 

666

and so what works best with them is actually supporting them 

through the application effort. 

Ms. ADAMS. Okay. You have documented that SNAP benefits 

have consistently not kept pace with the rising cost of food. So how 

would switching to the low cost food plan permit those recipients 

to more adequately put food on the table through the end of the 

month? 

Ms. DEAN. The Thrifty Food Plan, the basis of the SNAP benefit 

assumes a very meager diet, and heroic assumptions about how 

much time families have to cook, shop, and really extreme assumptions about what they are buying, relative to the rest of America. 

A more realistic food plan, including a Low Cost Food Plan, would 

put more nutritious, healthy diets, within reach of families on this 

program. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. The Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Nutrition, Mrs. Walorski. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And hello to you, the 

two of you that have been here before us. Good to see you again. 

As you know, I chair the Committee’s Nutrition Subcommittee, 

which has been central to the review process of past, present, and 

future of SNAP, so I want to thank you for being here, and for returning for your second debut as well, I appreciate your expertise. 

One thing that has stood out to me as we have been talking together, and taking this comprehensive look at SNAP, is that we are 

all in this together. Everybody is a shareholder. Federal Government, state government, not-for-profits, private-sector, researchers, 

recipients, everybody has a role to play in this issue of lifting 

Americans out of poverty and onto the economic ladder. So no one 

has a monopoly on good ideas. In fact, state governments, not-forprofits, and the private-sector are crucial incubators, and we have 

heard time and time again, crucial incubators of innovative ways 

to fight hunger and poverty. And flexibility does matter, it is important, because it allows them to tailor programs to respond to the 

needs of their individual states. 

So my question, Ms. Muth, is to you. Our review of SNAP has 

shown the great value of partnering with all of these entities, the 

state governments, the private-sector, the researchers, and all the 

shareholders. And can you just talk a little bit about the partnerships, and the impact they have had when you are administrating 

Federal programs locally? And then to what extent have you utilized these partnerships at the state level to maximize resources? 

And the positive and negatives of both. 

Ms. MUTH. Okay, absolutely. Well, I will talk about the privatesector, in the traditional sense, first. We have a number of contracts that support our eligibility process. And as I was talking 

about, EBT being an area that we have vendor support, and you 

are able to bring in the expertise of financial industry, that is not 

something that the state agency has. And so I think that those contractual relationships that we have for entities that support ours 

and the program bring new perspectives, and it is part of the whole 

program administration that we have in Texas. 

667

But we also have a large number of partnerships with entities 

at the local level. In Texas we have about 1,500 community partners, and these are non-financial agreements that we have with entities who are already providing assistance to individuals. And they 

are providing assistance with things like the job search, or helping 

address underlying mental health issues, or they are providing case 

management services, and so providing them access to SNAP is one 

of the tools in their case management toolbox. So we partner with 

those 1,500 organizations. 

For those individuals, they used to bring us paper applications. 

Today they are community partner sites, and they make the online 

application, the mobile app functionality, available to individuals 

across the state. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. And when you are partnering you are sending, 

then, all those resources down to the front line, and it sounds like 

you are doing what we have heard about, and what we have been 

talking about, this holistic approach. So when somebody does fall 

through the so-called safety net, then basically your partnerships, 

if I understand this correctly, are basically there to make sure 

there is an underlying net that makes this program then run more 

efficiently. Prior to the partnerships, do you have data that you can 

look at and say, wow, since we have been partnering with all these 

agencies, look how much more efficiently we are delivering this, or 

look how much better holistically we are taking care of families? 

Is that true? 

Ms. MUTH. I don’t have data to indicate that. I think those partnerships existed. It wasn’t really a partnership. There was a relationship. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Yes. 

Ms. MUTH. And it became really clear to us in Texas, when we 

had significant delays in processing eligibility, because food banks 

came to us and said, while it is taking you this long, we can’t keep 

food on the shelves because people are coming more to us. So there 

is a natural relationship there that we just sort of formalized in 

those partnership agreements. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Okay. I have one quick question. You talked 

about the most common SNAP household recipient is female, between 18 and 49, with kids under 12 years of age, has some form 

of income, receives a monthly benefit of $274. Can you recommend 

to this Committee what you think would best assist the majority 

of this population? What is the best thing we could possibly do, if 

we could make a move to assist that woman? 

Ms. MUTH. I think part of it is just changing our practices, and 

not expecting everybody to be able to arrange for child care, and 

transportation, and time off of work to come in to those eligibility 

offices, and having the convenience of technology so that they can 

provide information to us, contact us, 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

week through the online self-service. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Okay. I appreciate it. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I 

yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Costa, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

welcome the witnesses, and thank you for being here. Members of 

668

the Committee, I am sure, as you are aware this is the 12th hearing that we have held on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program, otherwise known as SNAP, in the 114th Congress. Each 

hearing has had a distinguished panel, and what I am trying to determine is what the objective is? Why we have we had a preponderance of hearings on the SNAP program. And I must admit that I 

am increasingly concerned about the potential intentions, as it relates to the future farm bill. I am concerned that there is going to 

be a policy recommendation to leadership that in the next farm bill 

we dramatically cut SNAP, and there should be adjustments as it 

relates toward it, but I don’t think we ought to be throwing the 

baby out with the bath water, no pun intended. 

My district is one of the richest agricultural districts in the country, but it is also, with that significant wealth, has a lot of poverty. 

A cut would be devastating, and directly equate to taking food out 

of the mouths of children and families in my district. The irony is 

that a lot of these folks are some of the hardest working people you 

ever met in your life, who are working to produce the food that 

goes on America’s dinner table. And many of them are out of work 

today as a result of the drought conditions and the regulatory programs that have compounded the drought conditions. 

California’s San Joaquin Valley, which I have the pleasure of 

representing, has an unemployment level that is nearly twice that 

of the national average according to the Bureau of Statistics. And 

as it stands today, I sadly must tell the Members of this Committee 

and the witnesses that there are 50,000+ households receiving 

SNAP benefits in my district. The statewide snapshot of SNAP in 

California indicates that there are 278,000 households that are receiving food stamps in California, and 50,000 of them are in my 

district, almost 20 percent. If you want to understand the snapshot 

of those households, 79 percent have a child that is under 18. And 

15 percent of those households have one or more persons that are 

60 years or older. This is dramatically impacting the Valley, obviously, because of a combination of other factors, as I stated earlier. 

Fields are being left unplanted as a result of the drought, and jobs 

are at a premium. Now is not the time to be considering taking 

food away from families in the San Joaquin Valley, or throughout 

the nation. 

Are we satisfied with the status quo? Absolutely not. Are there 

alternatives to dealing with this? Yes, and let me speak of one. My 

friend Pete Weber, who has taken the leadership with local governmental agencies has formed the Fresno Bridge Academy in my district, and it is one of several programs around the country that has 

taken advantage of the 2014 Farm Bill Employment and Training 

Pilot Program that I urged very hard to make a part of that farm 

bill to reduce dependency. One of the last graduating classes at the 

Bridge Academy saw 77 percent participating SNAP clients come 

from unemployed to becoming employed; 18 months later, 83 percent of the clients had obtained employment or job advancement, 

and 32 percent had achieved self-reliance. I believe states’ best options are to develop and fund innovative programs like the Fresno 

Bridge Academy, designed specifically to truly help people move to 

independence. That said, my question is, with all due respect, what 

669

are we doing? What are the efforts intended to be with this Committee in the outcome of these hearings? 

So finally, Ms. Stacy Dean, I would like to ask, what can states 

do to develop additional programs like the Fresno Bridge Academy, 

because clearly we want to get people off assistance. We want to 

get people independent and self-reliant, and that ought to be the 

goal and the intention, regardless of how many hearings we have. 

Ms. DEAN. Well, I don’t mean to joke too much, but actually 

cloning the Fresno Bridge Academy would be terrific, because not 

every state has such a terrific local partner that runs such a high 

quality program. So finding ways to replicate is important. USDA 

actually just announced, in the last day or 2, that they are providing more robust technical assistance for ten new states to bring 

up their employment and training programs. I say bring up, employment and training may be significant, but a lot of it is focused 

on job search and workfare, and not how do——

Mr. COSTA. Actually getting people into the jobs? 

Ms. DEAN. Right, and giving them the support and intervention 

that they need to move up into the workforce. So cloning first, but 

then more learning. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much. My time has expired, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Allen, 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, to our distinguished panel, for being here, and talking about this important 

program. Obviously, we had tremendous growth in this program, 

and now I see that we are making progress, as far as reducing the 

number of folks on this program. In fact, I was with a group yesterday that are involved in a food pantry program, and one of the concerns that I had in, and this is in south Georgia, that they serve 

about 3,000 children, but there are another 56,000 children that 

they think that might not be served. And then the other thing that 

I thought was important was that of those 3,000 children served, 

all of them have so far gotten a high school education through the 

food pantry program. 

Are there similar programs, and I will just throw this out to the 

panel, do you see the potential, as far as changing the cycle 

through education, and then, obviously, moving these folks onto the 

workforce, and then getting them off of this assistance? 

Ms. MUTH. I think absolutely that there are a lot of programs 

around the country, and much of that occurs at the local level, 

where organizations are having that direct contact with the families, and provide more. We talked a little bit about how they have 

the ability to provide a little more of the holistic case management 

to identify the underlying needs of the family, and SNAP being a 

tool in the toolbox to assist them on that path to self-sufficiency. 

Mr. ALLEN. Are there any statistics out there that you have, as 

far as the SNAP Program, and then the ability, well, we know children, and your testimony here has provided that children do better 

in school and socially if they are not hungry. So what are your 

trends showing, as far as the impact that you are having on children, and their ability to get a good education, and then to get a 

good job? 

670

Ms. DEAN. If I may take that one? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. 

Ms. DEAN. In my testimony I summarized the results of a recent 

study that was published that took a look at SNAP when it was 

being rolled out in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That was the 

only time in history where we could compare children who, as 

young children, or while their mothers were pregnant with them, 

received SNAP versus did not. 

And when you looked at the long-term outcomes for those individuals who were able to participate in then food stamps, it is really astonishing. High school completion rate was 18 percent higher 

amongst children who, when they were very young, were able to 

participate in SNAP. That is an extraordinary outcome for a basic 

food benefit for young kids. And, similarly, their health outcomes 

were also impressively much better off than those who did not. So 

I do think it is very important to think of this as a long-term investment in education. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. As far as your statistics go, obviously the longer 

you are on these programs, the more dependent you are. And what 

are we doing, obviously, we are seeing progress with our children, 

and doing the right thing, as far as making sure that they are fed, 

that they have the ability to get their work done, and then, like 

you said, move out of this cycle. But do you see any potential as 

far as older folks, in what we are able to do to move them off these 

programs? 

Ms. DEAN. Well, the individuals who participate in SNAP, it is 

a very dynamic group. The majority of folks experience a temporary 

downturn in their personal circumstances, they use the program, 

and they move on. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. 

Ms. DEAN. They get that job, and their family situation improves, 

their child is no longer sick, whatever the situation is. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. 

Ms. DEAN. That is a very dynamic group. There is also a group 

that is simply earning wages that are very low, or a senior who has 

a Social Security benefit that we cannot expect to increase. The 70 

year old is not going to earn more funding. 

Mr. ALLEN. I am just——

Ms. DEAN. You have to think about them differently. 

Mr. ALLEN.—just about out of time, but obviously the economy 

has not been robust for some time now. In fact, it is the longest 

period of stagnation in some time. But obviously you see a big difference when we have a growing economy, and the wages are growing, and people are able to move up into higher wages, and then 

eventually become independent? 

Ms. DEAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. All right. 

Ms. DEAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. ALLEN. So we have just have to get the economy growing? 

Ms. DEAN. Just that. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. 

Ms. DEAN. Right. 

Mr. ALLEN. I yield back. 

671

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mrs. Kirkpatrick, 5 minutes. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Arizona’s one of the six states that has a full 

ban on non-compliance with drug testing, and I just would like 

your thoughts about what that does to families in Arizona. I don’t 

know who wants to answer that. Whoever wants to answer. 

Ms. DEAN. You are talking about drug testing and the cash assistance? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. That is right. There are six states that have 

a full ban. 

Ms. DEAN. Right. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Arizona’s one of them. 

Ms. DEAN. First of all, there is a question to the state in terms 

of the cost of the drug testing, given the very low positive results 

that are found. And several studies have found that it is an extremely expensive policy for what is found. But the real question 

is what is the purpose of the drug testing? Is it withdrawing cash 

assistance or fundamental support from extremely poor families, 

because Arizona’s cash assistance rules are pretty strict. Withdrawing funding from that family and basic support, are those children better off, is the individual with a substance abuse or addiction problem getting the help that they need? And that is the 

measure of success, and not something that we are necessarily seeing in the states that have applied the test. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. And hunger is a real problem in Arizona. We 

have a higher incident rate of hunger among children. On the Navajo Nation, over 76 percent of the people suffer from food insecurity. So I am really pleased to see that Arizona has been selected 

to receive the specialized technical assistance to improve their 

SNAP E&T Program. And my question is, for Ms. Dean, can you 

explain how this program will help Arizonans get SNAP and back 

to work? 

Ms. DEAN. I believe I just mentioned this a second ago. There is 

an organization in Washington: Seattle, Washington, called the Seattle Jobs Initiative that has a pretty amazing proven track record 

in opening up workforce training programs to very poor individuals 

and families. Traditionally, a lot of the workforce and job training 

programs run by Labor Departments can be closed off to some of 

the poorest families, and the ones most in need of that basic training in order to move up the economic ladder. 

But, the Seattle Jobs Initiative seems to have cracked that nut, 

and USDA has contracted with them to offer technical assistance 

to states outside of Washington who are interested in finding a way 

to design programs that work for the SNAP population that they 

most want to help. So appropriate to local conditions, appropriate 

to the individuals that they are selecting, because we think about 

moms with enormous barriers to work quite differently than someone with a deep job history. You would just go about helping them 

differently. And, of course, responsive to local conditions. Are there 

jobs there? Are they talking to employers about the skills that are 

needed? This program has been terrific, and we are thrilled USDA 

is offering their help to ten more states, and I am glad Arizona is 

one of them. 

672

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, and it really is about jobs. It is 

all about jobs. 

Ms. DEAN. Yes. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. I was happy to hear the idea about using 

technology to allow them to get online to make their applications 

and supplement their information. Here is the problem I have. I 

have a huge rural district in Arizona, much of which does not have 

broadband coverage. And so is there anything that you are aware 

of what is being done to address that? 

Ms. MUTH. We certainly have similar issues in Texas. And while 

I don’t have the answer for that, over time that is becoming less 

and less of an issue. But while there are not immediate answers 

to that, it is still an option, it is not the requirement. But I think 

that for most people it is an option that most people would like to 

take. And so we have definitely seen a big difference over the past 

10 years in Texas, and I look forward to that continuing to improve 

in rural areas. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. We are seeing some progress, but still a lot 

of work to be done. It is a top priority of mine for many reasons. 

So thank you very much for your testimony today. I yield back. 

Ms. MUTH. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Newhouse, 5 

minutes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Ms. Muth, Ms. 

Dean, Ms. Cunnyngham, thank you very much for being here and 

discussing this important topic of finding different options available 

to states for implementing SNAP. 

I have a question for each one of you, so that 5 minutes goes by 

really quickly. I just wanted to, first of all, and this is for Ms. 

Cunnyngham, but maybe Ms. Dean, since you brought up Seattle. 

I am from the State of Washington. As you know, we have a very 

robust SNAP employment and training program. It is known as the 

Basic Food Employment and Training, or BFET. It is a collaborative public-private partnership that provides a range of skills to 

SNAP beneficiaries, things like advanced employment, interview 

help, education skills, even down to what is the proper workplace 

attire for people that are looking for work, and other things. 

It has been very successful. From April 2011 to December 2014 

it has more than a 65 percent success rate of helping people find 

work within 24 months, at fairly good wages, actually, comparatively. So whoever could contribute to this, could you discuss the 

range of E&T options that are available to states, ranging from 

fully funded Federal programs to the 50/50 program match funds? 

And also, do many states take advantage of that 50/50 match program? And also, not to tout our own program, but can you give me 

a sense of which states have a better rate of helping SNAP beneficiaries find work? 

Ms. DEAN. You should tout this program. It is terrific. We really 

think it is a shining star amongst the state offerings. But it took 

Washington, with a very concerted and focused effort, several years 

to figure out how to open up, again, these broader workforce services to the SNAP-specific population. I think what distinguishes the 

program in many respects, and I should say USDA sends many 

673

states to go to visit to Washington. They run an annual training 

for other states who are interested in how to do this. 

One is thinking about who are we targeting? Again, individuals 

who are temporarily unemployed versus someone who has been out 

of the workforce for years, folks with different educational ranges, 

and also where they live, and what jobs are available. Thinking 

first, about who am I focused on, and what types of services do 

they need? And is there a match between the services this individual needs, and what is available in the community? Individuals 

are also allowed to volunteer. They are working with highly motivated individuals who want this help, so that has a lot to do with 

the success rate, because they are motivated, and there is a great 

connection, and a service that is appropriate for the individual. 

So your broader question about what do we know about other 

states’ programs, actually very little, and that is why it was so terrific, in the 2014 Farm Bill, that the Committee, along with some 

other changes that it made to employment and training with the 

demonstrations required that USDA work with states to set up performance metrics, so that there would be more regular and routine 

reporting appropriate to what the state was running, not consistent 

across all 50 states. We will have a better sense of what is working 

well. Most states run job search and workfare, and most states use 

their Federal funds, and some 50/50 funds, but they do not leverage as much as they could. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Okay. Thank you very much. And I don’t mind 

you singing the praises of my state, but they are doing a good job, 

so I appreciate you saying that. 

Ms. DEAN. Yes. They are. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Ms. Muth, the current farm bill included a pilot 

program known as the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive. The 

grant program is intended to help SNAP beneficiaries obtain access 

to fruits and vegetables. I have heard the San Antonio Food Bank 

received a grant last year. Can you talk about the rollout of this 

program, and its impact on nutrition outcomes for SNAP beneficiaries? 

Ms. MUTH. I am not familiar with the details of the program, 

since that is a relationship directly with the San Antonio Food 

Bank and the USDA, but I will say that is an issue of great interest from everyone within the state, from the community-based organizations to even retailers in Texas are interested in how we 

incentivize those nutritious options for SNAP recipients. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Okay. Yes, I am just interested to see how well 

it has worked around the country. But, like I said, 5 minutes goes 

by really quickly, but I appreciate all of you being here and contributing to this conversation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Nolan, 5 minutes. Mr. Benishek, 5 minutes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. Thanks for 

being here. Many of my constituents ask me the same thing every 

time we talk about SNAP, okay, and I am just going to the work 

requirement, fraud, and how would somebody transition out of 

SNAP when they get a job? So those are the three things that come 

up whenever I speak to constituents, or when they bring it up to 

674

me. And I understand some of the questions that are brought up, 

somebody wants to work, but can’t find a job. The people that I 

talk to are concerned about the people that don’t want to work, but 

are staying on the rolls. How do we differentiate that, I mean, and 

what are the things that we could do to help people that actually 

want to work be still eligible for the program? Can you talk about 

that? Ms. Muth, what are they doing in Texas? 

Ms. MUTH. In Texas, the work portion of the SNAP Program is 

administered by another agency, but I do think that most of our 

recipients do have some type of employment. And for those that 

don’t, there are requirements that they participate, and the time 

limits. And Ms. Dean may be able to give you a better picture of 

that from across the state. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Ms. Dean, do you have any input there? 

Ms. DEAN. Well, first, the program’s eligibility rules allow low 

wage workers to participate in the program. So, for example, a 

family of three, their monthly gross income needs to be below 

$2,200 a month, so there are many, many families who are working 

and participating in the program. My colleague just reminded me 

that about 87 percent of families are either working in the year before or the year after SNAP participation, so it is not just while 

they are on the program. We have workers who are in and out of 

the workforce who then avail themselves of the program. So there 

is a high connection to work for folks on the program. 

But I just want to spend a minute, or a second, given the time, 

also just calling out that we do have a growing number of extremely poor families in this country, the folks who are living below 

50 percent of the poverty——

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, no, I am all for the people that are really 

poor, and who are unable to find work, to access the program. That 

is why we want to be sure that there are enough funds to help 

those people. 

Ms. DEAN. Yes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. But not the people that I talk to see this all the 

time, where people are turning down work to stay on the program. 

How do we sort that out? 

Ms. DEAN. Yes. We constantly, in this program, fight the individual anecdote, but I will——

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, I talk to restaurant owners, for example, 

that are looking for waitresses. 

Ms. DEAN. Yes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. The can’t find a waitress. That seems like a pretty good entry level job for someone who doesn’t have a job, but they 

can’t find a waitress who is willing to stay for any period of time 

because they lose their benefits. So I am trying to figure out how 

do we make this work so that people who——

Ms. DEAN. They lose their benefits meaning they are——

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, I don’t know exactly why they are not taking the job, but they don’t stay on the job. 

Ms. DEAN. Right. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Okay? There are some employers that are looking 

for a waitress, which is not a skilled job. That is a job that somebody could learn and be good at without a lot of formal training. 

And, to me, it seems like a good access to the workforce job. 

675

Ms. DEAN. Yes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. So how do we make this easier to determine 

whether you can’t get a job or you don’t want a job? 

Ms. DEAN. Well, I think that is the incredible challenge. Certainly doing more to connect available jobs to SNAP employment 

and training, to making sure that the employers are telling SNAP 

where the jobs are so that participants know where the jobs are is 

one step. But, it is difficult. The individual you are talking about, 

someone who is work avoidant, could appear that way when, in 

fact, we also have many, many individuals who are homeless, who 

do not have child care, who might not have——

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, I know, but, that is not the case of the people that I am talking about. Because, I talk to people a lot in my 

job, because I go around to the district, and talk to people about 

what their issues are, and that is not what you bring up, okay? It 

is not anecdotal. It is a real problem. So I want to see the needy 

people get the benefit and make it work, but we haven’t come up 

with a good answer here in Committee about this sort of problem. 

And, unfortunately, I am out of time. The 5 minutes goes really 

fast. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. LaMalfa, 

5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just as a preface here, 

concerns expressed earlier in the Committee about, again, the reason for these hearings, being like a prelude for the next farm bill 

making cuts to the program. That is kind of not helpful in what 

we are really trying to do. A big part of our job should be, and is, 

government oversight of any program or government operation, 

whether it is this Committee, or Defense, or any other committee’s 

venue. We are just looking for solutions to make any program go 

better and have the people that are the beneficiaries and users of 

it benefit more, and better use it. I don’t enjoy that that gets spun 

into other things sometimes, so we want all of our government customers, as we are—as we serve them, to do better. 

So, that said, Ms. Muth, in our review of SNAP so far, this Committee has learned a lot about the value of public and private partnerships, and the impact it can have when administering a Federal 

program at the local level. So has this been utilized fairly widely 

with regard to SNAP in these partnerships, and what are the 

things that might be improved or made more useful by the publicprivate partnerships? 

Ms. MUTH. In public-private partnerships, we have a number of 

partnerships, and sometimes I hate to call a contractual relationship a partnership, but we contract with a number of private companies that play a role in part of the SNAP delivery. So, as I mentioned, EBT would be one area where we are able to draw on expertise, financial expertise, that we don’t have within the state. 

And then we have a number of partnerships that occur at local 

level, with a variety of organizations. We are a big state in Texas. 

We are a state administered program, and so sometimes as we sit 

in Austin, we are far away from what is happening in those local 

communities. But when we partner with organizations——

Mr. LAMALFA. You know, the Texas delegation is always reminding us how big Texas is. 

676

Ms. MUTH. Yes, I know. We have to. We have done a number of 

things, I mentioned the community partner program. We also have 

a partnership with the food banks in Texas, and we do have a demonstration waiver with USDA, where food banks are able to do 

some of that initial data collection. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So, I am sorry, the time thing is always——

Ms. MUTH. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA.—but we will—so by and large it is pretty positive——

Ms. MUTH. Absolutely. 

Mr. LAMALFA.—and using local infrastructure, and bang for the 

buck, and getting it to the ground quicker and more efficiently is 

good. Is there any downside with the work at that level with the 

Federal interface? 

Ms. MUTH. There are some limitations at the Federal level. The 

demonstration waiver that we have, we are one of three states that 

have a similar demonstration waiver to allow the food banks to do 

that data collection, and have that count as the interview process. 

So there would be an opportunity to look at if that was worth expansion. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Okay. Good. Thank you. Ms. Dean, I am from 

California. It is another pretty big state, but we also have those 

waivers that also allow the on-demand and telephone interviews in 

lieu of a scheduled face to face interview, in determining eligibility 

and re-certs. And so, as was mentioned earlier on, the flexibility allows the resources to be utilized much more efficiently in other 

areas, stronger verification. I wonder how much value is there that 

direct communication might have in the interaction with the recipient so that; first, they are getting what they need; and second, you 

are having the cues you pick up from that interaction in determining either eligibility or re-certification. How important is keeping the digital process, but also having the integrity of the program 

with that face to face interaction? How is that a flexibility that is 

needed one way or the other more so? 

Ms. DEAN. So the state is held to the same standard for accuracy 

whether the interview is over the phone or in person when they are 

re-reviewing their cases. And this was an area where there was a 

lot of trepidation early on. Could we have a robust interview? Do 

you need to look someone in the eye? Ms. Muth can correct me, but 

I think that states have really had a very positive experience. They 

have learned to interview differently over the phone. 

One of the nice things also that technology has afforded is, at the 

same time telephone interviews were coming on, many states can 

now pull down real time data about the household. So I have sat 

in on interviews where the client says, my child support payment 

is no longer coming through, and the case worker now can pull up 

child support data and say, well, wait a minute, I saw that information was posted for February. There are other tools that have 

expanded at the same time we moved to phone interviews. So it 

has been terrific. States can always, if they are concerned, pull the 

individual in, and if the individual needs help, can also go in and 

ask for that face to face help. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Thompson, 5 minutes. 

677

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ladies, thank you so 

much for being here, part of this panel. The SNAP program is a 

very important program, there is no doubt about it, but it is a very 

complex program because people bring all kinds of different histories. We have folks who are part of intergenerational poverty. We 

have people who wake up in the morning, find themselves in bad 

times. We have people experiencing mental illness, maybe substance abuse, those who are incarcerated. It is so complex, and that 

is why it is difficult to find one solution. One solution is not going 

to work on it. If we do a cookie cutter solution, at the end of the 

day, with our reauthorization of SNAP, we have failed. We have 

failed a lot of Americans. 

I prefer to see SNAP, actually, the purpose of it is not so much 

a program, but a pathway. A path that works in a functional way 

to lift people out of poverty, to achieve greater opportunity, to provide a means for upper mobility. I would obviously put SNAP in 

with a lot of other programs that we do that don’t do that today, 

that tend to keep people down, and suppressed, and they never realize the American Dream. And so I want to go down a path that 

we haven’t asked a lot about. And, Ms. Dean, or whoever would 

like to respond, I want to look at, and correct me if I am wrong, 

but my understanding is that the eligibility for SNAP is generally 

at or below the 130 percent of poverty line. For a family of three 

it is calculated $26,100. Now, that is according to an October 30, 

2014 rule. 

We know that, and we talk about, or I talk about, and I hear others talk about, that we have a savings crisis in our country, that 

families don’t have that insulation so when things go bad, and you 

have a bad day, and you wake up and you lose your job, or you go 

in the hospital, or your kid gets sick, or the furnace goes out, we 

really have a crisis in savings. 

And so what I want to ask you about, actually, are the household 

SNAP resource limits, because they ought to be adequate so that, 

and those are my calculations: $2,250 in countable resources, 

$3,250 if you have at least one person 60 years of age or older, or 

is disabled, but that is household. Certain property is exempt, is 

my understanding. Most cars are exempt. That is a bit arbitrary 

state by state, a lot of variability. So my question is straightforward. Are these limits adequate without further economically 

destabilizing the households in question? 

Ms. DEAN. We do believe that the Federal asset rules are too restrictive; you put it exactly as I would have, which is that if you 

cannot accumulate some modest savings, you can’t inoculate yourself from life’s ups and downs. If my hot water heater breaks, my 

car breaks down; that financial stability, that personal insurance 

of some modest savings, is what can prevent families from falling 

deeper into poverty. 

So I completely agree, and that really is one of the main drivers 

for why states have taken advantage of the flexibility to relax that 

asset test, to allow for families to accumulate some modest savings, 

which was a very bipartisan goal in the 2002 Farm Bill. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. It kind of brings us a natural transition 

to my next question. Ms. Muth, you state that it is important to 

maintain some consistencies between states when implementing 

678

SNAP because benefits are portable across state lines. Those in 

border towns are especially impacted by the inconsistencies between states. I represent 24 percent of the land mass in Pennsylvania, high across the northern tier. What are some existing options that might make it difficult for recipients and the state to 

maintain consistency across states, and what should we do about 

that? 

Ms. MUTH. I don’t see any current barriers. I think in Texas we 

have a lot of people that either come shop in Texas, or that our 

SNAP recipients are shopping in other states. I think the issues 

that might come about if there were different rules that applied, 

and that the retailers were enforcing different rules, whether you 

live in Texas, or whether you live in New Mexico, for example. But 

today I am not aware of any issues that we have with our clients 

who are shopping across state, because it is fairly consistent. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back his extra time, I appreciate that. Ms. Lujan Grisham, 5 minutes. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

panel and the dialogue, as we try to figure out how we protect 

those families and support them to make sure that this benefit is 

available to them, so that we don’t have any hungry families and 

any hungry children. But, we are also looking at getting folks into 

a situation where they are not dependent on these benefits, it is 

a healthy dialogue. But I can also see how it can go awry, and I 

have talked about it a ton, frankly, in this Committee, that the intent of Congress to allow states to have more flexibility in how they 

operate SNAP and related programs is to really ensure that those 

states can target the constituents, and those families, in a meaningful way, and to take in the unique circumstances of each state 

so that they can administer those programs. 

But I get very concerned when that flexibility, and I am an old 

state bureaucrat. I loved flexibility, and was usually arguing with 

the Federal Government. But when that flexibility can be utilized 

in a way that does exactly the opposite of the intent of the core program, I really want to talk about what safeguards there are. Here 

is the example: in New Mexico, 1⁄2 of the SNAP benefits go to children. One out of every three children in New Mexico is at risk for 

hunger. It is the fourth highest child hunger rate in the nation, so 

we are still identified as one of the most hungry states in the country. Our unemployment rate is the highest in the country, and it 

has steadily increased for the last year. In fact, our economic situation is so dire that it has really created apathy, and an environment where I can tell you that most bipartisan state leaders are 

not finding a way clear out of this economic predicament. 

However, in that environment that I have just spoken of, in our 

state, the governor has unilaterally re-imposed very restrictive 

work requirements on SNAP recipients, even though there are no 

jobs. It is also the only state in the country where we are losing 

population, because there are no options. These children and families who were not intended to be off this benefit at this time, will 

be kicked off. And, in fact, the recent estimates are up to 80,000 

New Mexicans will lose their benefits due to those job requirements 

679

to find jobs that, frankly, don’t exist. So how do we reconcile that, 

and Ms. Dean, what can Congress do that assures that flexibility 

doesn’t become a tool to restrict the benefits that were intended to 

shore up these poor families and take care of these poor children? 

Ms. DEAN. That is a big question. When you are talking about 

work requirements, do you mean the time limit, or work requirements on ABAWDs, do you mean the time limit, or work requirements on families with children? I just want to make sure——

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. It is both. 

Ms. DEAN. That is what I thought. Okay. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Unfortunately. 

Ms. DEAN. So, first off, one of the key things that the statute 

does that you all have done, in addition to the regulations, is knowing that states have choices and options. There are some key parameters that, if you want to, for example, do online services, or 

talk to people in person, those kinds of things, you still have to 

process benefits once someone presents themselves as needing help, 

if they are within the Federal timeline. So timeliness and accuracy 

are key metrics that the Feds hold states accountable to. And they 

say you have a lot of different choices and options, but you must 

help needy people when they present themselves and provide all of 

their information. Those are cornerstones to the program, and really help identify where there are problems. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Do you think we could strengthen those 

cornerstones? And, again, I believe in state flexibility. I also want 

these benefits to be targeted in a meaningful way, and I want real 

opportunity, so that we don’t have persistent poverty. But I also 

know that this safety net is critical. 

Ms. DEAN. Yes. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. And it is clear to me that too often the Federal Government finds that those resources seem a bit restrictive 

to them to actually do accountability. And I get lots of responses 

that say, ‘‘Well, they are within the work requirement regulations, 

so we aren’t going to do anything about those 80,000 who are now 

off.’’

Ms. DEAN. Right. And that is the key question is, when there are 

work requirements, when the state is saying, we want to engage 

these folks in some activity to test their willingness to work, and, 

hopefully, to encourage work, what is the measure of accountability 

there? Leaving the program doesn’t mean you got a job. It might 

mean that you were asked to do something you couldn’t do. There 

was no child care for your young baby. You might have no jobs. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. No jobs in my state. 

Ms. DEAN. And so what do we do to ensure that those efforts are 

engaging in the results that everyone says they want? 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Mr. Davis, 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to each of 

the witnesses for being here today. A lot of my questions were 

taken by earlier Members of this Committee, but it is imperative 

that I reiterate some of the comments that Mr. LaMalfa made. And 

I really want to commend Doug, and also Chairman Conaway, and 

the Chairwoman of the Nutrition Subcommittee, my colleague 

680

Jackie Walorski, for actually talking about SNAP, and bringing 

folks like each of you in to talk about some of the successes of the 

program. Because we would be keeping SNAP recipients, in states 

like Texas, and my home State of Illinois, we would be doing them 

a disservice if we didn’t try and make the program even better, and 

more respective of the needs of those families who are utilizing 

those benefits. 

There is a lot of talk about public-private partnerships. That was 

my question, but I don’t want to reiterate it again. Although, in one 

aspect, based upon some of the discussion here today, we seem to 

have focused those public-private partnership discussions on more 

urban areas. And I know that there are many urban areas in the 

great State of Texas, as my Chairman likes to remind me of, but 

I have a lot of rural areas, just like you do in Texas. Can you expand, maybe, Ms. Muth, on what opportunities for rural areas 

there can be for the public-private partnerships? 

Ms. MUTH. We do have public and private partnerships in both 

rural and urban areas. Obviously, in some instances, it is harder 

to find the partnership in a rural area because there are just not 

as many entities there, but we have a very successful partnership 

with a food bank in Lubbock. They participate in that demonstration waiver that we have, and they target rural areas to provide 

access to individuals in those areas. And so it is incumbent on the 

state. We often look at that issue, and those are where we work 

very hard to identify and recruit partners, and sometimes we have 

to work a little bit harder to do that. But they are there, and we 

do have those partnerships that are very fruitful. We work with the 

faith community as well in those partnerships, and so that is an 

opportunity in rural areas also. 

Mr. DAVIS. Great. I know there has been a lot of discussion on 

technology, and technological advances, and getting more of a coordinated effort for our states to be able to serve the recipients of 

SNAP benefits, and other benefits, to work together. I know there 

was some discussion about that just a few minutes ago. Is there 

anything that you may want to relay to this Committee we haven’t 

asked about how to make this technology work even better, and in 

a more cohesive fashion, to better get the benefits to the recipients? 

Whomever wants to answer. 

Ms. MUTH. I will take one, because I just had a thought that had 

come to me, and I am Stacy, you might remember the name, but 

there is a partnership right now with a number of states, one of 

the things we have to do is confirm whether someone is receiving 

benefits in another state. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. 

Ms. MUTH. And each state has to individually contact other 

states. And there is a partnership with seven or so states right 

now. It is something that states have to buy into to participate in 

that just really seems like there should be a national database as 

we are spending a lot of resources. And I will tell you, often workers in other states somehow get my name and number to confirm 

whether a recipient is receiving benefits in Texas. It is not an efficient process, and I don’t think it is an effective process, and technology could really help us there. 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. 

681

Ms. DEAN. Can I add one more——

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, absolutely. 

Ms. DEAN.—which is the procurement of large statewide systems, 

that many states, particularly small states, are largely left on their 

own to sort out how to undertake a large procurement and can 

often be multi-billion dollar companies. And sometimes, frankly, 

are just mismatched in terms of knowing what to ask for, how to 

ensure the contracts will get them the best that they can, and the 

best value for your investment as well, because the Feds are putting up a significant share of those funds. So finding ways to leverage information across states, and perhaps to collaboratively purchase, say, if eight states are working with one vendor, there must 

be some way to leverage their shared——

Mr. DAVIS. Is the USDA providing any of that type of technical 

assistance? 

Ms. DEAN. Well, it is not just USDA, because most eligibility systems will include Medicaid, child care, TANF. So it is a multi-Federal agency, a multi-state agency, and a lot of efficiency is lost in 

that effort. 

Mr. DAVIS. Great. My time has expired. Thank you all. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Davis. I had a couple of real 

quick ones to finish out. Ms. Muth, you mentioned that Texas has 

a 96 percent efficiency rating on getting benefits qualified on time. 

What is the definition of on time?

Ms. MUTH. There are Federal standards related to timeliness, 

and for applications, there is generally a 30 day timeframe in 

which we have to process that. But if a household meets expedited 

criteria, then we have to process that in 7 days. But Texas actually 

has state law that says if you meet the expedite criteria, which basically means you are in immediate need for assistance, that we 

have to process that by the next day. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Ms. MUTH. So, on average, it takes us about 14 days to process 

applications. 

The CHAIRMAN. And the 96 percent is a blended approval rating 

on all——

Ms. MUTH. That is correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. States share the administrative costs. I am a 

CPA by trade, so are there efficiency standards, or measures that 

have been developed, or are developed, to look at number of employees per beneficiary, dollars spent per beneficiary, all those kind 

of things that would lead us to believe that on the administrative 

side, we are getting the best bang for the buck, and then help 

states who may not be providing the same level of their half? In 

other words, they are limiting their access to these better technologies through a state decision. Are there ways to look at that 

from an efficiency standpoint? 

Ms. MUTH. That is a great question. USDA does publish the administrative costs, but it is so difficult because every state is organized a little bit differently, and groups programs together differently, and you have a major——

The CHAIRMAN. Would there be value in looking at some common 

denominator that you could then look at, dollars is one thing, but 

if we had the number of beneficiary payments, is there some sort 

682

of way to look to see which states are doing it better, and then say 

to the other states here is a state that is doing it better? 

Ms. MUTH. Absolutely. And also, at the state level, they hold 

those accountable through the appropriations process as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. All three of you, and Ms. Dean, you mentioned 

it, really, answering Mr. Davis’s question, but are there formalized 

best sharing—convening organizations within the 50 states, or 54 

jurisdictions, that separate this program so small states can get together and share best practices they have implemented would that 

be beneficial? 

Ms. DEAN. Sure. There is a state-based organization, the American Public Human Services Administration, and they are here, 

which is great. If states are members of that convening organization, they get together and gather. The Feds also pull folks together to share, but not always across program, not always with 

respect to a business approach, or a method of doing work; states 

would care about that across SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, and child 

care. We tend to think within single programs. There is more we 

can do there. And, frankly, states and the Federal agencies feel 

constricted in their ability to convene and travel because there is 

a lot of public scrutiny of spending dollars in that way. But it is 

so important and so valuable. We need to see more of it. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. The 20 hour work requirement, that is 

not just one job? They could have multiple jobs——

Ms. DEAN. They could. 

The CHAIRMAN.—to get to 20? Okay. And then, this is probably 

outside y’all’s lanes directly, but could you walk me through real 

quick the interrelationship between qualification for SNAP and the 

school lunch program, the school nutrition programs, and eligibility 

there? Is there a link between those? 

Ms. DEAN. Yes, absolutely. Children on SNAP automatically 

qualify for the free school meals program, and there is a legal obligation for states and school——

The CHAIRMAN. That is lunch and breakfast? 

Ms. DEAN. Yes. There is a requirement to cross-enroll, and a performance standard there. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Okay. Is that the only way children 

qualify, or can they still qualify for free or reduced lunch if they 

come off the SNAP program——

Ms. DEAN. Yes. They may fill out an application and qualify 

based on family income——

The CHAIRMAN. But SNAP just automatically gets——

Ms. DEAN. Absolutely, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate our witnesses being here 

today. We get criticized for the number of hearings we have had 

on this issue. We spend $80 billion a year on it. I am not embarrassed by the opportunity to present, and hopefully in a fair and 

balanced method, so to speak, the good, the bad, and what we are 

trying to get done. My goal is to get the policy right. I don’t have 

any numbers on any savings, or anything like that at this stage. 

We just want to get the policy right. You can’t know that unless 

you have the examination of the policy to see what is working and 

what is not working. And so I appreciate you being here today. 

683

As Mr. Thompson mentioned, we serve 45 to 46 million people. 

There is not a 30 second pithy little snippy statement that captures 

adequately the complexity of the system. One side, our side, typically focuses on the anecdotes such as the 27 year old California 

surfer, with not a lot of sympathy for being on food stamps and 

maintaining his surfer lifestyle. Mr. McGovern and others focus on 

the folks who will always be on benefits, children, or who should 

be, the elderly, and the disabled, and so we talk past each other 

an awful lot of the time when we are trying to deal with this thing. 

So our goal, publicly stated, is to make sure we get the policies correct, and then we will score those policies, and see what we can afford. But the real goal, at this stage, is to get those policies right. 

One of the things that goes on, if I am a private donor in a notfor-profit, or a faith-based organization, and they don’t do it correctly, then I could police that, and move them out. These programs are not policeable by the donors, by the taxpayers, per se,

and so that is a job that we should be fulfilling, and we haven’t 

for a long, long time. So, we are building a body of knowledge that 

this group didn’t have because for a long, long time we just let this 

system go, without a great deal of understanding. So don’t apologize for my colleagues who criticize us for having too many of these 

hearings, but I appreciate our witnesses for being here. 

Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplemental written responses from the witnesses to any 

question posed by a Member. This hearing on the Committee of Agriculture is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

685

SUBMITTED LETTER BY TRACY WAREING EVANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN

PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION

March 14, 2016

Hon. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, 

Chairman,

House Agriculture Committee, 

Washington, D.C.;

Hon. COLLIN C. PETERSON, 

Ranking Minority Member,

House Agriculture Committee, 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson:

Thank you for this opportunity to provide written testimony on behalf of the 

American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) for the record of your March 

2, 2016, hearing on state agency use of options in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 

APHSA is a bipartisan, nonprofit membership organization representing state and 

local human service agencies through their top-level leadership. APHSA has been 

working to improve public health and human services for over 80 years by collaborating with state and local agencies, partners and national policymakers to promote 

effective policies, innovative strategies, and effective service delivery systems. With 

and through our members, APHSA advances comprehensive solutions for the issues 

facing human services by working with a broad spectrum of partners and stakeholders. 

APHSA’s Framework 

The framework through which our members see both SNAP, and health and 

human services programs broadly, is expressed through APHSA’s Pathways initiative. This member-driven proposal for a more effective and outcome-focused human 

services system calls for sustainable and meaningful outcomes for individuals and 

families focused on four impact areas: achieving gainful employment and independence; stronger families, adults, and communities; healthier families, adults, and 

communities; and sustained well-being of children and youth. Our views are driven 

by the need to shape the future of human services programs so that they account 

for the many changes now taking place in our country—in the economy, social structures, demographics, communications, and other major sectors that bear directly on 

our national success and well-being. These broad changes are challenging us to rapidly increase the effectiveness and value of our work. In partnership with communities across the nation, our agencies are already creatively generating solutions for 

the many needs and concerns in our field through focused leadership, path-breaking 

partnerships, and new answers to old problems. 

We are optimistic about the unprecedented opportunities we have to maintain the 

best of our current systems while creating a new environment for improved, longterm outcomes for children and families. Some examples of these opportunities include exciting developments in breakthrough technologies, new forms of communication, fresh business process models, and alternative funding support. These new approaches, tools, and relationships are converging to transform our work into a system that creates community-wide change and supports meaningful and sustainable 

outcomes. These dramatic shifts are helping to lift individuals toward independence, 

add value to communities, strengthen families, and achieve more at less cost—positive changes that benefit us all. 

Key Considerations for a Strong SNAP Program 

The strength and health of families, adults, and communities rest on a broad continuum of widely available conditions and resources as well as individual and family 

capacities and abilities. Among these is the means to access proper nutrition, and 

Federal nutrition programs play multiple and important roles in supporting this result. As those who are responsible for managing SNAP at the state and local levels, 

we know that SNAP is a key nutrition support that has served to significantly alleviate hunger and poverty for many decades. 

APHSA and its members have identified a number of core considerations that can 

help assure SNAP will be effective in strengthening families and will be efficient 

and administratively feasible. We list below several of these issues, and proposals 

for their associated policy improvements, that touch on issues raised in your March 

2 hearing:

686

• SNAP’s role in supporting work and building capacity—Support for entering the workforce and retaining gainful employment is a key goal for our 

agencies and a critical activity that can help move more individuals and families out of poverty. SNAP’s role in this goal could be greatly strengthened if the 

rules and funding for the SNAP Employment & Training program meshed more 

seamlessly with other work support efforts and could more easily be made part 

of a comprehensive employment support effort. The current E&T pilots should 

shed important light on how SNAP can advance in this critical area, and clearly 

beneficial impacts from these pilots should be implemented even before the pilots have concluded. Additional, similar pilots that can evaluate other strategies 

to build individual and community capacity should be promptly developed and 

tested.

• Testing and implementing other successful innovations—Modernizing 

SNAP must include accelerated development of innovative alternatives that improve the program’s impacts and administration, followed by rapid evaluation 

and prompt implementation of successful improvements. The Employment & 

Training pilots now under way should be a model for numerous other pilots covering such major program aspects as improvements in nutrition, overall family 

well-being, and independence; verification and program integrity; and new 

blended and braided funding models, including partnerships with other programs and sectors. Another example could be pilots that incorporate use of the 

Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) and eligibility decisions from health 

programs to initiate and complete most of the SNAP eligibility process.

• SNAP has contributed significantly to reducing need and to providing 

important bridge supports for those affected by job loss and other setbacks—It can respond quickly to recessions, food price inflation, and the changing needs of individuals and job markets. SNAP’s benefits flow through the existing retail food system and generate multiplier effects on the broader economy. SNAP’s benefit structure must continue to be able to provide this kind of 

immediate, effective, and sustained response. SNAP is also a key element in 

preventing ‘‘heavier-touch’’ problems down the road in health, nutrition, family 

stability, and independence. As the traditional foundation of nutritional and 

bridge supports across the nation, it has enhanced the effectiveness of other 

programs with varying benefits and standards, such as Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families.

• While SNAP must retain its current strengths, it can and should become a far more impactful and efficient program—SNAP must become 

much more effectively aligned with other programs such as those in the area 

of health. SNAP also must take far greater advantage of new technology and 

electronic data exchanges that can speed the application process, avoid duplication of work for both participants and administrators, connect seamlessly with 

other programs, strengthen access, and further improve program integrity. By 

often functioning in isolation, SNAP misses many opportunities to interact with 

other programs and thus to enhance access and efficiency. One clear example 

is the inability to take full advantage of the new information systems being implemented for health care, which can connect to SNAP in limited ways but cannot bridge SNAP’s differences in definitions of income and households and its 

approaches to interviewing and verification. Greater interoperability and alignment among these large systems would improve access by enhancing ‘‘singleportal’’ contact and reducing duplication in collecting and verifying case information.

• Any changes that would include block-granting SNAP must avoid problematic elements of other human services block grants—SNAP must retain its current responsiveness, including rapid adjustments for cost increases 

and caseload growth; a national floor for benefits; and alignment of state administrative match rates with other major human service programs. Any reductions 

in SNAP expenditures must be carefully assessed for their impacts on both recipients and the states’ ability to meet their needs properly, as well as the retail 

food economy. SNAP benefit or administrative match reductions could have a 

number of undesirable consequences, including diminishing agencies’ ability to 

properly administer this very complex and labor-intensive program.

• All health and human service programs must allow and support the 

most up-to-date and effective business practices in their administration—They must become a more seamless and efficient element of a personand family-centered approach. A number of current SNAP laws, regulations, 

and administrative rulings prevent the program from taking full advantage of 

advances that would reduce administrative costs, improve customer service, and 

687

strengthen program impacts. Certain policies beyond SNAP also have similar 

impacts, such as those that keep SNAP and other programs from freely using 

important databases that could improve administration and access. Similarly, 

states must have the option to implement horizontally integrated systems (particularly their information technology components) that align and streamline 

the eligibility and verification processes for SNAP, health, cash assistance, and 

other human services programs. Such integration will improve access, save administrative expense, improve program integrity, and maximize states’ ability 

to take advantage of extended enhanced Federal funding.

• Program simplification—APHSA has for decades urged simplification of 

SNAP rules, and proper credit goes to Congress, several Administrations, and 

the program’s stakeholders for reducing complexity in many areas. However, 

SNAP remains one of the most challenging assistance programs for customers 

to understand and for agencies to administer, and remains tied to eligibility and 

verification processes that are more difficult and less common than those in 

most other major programs.

• The ‘‘cliff effect’’—Among the most unfortunate results of multi-program disconnects is the ‘‘cliff effect,’’ in which modest increases in income or in a given 

program’s benefits trigger significant reductions in other programs. While 

SNAP has provisions that help ameliorate some of these concerns, on the whole 

it and other human services programs have far to go. Among other negative results, the cliff effect is often a significant disincentive to begin working or to 

increase hours and pay.

• Modern customer interfaces—Much of our population, of whatever income 

level, has long since made the transition to engaging government and other sectors electronically, through personal devices, and without the need for unreasonable paperwork and repetition of data already in the system. SNAP has 

begun making this transition, and indeed was a pioneer in changing fully to 

electronic card benefits nearly a decade and a half ago. But again, it has far 

to go in allowing simple electronic access, interoperability among related assistance programs, alternatives to face-to-face interviews, and use of the vast 

amount of electronic data now residing in government systems. Reducing these 

barriers could enhance single-portal access and eligibility, cut the time and effort to submit verification information, and help the many SNAP participants 

who must work during normal office hours.

Returning to your hearing’s key theme of state options, it is clear from these principles that a sound SNAP program relies on a number of important state administrative options—both those already in place and new areas of flexibility referenced 

in the points above. It is certainly proper that states be held accountable for suitable program performance and use of public funds in their application of options, 

and we believe that SNAP’s very thorough quality assurance and oversight procedures will continue to yield that result. As you continue your review of SNAP and 

prepare for program changes in the next farm bill, we urge you to keep in mind 

the critical role that a reasonable degree of state flexibility must play in successful 

administration of SNAP. 

We will be pleased to provide additional information on any of these issues. Please 

contact Larry Goolsby, Director of Strategic Initiatives, [Redacted] with any questions or requests. 

Sincerely,

TRACY WAREING EVANS, 

Executive Director, APHSA. 


11403129.eps
(689)

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM 

(THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: THE 

RETAILER PERSPECTIVE) 

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:59 a.m., in Room 1300 

of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael Conaway 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Conaway, Neugebauer, Goodlatte, Lucas, Rogers, Thompson, Gibbs, Austin Scott of Georgia, 

Crawford, DesJarlais, Gibson, Hartzler, Benishek, LaMalfa, Davis, 

Yoho, Walorski, Allen, Bost, Rouzer, Abraham, Moolenaar, 

Newhouse, Kelly, Peterson, David Scott of Georgia, Walz, Fudge, 

McGovern, DelBene, Vela, Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, Bustos, 

Kirkpatrick, Aguilar, Adams, Graham, and Ashford. 

Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Haley Graves, Jadi Chapman, 

Mary Nowak, Scott C. Graves, Stephanie Addison, Faisal Siddiqui, 

John Konya, Lisa Shelton, Liz Friedlander, Matthew MacKenzie, 

Nicole Scott, and Carly Reedholm. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. This hearing of the Committee on 

Agriculture entitled, The Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: The 

Retailer Perspective, will come to order. I have asked Michael Bost 

to open us with a quick prayer. Michael? 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we can bow our heads? 

Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day. We thank you 

for the blessings of this day. We thank you for the opportunity that 

we can come together as a nation and meet, discuss business to try 

to make this nation better, greater. Lord, we thank you for the 

freedoms that we have in this nation, and for the men and women 

who have fought to make sure that those freedoms are kept. Lord, 

we thank you. We ask all these things in your Son, Jesus Christ’s, 

name, amen. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I want to welcome our witnesses to 

today’s hearing, and thank them for taking the time to share their 

perspectives as retailers serving SNAP recipients. This hearing, 

like those before, builds upon the Committee’s top to bottom review 

of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. As 

690

the Committee concludes our review, we will be in a position to 

make meaningful improvements to the program, improvements 

that benefit recipients, taxpayers, and those working as critical 

partners in carrying out the program. We often say the states are 

the front lines of serving SNAP recipients, but it is the retailers 

providing the food that interact directly with their customers on a 

monthly, weekly, and sometimes daily basis. 

Retailers are keenly aware of the challenges that face their customers as they shop in grocery stores, whether it be trying to provide the proper nutrition for their families, or how to best maximize their budgets. Today we will hear from a variety of retail 

businesses, ranging from a convenience store to a large grocery 

chain, about the various challenges and opportunities both retailers 

and recipients experience interacting with SNAP. We will discuss 

the process in becoming an authorized SNAP retailer, and how that 

varies from single store operators to franchise grocery store chains, 

and the initiatives taking place within stores to promote healthy 

food purchases. Furthermore, we will evaluate the opportunities 

with technology, as well as the various challenges facing rural communities, and how retailers are serving those areas. 

From color coded stamps to the current EBT system, technology 

has come a long way since the food stamp program was created in 

1963. Technology is ever-changing. Today, food manufacturers are 

working to provide smart labels on packages that allow customers 

with cellphones to see ingredients, possible allergens, and genetic 

technology used to produce the food item. Credit card companies 

are now placing a chip into debit cards for more secure transactions. As technology evolves, we must ensure that SNAP is able 

to take advantage of these innovations, while still ensuring program integrity. 

We also have seen the way in which customers shop is evolving. 

My colleague from Michigan referenced in our last Nutrition Subcommittee hearing many grocery stores now offer wide selections of 

ready to consume or prepared meals. With these new food options, 

and various new purchasing opportunities available, consumers’ 

shopping patterns are changing. We are beginning to see more consumers who prefer to shop for their groceries online, such as the 

elderly, who have difficulty shopping in a store, parents with two 

jobs and limited time, and those who just prefer the convenience. 

Retailers are adjusting to meet their customer demands. 

For those individuals living in rural America, accessing food can 

be quite the challenge. I know that from Texas’ District 11, how 

some rural parts of the country can be, and how far a person must 

travel to reach a grocery store. As policymakers, we must be cognizant of the various laws we consider and regulations that are 

proposed to ensure that Washington is not making it harder for 

families to put food on their table, instead allowing SNAP to adapt 

to the changing needs and trends. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to share their 

perspectives from the grocery aisle. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]

691

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

I want to welcome our witnesses to today’s hearing and thank them for taking 

the time to share their perspectives as retailers serving SNAP recipients. This hearing, like those before, builds upon the Committee’s top-to-bottom review of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, so as the Committee approaches 

reauthorization, we will be positioned to make meaningful improvements to the program—improvements to benefit recipients, taxpayers, and those working as critical 

partners in carrying out the program. 

We often say the states are on the front lines of serving SNAP recipients, but one 

could argue it is the stores providing food that directly interact with their customers 

on a monthly, weekly, or even daily basis. Retailers are keenly aware of the challenges their customers face as they shop in grocery stores, whether it be trying to 

provide the proper nutrition for their families or how best to maximize their budgets. 

Today, we will hear from a variety of retailer businesses, ranging from a convenience store to a national large grocery chain, about the various challenges and opportunities both retailers and recipients experience interacting with SNAP. We will 

discuss the process for becoming an authorized SNAP retailer and how that varies 

from single store operators to franchised grocery chains and the initiatives taking 

place within stores to promote healthy food purchases. Furthermore, we will evaluate the opportunities with technology, as well as the various challenges facing rural 

communities and how retailers are serving those areas. 

From color coded stamps to the current EBT system, technology has come a long 

way since the food stamp program was created in 1963. Technology is ever changing. Today, food manufacturers are working to provide smart labels on packages 

that allow customers with cellphones to see ingredients, possible allergens, and genetic technology used to produce the food item. Credit card companies are now placing a chip into debit cards for more secure transactions. As technology evolves, we 

must ensure that SNAP is able to take advantage of these innovations, while still 

ensuring program integrity is intact. 

We also have seen that the way in which consumers shop is evolving. As my colleague from Michigan referenced in our last Nutrition Subcommittee hearing, many 

grocery stores now offer a wide selection of ready to consume or prepared meals. 

With these new food options and various new purchasing opportunities available, 

consumer shopping patterns are changing. We are beginning to see more consumers 

who prefer to shop for their groceries online, such as the elderly who have difficultly 

shopping in a store, parents that work two jobs and have limited time, or those who 

just prefer the convenience. Retailers are adjusting to meet their customer demands. 

For those individuals living in rural America, accessing food can be quite the challenge. I know from my own experience traveling around Texas’ 11th district, how 

rural some parts of the country can be and how far a person may have to travel 

to reach a grocery store. We as policymakers must be cognizant of the various laws 

we consider and regulations that are proposed to ensure that Washington is not 

making it harder for families to put food on the table, but instead allowing SNAP 

to adapt to these changing trends. 

I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be here today to share their 

perspectives ‘‘from the grocery aisle.’’

The CHAIRMAN. And, with that, I turn to the Ranking Member 

for any comments he would like. Collin? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to welcome today’s witnesses to the Committee. I look forward to their 

testimony. Retailers play an important role in the food chain, and 

this Committee focuses so much on farmers that the perspective of 

food retailers, and the role they play in getting food to consumers, 

sometimes gets lost. For many, a grocery store may not be easily 

accessible. This is why so-called small format retailers, who we are 

hearing from today, are so important. They can help bridge some 

of the distance, and meet consumer needs. 

692

I recently joined my colleagues expressing concerns about the 

proposed rule to modify SNAP retailer eligibility requirements, and 

I believe the proposed rule would threaten small format retailers’ 

ability to participate in SNAP. It would reduce food access to many 

consumers who rely on these small retailers for their groceries, and 

it just is the wrong direction. So hopefully this issue can be addressed, moving forward. Larger retailers also face challenges, particularly when it comes to technology, so I will be looking to today’s 

testimony to see if there is anything Congress can do to help these 

retailers better serve consumers. So, again, welcome to the Committee, witnesses, and I thank the chair, and yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. The chair would request 

that other Members submit their opening statements for the record 

so that our witnesses may begin their testimony, and to ensure 

there is ample time for questions. I would now like to welcome to 

our witness table Ms. Kathy Hanna, Senior Director Enterprise 

Payments and Store Support, The Kroger Company, Cincinnati, 

Ohio. I would ask Mr. Rogers from Alabama to introduce our next 

witness. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the honor today 

to introduce Mr. Jimmy Wright from the great State of Alabama. 

Jimmy is a single store operator of a family owned neighborhood 

market in Opelika, Alabama. Jimmy is an involved member of the 

community in Opelika, serving as President of the Opelika Community Development Corporation, and on the board of the National 

Grocer’s Association. Jimmy, his wife Susan, and daughter Emily, 

are members of the First Baptist Church of Opelika, a church I 

have had the privilege of visiting several times, and it has a spectacularly beautiful sanctuary. You have a lot to be proud of. 

He has a unique perspective on what it is like to serve a diverse 

clientele, and to feed a community. Jimmy bought the market in 

Opelika in 1997, and has run this market as Wright’s Market ever 

since. In 2012 Mr. Wright formed a relationship with a nonprofit 

ministry to open the Carver Neighborhood Market. Carver Neighborhood Market serves a community in South Atlanta that was 

once what is known as a food desert. Folks in South Atlanta had 

to previously drive 3 hours round trip on a bus just to shop for groceries. Jimmy’s service to that community is a testament to his desire to give back to this country that has blessed him so much. 

Thanks to Jimmy for being here, and I know we all look forward 

to your testimony. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would also like to introduce Mr. Doug Beech. 

He is Counsel for Casey’s General Stores, is that Ankeny, Iowa? 

Okay. And I would like to ask Mr. Lucas to introduce our last witness. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to introduce Carl Martincich. He is the Vice President of Human Resources and Government Affairs at Love’s Travel Stops and Country Stores. Love’s is a large chain of truckstops serving rural areas 

that have busy interstates running through them. Travel stops 

such as Love’s typically also have multiple businesses, such as fast 

food restaurants, within the store. Carl will discuss how their business model differs from other retailers, and what factors they use 

when deciding what food to stock on its shelves, and, most interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
693

esting, of course, the similarities between SNAP purchases and 

non-SNAP purchases of other customers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I would acknowledge Ms. Hanna and 

Mr. Beech. You need to be from a state which has a Member on 

the Committee. You get a much better introduction. Ms. Hanna, 

you may begin your testimony at your leisure. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF KATHY HANNA, SENIOR DIRECTOR

ENTERPRISE PAYMENTS AND STORE SUPPORT, THE 

KROGER CO., CINCINNATI, OH; ON BEHALF OF FOOD

MARKETING INSTITUTE 

Ms. HANNA. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Conaway, 

Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee. My 

name is Kathy Hanna, and I am the Senior Director of Enterprise 

Payments at The Kroger Company, based in Cincinnati, Ohio. I am 

also the past Chair of the Food Marketing Institute Electronic Payment Systems Committee. Kroger is the largest traditional grocer 

in the U.S., with nearly two dozen banner names, all of which 

share the same belief in building strong local ties and brand loyalty 

with our customers. Every day the Kroger family of companies 

makes a difference in the lives of 81⁄2 million customers and 

431,000 associates who shop or serve in our 2,778 retail food stores 

in 35 states, and the District of Columbia. 

At Kroger we are interested in improving the health of all of our 

shoppers. More and more shoppers see the supermarket as a health 

or wellness destination. Kroger currently operates 2,231 pharmacies, and 190 clinics. We employ dieticians, nutritionists to assist our shoppers in making healthy choices. Additionally, we employ chefs that hold cooking demonstrations, and provide recipe 

ideas for families shopping on a budget, or with specific dietary 

needs. These are benefits and services Kroger offers to all of our 

customers, regardless of how they are paying for their groceries. In 

Memphis and north Mississippi, Kroger recently partnered with 

AARP, who received a Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive grant 

from the USDA. This partnership allows us to incentify SNAP customers to purchase more fresh fruits and vegetables in our stores. 

Creative incentives such as this are a win-win for the grocery industry and our customers. In April of this year, 600 coupons were 

redeemed versus only 60 in October of last year. 

Grocers are the private partner with the government as the point 

of redemption for SNAP recipients, and are vested in ensuring the 

program runs as efficiently as possible. The national SNAP EBT 

system we have today is a result of legislation authored by then 

House Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee Chairman Bob Goodlatte. Today SNAP is ubiquitous, quick, inexpensive to accept, and 

seamless amongst the states. At Kroger, our point of sale system 

is integrated to automatically prohibit SNAP benefits from being 

used to purchase non-allowable items. This efficiency is further enhanced by the fact that the rules are uniform across the country. 

Not only is this ubiquity essential on our programming side, it is 

key for our shoppers who rely on SNAP to have the same set of 

rules regardless of where they are redeeming their benefits. 

694

While SNAP EBT has been incredibly successful, we must now 

look to the future of EBT. SNAP EBT relies on almost 50 year old 

magnetic stripe technology. This legacy technology is currently 

being replaced here in the U.S. with chip cards in the credit card 

and debit card markets, numbering the days of magnetic stripe. 

Eventually the point of sale will move away from magnetic stripe, 

and we need to plan for what the next generation of EBT should 

look like. We should consider where there is a place for EBT as a 

mobile payment, or other solutions that would best serve our SNAP 

clients, and maintain the efficiencies and ubiquity of SNAP. We are 

always looking for opportunities to bring greater efficiencies and 

improvement to SNAP. 

One area where states vary widely is how many days of the 

month they distribute benefits. If a state only distributes benefits 

1 to 3 days a month, it can create several operational challenges 

for retailers. The grocery industry is a very high volume business. 

We sell millions of food items every day. Our shelves are constantly 

being restocked, and we work very hard to keep checkout lines 

short and moving quickly. Serving large populations of customers 

on 1 or 2 days a month raises significant challenges. We support 

states spreading out their distribution to throughout the month to 

ensure better service and full selections for all customers. 

Another area we are focused on is greater reliability of EBT processing. States contract with a processor to carry out SNAP transactions. When an EBT processor experiences an outage, and the 

system goes down, we often do not know about it until the store 

has incurred multiple SNAP transaction declines. These outages 

can be very costly to us, and cause major disruptions for our customers in our stores. Currently there are only two providers effectively splitting all of the states. Two simply is not enough. We believe that more competition in the payments processors space, the 

higher the level of reliability we will see in this space. 

Thank you again for inviting me here today. Kroger is committed 

to serving all customers, including our customers who utilize 

SNAP. We stand ready to work with the Committee as it begins 

to contemplate the next farm bill to find additional improvements 

and future technology solutions to ensure that we can all meet our 

customers’ needs. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hanna follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHY HANNA, SENIOR DIRECTOR ENTERPRISE PAYMENTS

AND STORE SUPPORT, THE KROGER CO., CINCINNATI, OH; ON BEHALF OF FOOD

MARKETING INSTITUTE

Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of 

the Committee. My name is Kathy Hanna and I am the Senior Director Enterprise 

Payments at the Kroger Company based in Cincinnati, Ohio. I am also past Chair 

of the Food Marketing Institute Electronic Payments Systems Committee and have 

watched the evolution of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

from paper coupons that were often traded in the store parking lot, to a patchwork 

regional system with differing administrative requirements, and then finally a nationwide electronic system that has significantly improved efficiencies and reduced 

the opportunity for fraud and error. 

Kroger is the largest traditional grocer in the United States with nearly two dozen 

banners, all of which share the same belief in building strong local ties and brand 

loyalty with our customers. Every day, the Kroger Family of Companies makes a 

difference in the lives of 81⁄2 million customers and 431,000 associates who shop or 

serve in 2,778 retail food stores under a variety of local banner names in 35 states 

695

and the District of Columbia. At Kroger, we are interested in improving the health 

of all of our shoppers. More and more shoppers see the supermarket as a health 

or wellness destination. At Kroger, we currently have 2,231 pharmacies and operate 

190 in store clinics. We employ dietitians and nutritionists to assist our shoppers 

in making healthy choices. Additionally, we employ chefs that hold cooking demonstrations, and provide recipe ideas for families shopping on a budget, or with specific dietary needs. These are benefits and services Kroger offers to all of our customers, regardless of how they are paying for their groceries. 

In recent years, FNS has looked for new ways to incentivize healthier eating by 

SNAP customers and the Agency has been willing to grant waivers allowing grocers 

to directly incentivize SNAP shoppers. Kroger has recently partnered with AARP 

who received a Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive grant from the USDA. This partnership allows us to incentivize SNAP customers to purchase more fresh fruits and 

vegetables in our stores. Creative incentives such as this are a win-win for the grocery industry and our customers. 

We know our SNAP shoppers, like any shopper on a budget, is looking to maximize and stretch their spending power. 

Benefits of a Nationwide, Interoperable EBT System 

I am honored to be here today to share Kroger’s experience as a private partner 

with the government as the point of redemption for millions of SNAP recipients 

every month. When I first came to Kroger and worked in the stores, customers redeemed paper Food Stamp coupons torn out of books distributed monthly for food 

products in our stores. While Food Stamps provided a necessary benefit for Americans most in need, redeeming the stamps at the check-out was a very slow and tedious process subject to human error. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 committed to improving the paper system by mandating that Food Stamp benefits move to an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system by October 1, 2002. The system was designed to mirror the commercially available debit card system and Congress required that all EBT cards require a Personal 

Identification Number, or PIN, in order to be used. A PIN ensures that the customer 

presenting the card is an authorized user, so if the card were lost or stolen, it would 

have no benefit to whoever has it. It also allows the transaction to run on commercial rails to be as efficient and inexpensive as possible. 

Migrating to EBT was a huge undertaking that required cooperation among all 

of the various Federal Government and state government, retailer, and nonprofit 

and stakeholders. Kroger and all grocers were committed to the move to EBT and 

invested heavily in its success as we knew it would bring efficiencies into SNAP, 

reduce our cost of accepting the benefits and reduce the human error rate and the 

fraud rate by allowing states to share redemption information. At the onset, the system was not nationwide or ubiquitous with alliances of states popping up in various 

regions of the country under names such as SAS, the Southern Alliance of States, 

the Northeast Alliance of States and freestanding programs like in my home state 

of Ohio. Electronic was good, but it was clear that a nationwide, interoperable system would be much better. Then-House Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee Chairman Bob Goodlatte introduced legislation to move us to the nationwide, interoperable system we have today. Today, we enjoy a SNAP redemption system in all of 

our stores that is ubiquitous, quick, inexpensive to accept and seamless amongst the 

states. 

According to our partners at the Food Marketing Institute, about nine percent of 

grocery sales industry-wide are SNAP. That number was higher directly following 

the severe economic downturn in 2008 and 2009. Even then, with a larger population shopping with SNAP EBT cards, we did not see a slowdown in checkout lines 

or an increased error rate. The efficiency, ubiquity, low error rate and ability to handle volume increases can all be directly contributed to the streamlined EBT system. 

These transactions only take a matter of seconds. At Kroger, our point of sale system is integrated to automatically prohibit SNAP benefits from being used to purchase non-allowable items, such as toilet paper or alcohol. This efficiency is further 

enhanced by the fact that the rules are uniform across the country, so we do not 

have to individually program EBT restrictions, requirements or allowances by state. 

Not only is this ubiquity essential on our programming side, it is key for our shoppers who rely on SNAP to have the same set of rules regardless of where they redeem their benefits. 

Following major catastrophic events, such as Hurricane Katrina, we often seen a 

massive and temporary migration of people. In the Hurricane Katrina case, we saw 

families from Louisiana flee to Texas, Tennessee and Arkansas for significant periods of time. SNAP’s transferability in those cases is essential. A family’s SNAP benefits may be been issued in Louisiana but if they were temporarily staying with 

696

family in Arkansas, their SNAP benefits would work there without any challenges. 

SNAP portability is not just for major catastrophe such as this. I live in Cincinnati, 

right on the Ohio, Kentucky border. Every day thousands of people travel between 

those two states to go to work or shop. A SNAP recipient may want to cross into 

Kentucky from Ohio to shop at a store that is running a sale, or is closer to their 

job. The ability to redeem benefits with the same rules in multiple states is a very 

important efficiency that we enjoy in SNAP and often wish for in other government 

benefit programs. For instance, in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants & Children, or WIC, mothers cannot use their benefits in other 

states. The food packages allowed in one state often differ greatly from a neighboring state, and many states are still using legacy paper checks, while others have 

moved to EBT. However, in WIC EBT, the technology amongst the states varies 

where some use the traditional ‘‘magnetic’’ technology and others use what is called 

a ‘‘smart card.’’ Because of these differences, WIC lacks the ubiquity that we enjoy 

in SNAP—and in turn is a very expensive transaction we run in the store and one 

of the most complicated. 

While SNAP–EBT has been incredibly successful making SNAP more efficient, we 

are now starting to look to the future of EBT. SNAP EBT relies on almost fifty year 

old magnetic stripe technology. This legacy technology is currently being replaced 

here in the United States with ‘‘chip cards’’ in the credit and debit card markets. 

While current SNAP transactions are still more secure than a chip card without a 

PIN, we know that the days of magnetic-stripe cards are numbered. Eventually, 

point of sale readers will move away from magnetic stripe, and we should start 

thinking now about what the next generation of EBT should look like. The current 

chip card technology we are rolling out here in the United States is twenty year 

old technology—far from cutting edge. The 2014 Farm Bill directed FNS to pilot online SNAP, which is a great step toward looking at the future. However, we need 

to look beyond online, and whether there is a place for EBT as a mobile payment 

as more people have access to smart phones. Or are there other solutions that would 

best serve our SNAP clients and maintain the efficiencies and ubiquity of SNAP? 

Expanding SNAP Benefits Days of Distribution To More Evenly Allocate 

Labor and Enhance Fresh Product Availability 

One area where states vary widely is how many days a month they distribute 

benefits. If a state only distributes benefits 1 to 3 days a month, it can create several operational challenges for retailers. This was particularly evident during the 

upswing in participation in 2008 and 2009. 

First, it is important to clarify a bit on SNAP recipient concentration. At the end 

of 2015, about fourteen percent of Americans were receiving SNAP benefits. However, that does not reflect fourteen percent of the shoppers in every store. As you 

know, poverty and food insecurity tends to be higher concentrated in some communities. We have many stores across the country that have a very low SNAP population and we have others with SNAP penetrations significantly higher than 14%. 

The grocery industry is a very high volume business; we sell millions of food items 

every day. Our shelves are constantly being restocked, and we work very hard to 

keep checkout lines short and moving quickly. Serving large populations of customers on 1 or 2 days each month raises significant challenges, from keeping our 

shelves stocked and checkout lines moving to scheduling associates. 

We appreciated the Agriculture Committee including language in the 2014 Farm 

Bill encouraging states to spread days of benefit distribution throughout the month 

and we will continue to work with states that currently do not to expand the days 

of distribution. 

Another option to consider is staggering SNAP benefits twice a month rather than 

once. Currently, SNAP recipient benefits are loaded once a month. 

I have attached a helpful chart that shows when each state currently distributes 

benefits to the end of my testimony. 

Relationship with FNS 

As the private partner serving the SNAP customer, it is essential the grocers have 

a close working relationship with USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). This 

was incredibly essential as we migrated to EBT for weather and or other disruptions 

because each of our 3,600 stores was required to work directly with their state agency. Those important relationships continue today. 

FNS has been a strong partner with the industry and is willing to consider our 

input during rulemaking and other activities. Currently, we are working with FNS 

implementing provisions from the 2014 Farm Bill. The Agency’s proposed rule ‘‘Enhancing Retailer Standards in the Supplemental Nutrition Program (SNAP)’’ rule 

is open for public comment. The proposed rule codifies the farm bill language that 

697

increased the number and variety of staple foods a retailer must stock in order to 

be considered for a SNAP license. We worked with the Agriculture Committee as 

they drafted the language to find a workable compromise for all stakeholders. However, the proposed rule goes beyond that statutory direction and proposes to change 

both the definition of a ‘‘retail food store’’ and what qualifies as a ‘‘staple food.’’ One 

unintended consequence of this could be eliminating the convenience store option. 

In addition to our supermarket locations, Kroger operates 784 convenience stores in 

the U.S. We strive to offer nutritious options for SNAP customers in those locations 

as well. In many communities, convenience stores are among the first and most frequently visited retail food option for customers. 

Kroger has been a longtime SNAP retailer and believes that SNAP shoppers 

should have a wide variety of foods to choose from. We appreciate the Agency’s interest in ensuring retailer integrity in the program. We hope to work with the Agency to ensure the proposed rule does not have any unintended consequences and will 

work to further the goal of ensuring that only legitimate food retailers are licenses 

to accept SNAP. 

Another area we are focused on is state-contracted EBT processors. As part of the 

SNAP transaction, a state will contract with a processor to actually carry out that 

transaction. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer providers have contracted in that space, 

and we are now down to only two providers effectively splitting the state contracts 

between them. We need more competition in this space, with more than two processors bidding on these contracts. Last year, FNS released a request for information 

asking stakeholders for input on how to attract more players into the space. Attached to my testimony are the comments submitted by FMI. 

In addition, more processor providers would help ensure EBT reliability. When an 

EBT processor experiences an outage and the system goes down, we often do not 

know about it in the store until multiple SNAP transactions are declined. These outages can cause major disruptions in our stores. In addition to understandably upset 

shoppers, we see our lanes slow down and unpaid for baskets of groceries left behind. All of this can be very costly for our stores, and disrupt all of our shoppers, 

not only SNAP shoppers. We believe that the more competition in the payment processor space, the higher the level of reliability we will see from processors. 

On a similar note, we often rely on and work with FNS to keep us informed if 

a processor or a state is scheduling any kind of maintenance on their EBT systems 

that could cause disruptions in stores. Best practices dictate that any kind of maintenance, upgrade or change should happen at the slowest shopping times, such as 

on a Sunday at midnight. We rely on getting notices from FNS, the state or our 

processors when there is scheduled maintenance so we are prepared if there is a 

disruption. At times, vendors may schedule something during a busier time for us. 

We have worked with FNS to address these proposals and encourage them to move 

the maintenance to a more agreeable time. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for inviting me here today. I hope my remarks have made it 

clear that Kroger is committed to serving all customers, including our customers 

who utilize SNAP. We are always looking for opportunities to improve our operations and our customers’ shopping experience. SNAP EBT has been a great success, bringing efficiencies, ubiquity and reliability to a program that so many Americans rely on to feed their families. As Congress looks toward the next farm bill, we 

hope the Committee will consider these successes and efficiencies as they debate 

changes to the program. We stand ready to work with the Committee to find additional improvements and future technology solutions to ensure we can meet all of 

our customers’ needs. 

698

ATTACHMENT 1

State-by-State Monthly SNAP Benefit Issuance Schedule 

State Day(s) of SNAP Benefit Distribution 

Alabama Previously, when a person was accepted into the SNAP program they were issued a case 

number. From this case number an issuance date was determined. This date ranged 

from the 4th of the month to the 18th. The monthly issuance was transferred to the 

card on the first of the month, but not made available to the person until the issuance 

date. Any leftover balance carried on the card at the end of the month is rolled over to 

the following month. 

In August 2013, the state expanded their distribution dates, moving from the 4th to the 

18th of the month to the 4th through the 23rd of the month. To assist in the transition, recipients received 1⁄2 of their benefit on their original date and 1⁄2 on their new 

date in the month of August to transition. 

Alaska ** The main SNAP issuance is all on the first day of the month. Smaller supplemental 

issuances for new applicants and late re-certifications occur daily throughout the 

month. 

Arizona SNAP benefits are distributed over the first 13 days of the month by the first letter of 

the recipients’ last name. For example: last names that begin with A or B are distributed on the first day of the month; 2nd day of the month: C and D; etc. (Cash is distributed on the first day of the month for all.) 

Arkansas Arkansans receive their benefits on these 8 days: 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th or 

13th of each month, based on the last number of their social security number. 

California California is different in that each county distributes SNAP to those who qualify. The 

payments go out to all those who qualify between the 1–10 of the month. Others (i.e.,

new applicants) get paid throughout the month depending on when they were accepted. 

Colorado Food Stamp benefits are distributed on the first 10 days of the month by the recipient’s 

last digit of their social security number. 

Connecticut SNAP benefits and cash are distributed on the first 3 days of the month, by the first letter of the recipient’s last name. (A–F are available on the first; G–N on the second and 

O–Z are distributed on the third day of the month.) 

Delaware Benefits are made available over 23 days, beginning with the 2nd day of every month, 

based on the first letter of the client’s last name. 

Florida All SNAP recipients moved from a 15 day distribution to a 28 day distribution in April 

2016. In March 2016, to assist in the new transition, benefits were ‘‘split.’’ Recipients 

received the first 1⁄2 of their benefits on their ‘‘old’’ date and received the second 1⁄2 of 

their monthly benefits on what will be their ‘‘new’’ date going forward. The ACCESS 

Florida system assigns benefit availability dates based on the case number recipients 

received when they became eligible for the SNAP program. 

Georgia In September 2012, SNAP benefits in Georgia expanded from the 5th to the 14th, and 

then finally to the current 5th to 23rd of each month, distributed every other day. 

Hawaii Benefits are made available on the 3rd and the 5th of every month, based on the first letter of the client’s last name. 

Idaho ** Benefits are made available on the first day of every month. (Prior to August 2009, benefits were distributed on 5 consecutive days at the beginning of each month.) In 2014, 

H.B. 565 was enacted. The bill requires the state Department of Health and Welfare to 

issue SNAP benefits over the course of 10 consecutive days within a month. Bonus 

money received from USDA will pay for the cost of the change. 

Starting July 1, 2016, benefits will be distributed over the first 10 days of each month 

based on the last number of the birth year of the recipient; for example, a birthday of 

8/25/64 would receive benefits on the 4th day of each month. In depth communications 

to recipients and stakeholders began in April 2016. 

Illinois SNAP benefits are made available on these 12 days of the month: 1st, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, 

10th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 19th, 21st, and 23rd of every month, based on a combination of 

the type of case and the case name. 

Indiana On January 1, 2014, the state implemented an expanded schedule for the distribution of 

benefits during the fifth through the twenty-third day of each month, to be issued 

every-other-day, based on the first letter of the recipient’s last name. For example: A or 

B = benefits available on the 5th; first Letter of the Last Name is: C or D = benefits 

available on the 7th. Previously, benefits were made available on the first 10 calendar 

days each month. (TANF is issued on the first of the month.) 

Iowa Benefits are made available over the first 10 calendar days of every month, based on the 

first letter of the client’s last name. 

Kansas Benefits are made available over the first 10 calendar days of every month, based on the 

first letter of the client’s last name. 

Kentucky Benefits are made available over the first 19 calendar days of every month, based on the 

last digit of the client’s case number. This was recently expanded from the previous 10 

day distribution. 

Louisiana Benefits are made available between the 1st and the 14th of every month, based on the 

last digit of the client’s SSN. (Elderly and disabled benefits are made available between the 1st and the 4th of every month.) 

Maine Benefits are available the 10th to the 14th of every month based on the last digit of the 

recipient’s birthday. 

699

State-by-State Monthly SNAP Benefit Issuance Schedule—Continued

State Day(s) of SNAP Benefit Distribution 

Maryland In January 2016, the distribution schedule was changed. Benefits are now distributed 

from the 4th to the 27th of every month, based on the first three letters of the client’s 

last name. Previously, benefits were distributed from the 6th through the 15th of the 

month. This was accomplished through a 5 month phase-in. 

Massachusetts Distribution is based on the last digit of each recipient’s social security number and distributed over the first 14 days of the month. 

Michigan In January 2011, SNAP moved from a 7 day distribution to the current distribution, 

which is from the 3rd to the 21st, distributed every-other-day, based on the last digit of 

the head of household’s recipient identification number. For example, clients’ numbers 

ending with 0 will receive food benefits on the 3rd of the month; numbers ending with 

1, food benefits will be available on the 5th of the month. 

Minnesota Benefits are staggered over 10 calendar days, beginning on the 4th through the 13th of 

every month, without regard to weekends or holidays, based on the last digit of the client’s case number. 

Mississippi Benefits are made available from the 5th to the 19th (15 days) of every month, based on 

the last two digits of the client’s case number. For example, 00–06 are available the 

5th, 07–13 are available the 6th. 

Missouri Benefits are made available over the first 22 days of every month, based on the client’s 

birth month and last name. 

Montana Benefits are distributed over 5 days by the last number of the recipient’s case number, 

from the 2nd to the 6th of every month. 

Nebraska Nebraska distributes food stamp benefits to individuals during the first 5 calendar days 

of the month. The day of distribution is based on the last digit of the social security 

number. 

Nevada ** In Nevada, food stamp benefits are issued on the first day of each month. 

New Hampshire ** New Hampshire benefits are available on the 5th of every month. 

New Jersey The monthly SNAP allotment is available over the first 5 days of the month. The day is 

based on the number in the 7th position of their case number. Some of the cases still 

receive their benefits based on the assignment at the time the county was converted to 

EBT. In Warren County, all benefits are made available on the 1st of the month. 

New Mexico Benefits are made available over 20 days every month, based on the last two digits of the 

SSN. 

New York The process is twofold as follows: in New York City, recipients receive their SNAP benefits within the first 13 business days of the month, according to the last digit of their 

case number, not including Sundays or holidays. The actual dates change from one 

month to the next, so NYC publishes a 6 month schedule showing the exact availability dates. The remainder of New York State: recipients receive their benefits within 

the first 9 days of the month, also according to the last digit of their case number, including Sundays and holidays. 

North Carolina Effective July 2011, the state expanded its 10 day distribution schedule and are now 

available from the 3rd to the 21st of every month, based on the last digit of the primary cardholder’s Social Security Number. 

North Dakota ** Benefits are made available on the first day of every month. 

Ohio In April 2014, Ohio expanded its SNAP distribution from the first 10 days of the month 

to the first 20 days of the month, staggered every 2 days. This only affected SNAP recipients who moved from one county to another; recipients who experienced a 1 day or 

more break in eligibility was because of a failure to take a required action; and, all 

new recipients. Recipients who were on SNAP before April 2014 did not see a change. 

Oklahoma Benefits are made available from the 1st to the 10th of every month, based on the last 

digit of the client’s SNAP case number. 

Oregon SNAP is distributed on the first 9 days of the month as such: social security numbers 

ending with ‘‘0’’ or ‘‘1’’ distribute on the 1st day of the month, numbers ending with a 

‘‘2’’ are distributed on the 2nd day of the month and so on. 

Pennsylvania Benefits are made available over the first 10 business days of every month based on the 

last digit of the client’s case number. 

Rhode Island ** Benefits are made available on the first day of every month. 

South Carolina In 2012, South Carolina expanded from a 9 day to a 20 day issuance. Current recipients 

stayed within the 9 day distribution, but all new recipients were given a date that expanded into the 20 days. 

South Dakota ** Benefits are made available on the 10th day of every month. 

Tennessee In October 2012, Tennessee expanded distribution from 10 to 20 days. 

Texas Benefits are made available over the first 15 days of the month, based on the last digit of 

the client’s SNAP case number. 

Utah Benefits are made available on the 5th, 11th, or 15th of every month, based on the first 

letter of the client’s last name: A–G available on the 5th; H–O available on the 11th; 

P–Z available on the 15th. 

Vermont ** Vermont benefits are available on the first of every month. 

Virginia Benefits are made available from the 1st to the 9th of every month, based on the last digits of the client’s case number. 

Washington Benefits are staggered over the first 10 days of the month based on the last digit of the 

households’ assistance unit number. Weekends and holidays do not affect the schedule. 

West Virginia Benefits are made available over the first 9 days of every month, based on the first letter 

of the client’s last name. 

700

1 79 Fed. Reg. 45175 (August 4, 2014). 2 Argus Leader Media v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 740 F.3d 1172 (8th Cir. 2014). 

State-by-State Monthly SNAP Benefit Issuance Schedule—Continued

State Day(s) of SNAP Benefit Distribution 

Wisconsin Benefits are made available over the first 15 days of every month, based on the eighth 

digit of the client’s SSN. 

Wyoming SNAP is distributed on the first 4 days of the month as such: last names beginning with 

‘‘A’’ to ‘‘D’’ distribute on the first day; last names beginning with ‘‘E’’ to ‘‘K’’ on the 2nd 

day; ‘‘L’’ to ‘‘R’’ on the third and ‘‘S’’ to ‘‘Z’’ on the fourth. 

Current as of May 2016; Food Marketing Institute. 

Notes:

➢ ** States with asterisks are those that only distribute benefits on 1 day a month. There 

are eight that still do so, although Idaho will soon be expanding. ➢ There is no limit on the number of days for stagger. The only condition in regulation is 

that no single household’s issuance should exceed 40 days between issuances. ➢ Currently, benefit recipients may only be issued their benefits one time a month, or within 

40 days. 

ATTACHMENT 2

September 8, 2014

AUDREY ROWE,

Administrator, 

Food and Nutrition Service, 

Department of Agriculture, 

Alexandria, VA

Docket No: FNS–2014–0030; Federal Register 45175

RE: Request for Information: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP); Retailer Transaction Data

Dear Administrator Rowe:

On Monday, August 4, 2014, the United States Department of Agriculture 

(‘‘USDA’’), Food and Nutrition Service (‘‘FNS’’) published a Request for Information 

(‘‘RFI’’): Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (‘‘SNAP’’ or ‘‘the Program’’); 

Retailer Transaction Data in the Federal Register.1 The RFI is being issued in response to a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,2 which held 

that annual SNAP retailer redemption data did not fall within the withholding exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’) and therefore must be disclosed unless it qualifies for another FOIA exception. FNS recognizes that despite 

the court’s decision the agency must also consider whether this redemption data 

constitutes confidential business information. 

FMI appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important matter. 

FMI proudly advocates on behalf of the food retail industry. FMI’s U.S. members 

operate nearly 40,000 retail food stores and 25,000 pharmacies, representing a combined annual sales volume of almost $770 billion. Through programs in public affairs, food safety, research, education and industry relations, FMI offers resources 

and provides valuable benefits to more than 1,225 food retail and wholesale member 

companies in the United States and around the world. FMI membership covers the 

spectrum of diverse venues where food is sold, including single owner grocery stores, 

large multi-store supermarket chains and mixed retail stores. For more information, 

visit www.fmi.org and for information regarding the FMI foundation, visit 

www.fmifoundation.org. 

Background 

Food retailers who participate in SNAP are required to submit annual applications, which are administered by FNS through its nationwide network of field offices. Any retailer that would like to accept SNAP benefits (EBT) must hold a valid 

permit and be licensed to participate in the Program. The submission of information 

is a mandatory pre-requisite for participation in SNAP. In 1978, FNS published a 

final rule affirming that the information furnished by food retailers was to remain 

confidential as required by section 9(c) of the Food Stamp Act (‘‘The Act’’). On February 2011, Argus Leader, a South Dakota newspaper submitted a FOIA request for 

all SNAP authorized retailer redemption data from 2005–2010. Relying on the 1978 

rule, FNS denied the FOIA request prompting Argus Leader to challenge FNS’ inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
701

3 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 

4 ‘‘Putting Healthy Food Within Reach’’ USDA SNAP Report 2013. 

5 Id.

6 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 

7 Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770, 162 U.S. App. D.C. 223 (D.C. 

Cir. 1974). 8See Attorney General’s Memorandum for Heads of All Federal Departments and Agencies 

Regarding the Freedom of Information Act (Oct. 12, 2001), reprinted in FOIA Post (posted 10/

15/01) (recognizing fundamental societal value of ‘‘protecting sensitive business information’’). 9The text of this bill, as introduced, appears in Hearings on S. 1666 Before the Subcomm. 

on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 

1st Sess. 1–2 (1964) (hereafter, 1963 Hearings). 10 Id.

terpretation of the Act in a lawsuit. FNS’ position was initially upheld in the district 

court but was overturned by the Eighth Circuit on appeal. The Eighth Circuit held 

that the requested information did not fall within the withholding contemplated by 

Section 9(c) of the Act and therefore the requested information was not exempt from 

disclosure under Exemption 3. The court did not address whether the information 

would be exempt from disclosure under another provision of FOIA, specifically 

whether SNAP redemption data would constitute confidential business information 

under Exemption 4.3

The SNAP Program Is a Crucial Safety Net for Low-Income Participants 

The supermarket industry, which FMI represents, is proud to be a private sector 

partner with Federal and state governments in an effective, efficient way to reduce 

hunger and improve access to healthy food for our nation’s poor. Serving 14% of the 

population, the SNAP program provides critical assistance to over 45 million people, 

almost 1⁄2 of whom are children.4 FMI members provide innumerable goods and 

services under SNAP and the government relies heavily on retailers accepting 

SNAP benefits to provide food for low-income recipients across the country. A large 

number of FMI members were SNAP-authorized retailers from 2005 through 2010 

and continue to support the program. In Fiscal Year 2013, supermarkets and superstores redeemed a significant portion of all SNAP benefits.5 FNS reports that in 

2013, almost $76 billion in client benefits were redeemed in the 252,962 participating stores, farmers markets, and others authorized retailers who accept SNAP. 

FMI members are an integral part of SNAP-authorized retailers, without whom the 

program would not run as effectively. 

SNAP Retailer Redemption Data Should Not Be Disclosed Under FOIA Exemption 4

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides that any person has a right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to Federal agency records, except to the extent 

that such are protected from public disclosure by one of the nine exemptions prescribed in the Act. Exemption 4 under FOIA protects two distinct categories of information in Federal agency records: ‘‘trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential.’’ 6 In reviewing 

the legislative history of Exemption 4, it is clear that the objective is to prohibit the 

public disclosure of confidential business information that would damage or disrupt 

a particular company or industry. Exemption 4 serves two very important interests: 

that of the government in efficient operation and the protection for those persons 

who submit financial or commercial data to government agencies from the competitive disadvantages which would result from its publication.7 ‘‘The exemption affords 

protection to those submitters who are required to furnish financial information to 

the government by safeguarding them from the competitive disadvantages that 

could result from disclosure.’’ 8

There was vast discussion about the importance of protecting this type of information during the 1963 FOIA hearings. For example, during hearings on S. 1666,5 9

a representative from the treasury stated that ‘‘we can see no reason for changing 

the ground rules of American business so that any person can force the government 

to reveal information which relates to the business activities of his competitor.’’ A 

member of the subcommittee which conducted the hearings raised the issue again 

with respect to Small Business Administration loan applications: ‘‘I am thinking of 

a situation, for example, where the company couldn’t qualify for funds, and they 

have exposed their predicament to the world and it might give competitors unfair 

advantage to know their weak condition at that time. I wonder if there might be 

some cases where it might be in the public interest if all the facts about a company 

were not made public.’’ 10 In light of the context in which the exemption was drafted, 

702

11See, e.g., Dow Jones Co. v. FERC, 219 F.R.D. 167, 176 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (information relating 

‘‘to business decisions and practices regarding the sale of power, and the operation and maintenance’’ of generators (quoting agency declaration). 12Pub. Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 13 Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770, 162 U.S. App. D.C. 223 

(D.C. Cir. 1974). 14Food Retailing Industry Speaks, Food Marketing Institute, 2013. 15Twenty Years of Competition Reshape the U.S. Food Marketing System, Stephen Martinez 

and Philip Kaufman, United State Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April 

1, 2008. 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 Id.

it is clear that individual SNAP retailer redemption data is the precise type of highly sensitive sales and profit data the exemption seeks to protect. 

SNAP Redemption Data Is Commercial Information Obtained from a Person 

If information relates to business or trade, courts have little difficulty in considering it ‘‘commercial or financial.’’ 11 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has firmly held that these terms should be given their ‘‘ordinary meanings’’ and has specifically rejected the argument that the term ‘‘commercial’’ be confined to records that ‘‘reveal basic commercial operations,’’ holding instead that 

records are commercial so long as the submitter has a ‘‘commercial interest’’ in 

them.12 Individual SNAP redemption data constitutes commercial information because retailers have a commercial or financial interest in sales information which 

directly relates to their business. 

For purposes of Exemption 4, the term ‘‘person’’ refers to individuals as well as 

to a wide range of entities, including corporations and state governments, who provide information to the government. Courts have further expanded the reach of Exemption 4 to explain that it is ‘‘sufficiently broad to encompass financial and commercial information concerning a third party’’ and protection is therefore available 

regardless of whether the information pertains directly to the commercial interests 

of the party that provided it—as is typically the case—or pertains to the commercial 

interests of another.13 Participating SNAP retailers clearly fall within the definition 

of a person, which includes individuals and corporations who provide confidential 

information to the government in applications and annual SNAP redemption data. 

Thus, whether or not individual store SNAP redemption data is submitted directly 

by a retailer or is done through third-party EBT transactions, retailers would still 

be considered a person for purposes of Exemption 4. 

Individual Store SNAP Retail Redemption Data Is Commercial Information 

The second requirement under Exemption 4 requires the information submitted 

to be of a commercial nature. Under this prong, the person submitting the information to the government must show that they actually face competition. The food retail industry is a fiercely competitive market and supermarkets face meaningful 

day-to-day competition with their competitors who offer similar goods and services 

both within and outside certain geographical areas. Current profit margins in the 

industry are approximately one percent,14 on average, and individual retailers are 

constantly trying to establish methods for increasing volume and sales to remain 

competitive. Intense competition over the past 2 decades in the U.S. food marketing 

system has spurred innovations and cost efficiencies.15 Consumers have access to 

a wider range of products, services, and store formats that appeal to their preferences for convenience and quality.16 The food retail industry is changing and has 

seen a recent shift from the traditional grocery store to other food retail formats. 

‘‘In response to an eroding market share, traditional grocers are expanding the number and types of product offerings, designing new store formats, and using innovative in-store technologies.’’ 17 ‘‘Globalization has meant that domestic retailers face 

increasing competition from foreign retailers operating in the United States. As food 

companies strive to maintain market share in the domestic food economy, largely 

limited by population growth, consumers are the beneficiaries of this heightened 

competition through diverse product offerings, new and improved services, and competitive prices.’’ 18

703

19 Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770, 162 U.S. App. D.C. 223 

(D.C. Cir. 1974). 20 Id. 21See generally Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Food and Drug Admin., 704 F.2d 

1280, 1291 n.30 (D.C. Cir. 1983). 22See, e.g., Nat’l Parks, 547 F.2d at 684. 23See, e.g., Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Schlesinger, 392 F. Supp. 1246, 1249 (E.D.Va. 1974), 

aff’d, 542 F.2d 1190 (4th Cir. 1976). 24Lion Raisins, 354 F.3d at 1081. 25Department of Justice Guide to the Freedom of Information Act (2008). 26 Nat’l Parks & Conservation Ass’n v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765, 770, 162 U.S. App. D.C. 223 

(D.C. Cir. 1974). 

Individual Store SNAP Retail Redemption Data Constitutes Confidential 

Business Information 

The test for determining whether information is confidential has been adopted by 

the courts and is referred to as the National Parks test.19 Information is ‘‘confidential’’ under this prong if disclosure ‘‘is likely . . . to cause substantial harm to the 

competitive position of the person from whom the information was obtained.’’ 20 Actual competitive harm need not be demonstrated for purposes of the competitive 

harm prong; rather, the evidence of ‘‘actual competition and a likelihood of substantial competitive injury’’ is all that need be shown.21 As stated above, food retailers 

face significant competition with very slim margins. FMI believes that individual 

store SNAP redemption data constitutes confidential business information, which, if 

disclosed, would result in significant competitive harm to the food retail industry 

and should therefore be withheld under Exemption 4 of FOIA. Numerous types of 

competitive injury have been identified by the courts as properly cognizable under 

the competitive harm prong, including the harms generally caused by disclosure of: 

‘‘(1) detailed financial information, such as a company’s assets, liabilities, and net 

worth; 22 (2) a company’s actual costs, break-even calculations, profits and profit 

rates; (3) data describing a company’s workforce that would reveal labor costs, profit 

margins, and competitive vulnerability; 23 (4) a company’s selling prices, purchase 

activity and freight charges; and (5) 24 market share, type of product, and volume 

of sales.’’ 25 These last two competitive harms would clearly result from the required 

disclosure of store level SNAP redemption data. 

The disclosure of individual store SNAP redemption data is proprietary information that could be used by supermarkets to analyze a competitor’s current 

vulnerabilities, market share for SNAP participants and volume of sales that would 

result in significant harm to the competitive position of participating retailers. Disclosure would provide companies with valuable insights into the operational 

strengths and weaknesses of their competitors resulting in selective pricing, market 

concentration, expansion plans and possible take-over bids facilitated by knowledge 

of the financial information sought. Suppliers, contractors, labor unions and creditors too could use such information to bargain for higher prices, wages or interest 

rates, while the competitor’s or suppliers unregulated information would not be 

similarly exposed.26

FMI notes that the information sought by the Argus Leader is not of the type that 

is disclosed through any other required public filings. For example, public companies 

are only required to disclose total sales figures for the entire company, not store 

level information. 10Ks and other financial filings do not disclose individual store 

sales, traffic numbers or store transactional information. Further, independent and 

non-public food retailers do not have to disclose overall or individual store sales at 

all. Disclosing SNAP redemption data for a non-public company would result in a 

significant departure from current practice and would provide competitors access to 

valuable, confidential sales data giving competitors a direct avenue into a private 

retailer’s earnings. FMI members are similarly concerned that if the type of proprietary information sought is disclosed for a public company immediately prior to a 

quarterly filing with the SEC, investors and the public alike will use the valuable 

information to predict a company’s earnings resulting in market changes and fluctuation in stock price. 

Additionally, if individual SNAP data is disclosed, retailers will have prized information on redemption data geographically that could prompt and inform a competitor’s expansion strategy into new markets with a large number of SNAP recipients. 

For example, if a retailer discovers that their competitor redeems 60% of the total 

SNAP benefits in a particular area they could develop targeted marketing and business strategies to increase market share and convert current SNAP recipients. Further, our members are concerned that disclosure of individual store SNAP redemption data could have a chilling effect on participation in the program by those most 

in need. In fact, some retailers indicate that the competitive harm caused by discloVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
704

27 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 28 79 Fed. Reg. 45175. 

sure would lead to their departure from SNAP entirely. A large number of withdrawing SNAP retailers will ultimately result in diminished access for SNAP recipients and consolidation of participating stores. 

The Disclosure of Individual Retailer SNAP Redemption Data Would Be 

Duplicative and Impose Unnecessary Costs in Government Administration of the Program with Little Corresponding Benefit to the Public 

FMI urges FNS to consider the important role our members play in providing essential nutrition benefits to low-income populations. Public disclosure of individual 

retail SNAP redemption information would result in significant competitive harm to 

FMI members. It would create challenging and unnecessary burdens in administration of the program and a potential reduction in the number of recipients and participating retailers while providing no additional savings or value to the program. 

FMI does not believe that disclosure of redemption data at the individual store 

level would improve the administration or enforcement of SNAP requirements. In 

the Act, Congress specifically limits disclosure of information received from applicants and participating SNAP retailers. USDA already publishes a state-by-state 

breakdown on the amount of benefits and percentage of authorized firms under 

SNAP. Additionally, existing USDA data breaks down reimbursement data by retailer type on an annual basis. There are 25 firm types, with classifications differentiated by sales volume, ratio of food sales, or whether firms specialize in one staple 

food group. Reporting and disclosing store level data on a monthly basis would significantly burden the administration of SNAP and would be an unfortunate use of 

such limited resources in administration and enforcement of the program. 

Disclosure would create an unprecedented and unreasonable public information 

request in violation of long standing practices and criteria under FOIA that is certain to influence FOIA requests for years to come. FMI SNAP retailers are already 

required to meet stringent and comprehensive standards set by USDA to become authorized and therefore eligible to participate in the Program. Qualification is rigorous and requires significant documentation that includes verification of tax returns and tax filings. Tax filings and individual sales data information by definition 

are: ‘‘(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;’’ as expressly exempted from public request at 

FOIA.27 We respectfully submit that the USDA’s current policy of protecting the 

confidentiality of proprietary retailer financial information be maintained and, if 

needed, strengthened to clarify its policy in light of the Argus Leader litigation. 

Similarly, FMI believes that Congress did not intend for SNAP redemption data 

to be public information under Section 9(c) of the Act. FMI agrees with FNS’ interpretation and final rule codifying the interpretation that Section 9(c) prohibits the 

use or disclosure of ‘‘information furnished by firms, . . . including their redemption 

of coupons . . . except for purposes directly connected with the administration and 

enforcement of the Food Stamp Act and it’s corresponding regulations.’’ 28

Should Aggregated Annual SNAP Redemption Data at the Individual Store 

Level be Released for Transparency Purposes? 

Transparency and public accountability are of the utmost importance for retailers 

and our customers. FMI members are responding by providing with increased access 

to information on food, nutrition and the products that they carry—one example 

being the industry’s voluntary Facts Up Front initiative to provide key information 

via icons on the front of packaging. Transparency that improves the efficiency of the 

program or the availability of important attributes of a product like nutrients or allergens may have value to customers and taxpayers. However, FMI does not see 

how disclosure of individual store SNAP redemption data will result in greater 

transparency in SNAP administration or greater value to customers, agencies or retailers. As stated above, the disclosure of the information sought will result in greater costs and challenges for administering states without a corresponding benefit to 

the public. SNAP redemption data is already publicly available by retail sector, 

state and locality and the competitive harm that would result from disclosure 

strongly outweighs the potential for minimal benefit to the petitioner for use in a 

published story. 

FMI appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important matter. Please do 

not hesitate to contact me at sbarnes@fmi.org or (202) 220–0614 if you have any 

questions. 

Sincerely,

STEPHANIE BARNES, 

705

Regulatory Counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Hanna. Mr. Wright, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JIMMY WRIGHT, OWNER, WRIGHT’S MARKET, 

OPELIKA, AL; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL GROCERS

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Congressman Rogers, for the kind introduction, and good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee. My name is Jimmy Wright, 

and I am the owner of Wright’s Market in Opelika, Alabama. It is 

an honor and privilege to be here with you today. I have been 

asked to testify today by the National Grocers Association on behalf of the independent supermarket community. The National 

Grocers Association is the national trade association representing 

the retailers and wholesalers that comprise the independent sector 

of the supermarket industry, including single full service supermarkets, such as Wright’s Market, and multi-state regional chains. 

Wright’s Market is a family-owned business. We are a full service, 

22,0002′ supermarket, and have accepted SNAP as a form of tender 

essentially since the store opened. Six of our 30 employees have 

worked at the store for over 20 years. We are very proud of our employees, and feel grateful that many chose to start and grow their 

careers at Wright’s Market. 

Two years ago, in an effort to better serve our customers, we 

began a shuttle service we call Wright 2 You for those customers 

who are not able to get to the store due to the lack of transportation. In addition, as we speak, we are launching an online ordering and home delivery service for our customers. We want to help 

those where coming to the grocery store is no longer an option. In 

the future I hope to work to expand the online delivery service to 

the rural areas in the counties surrounding my store, and we need 

the support of USDA to help facilitate that work, especially in the 

area of technology. As Congressman Rogers mentioned, I am proud 

to work with Focused Community Strategies out of Atlanta, and in 

2015 I worked with them to open the Carver Neighborhood Market 

in an area that was previously a food desert. Prior to the opening 

of Carver, the nearest supermarket was 3 miles away, a 3 hour 

round trip bus ride for many of the residents of the neighborhood. 

Thirty-seven percent of the retail sales at Wright’s Market, and 

25 percent of retail sales at Carver Neighborhood Market, are generated by customers using SNAP benefits. I believe it is an important program that helps families. Many SNAP customers in my 

store, especially elderly, struggle with the realization that they 

may need help, and enroll in the program. At Wright’s Market we 

work to serve the SNAP customer with the same level of service 

and respect as we do anyone else. I know they do the same at 

Carver. 

Carver Neighborhood Market had a difficult time getting their 

SNAP license. To me, this represents a problem with how retailer 

applications are processed. This is a store that is servicing an economically depressed area in a food desert. Representatives from 

Carver had their SNAP application pending for 2 months without 

response from the USDA. NGA got involved in the process, and 

was able to help get the application approved after 3 additional 

706

weeks of processing time. I understand and appreciate that USDA 

does not, and should not, grant SNAP license to all businesses that 

request them, but I do believe that almost a 3 month wait time for 

approval, especially for a store opening in a food desert, is too long. 

I would encourage USDA to consider having a different application 

process for applicants moving to a food desert in order to expedite 

the process. 

It is also important for USDA to become more efficient in processing the applications for supermarket owners in good standing 

with the program who are opening additional store locations. NGA 

appreciates the work USDA is currently undertaking to make this 

process more efficient for those operators with over ten stores. I 

would ask them to also prioritize streamlining the process for those 

operators in good standing who own less than ten stores. In regards to the administration of the SNAP Program, in 2013 Alabama moved to a staggered SNAP benefit scheduled. Benefits were 

staggered over 20 days of the month, rather than the previous 14 

day period. Since these benefits were staggered, we can expect 

steady customer traffic throughout the month. Prior to this change, 

it was a challenge to keep items in stock when all recipients received their benefits on a shorter cycle. 

In the future, I would also ask that there be a focus on the elderly as it relates to SNAP benefits. As the generation of baby 

boomers becomes a larger percentage of our nation’s elderly population, I am concerned for many of them in regards to the increasing cost of medicine, and having enough money for food. My wife 

is a physician, and she sees patients having to make a choice between food and medicine, as they cannot afford both. These citizens 

come from a generation where you did not ask for help. I would ask 

you all to look for a way to reach out to these people. Find a way 

to make the SNAP application process one that helps us take care 

of the people who have taken care of us. The SNAP Program, in 

my opinion, is one of the most important and efficient programs 

our nation offers. In our own business, it creates jobs. In our community, it helps those who are in need. 

In closing, I would encourage any of you who have questions 

about SNAP at the retailer level to visit an independent supermarket in your district. There are independent operators in every 

Congressional district, and visiting a store is a wonderful way to 

learn more about how the program works from a retailer perspective. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify here today, and I 

appreciate your oversight of the program, your service, and your 

leadership to our nation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wright follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIMMY WRIGHT, OWNER, WRIGHT’S MARKET, OPELIKA, AL; 

ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL GROCERS ASSOCIATION

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the 

Committee. My name is Jimmy Wright, and I am the owner of Wright’s Market in 

Opelika, Alabama. It is an honor and a privilege to be here with you today. 

I have been asked to testify today by the National Grocers Association on behalf 

of the independent supermarket community. The National Grocers Association is 

the national trade association representing the retailers and wholesalers that comprise the independent sector of the supermarket industry, including single full service supermarkets such as Wright’s Market, and multi-state regional chains. The 

independent supermarket industry is accountable for close to one percent of the naVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
707

tion’s overall economy and responsible for generating $131 billion in sales, 944,000 

jobs, $30 billion in wages, and $27 billion in taxes. Defined as a privately held, family owned, or employee owned business, independent supermarket operators run 

businesses of all formats and sizes, serving a wide range of customers in their local 

communities. Having often been in business for generations, independent grocers 

are dedicated to their customers, associates and communities. 

I have served as a member of the NGA Board of Directors since 2012. I also serve 

as the President of the Opelika Community Development Corporation, and have 

previously served on the Board of Directors for the Opelika Chamber of Commerce, 

East Alabama Services for the Elderly, and the Miracle League. My wife Susan, 

daughter Emily, and I are members of the First Baptist Church of Opelika. 

Wright’s Market is a family owned business. My store originally opened as a small 

2,1002′ convenience store in 1973. I worked there as a student in high school, and 

purchased the store from my previous employer in 1997. My store has expanded 

over the years to its current size of 22,0002′. We are a full service supermarket and 

have accepted SNAP as a form of tender essentially since the store opened. We have 

32 employees, 18 of which are full time. Six of our employees have worked at the 

store for over 20 years. We are very proud of our employees and feel grateful that 

many chose to start and grow their careers at Wright’s Market. Our employees and 

our connection with the community make me proud to run this business. We regularly donate to community causes, not only financially, but also with time spent 

working with various organizations in our community to make Opelika a better city 

for all. Independent grocers are uniquely positioned to serve their communities, and 

I am grateful to have the opportunity to give back in many different ways to my 

hometown. 

Two years ago, in an effort to better serve our customers, we began a shuttle service we called ‘‘Wright 2 U’’ for those customers who were unable to get to the store 

due to lack of transportation. In addition, as we speak, we are launching an online 

ordering and home delivery service for our customers. We hope to use this program 

to reach those who are physically homebound. We want to help those where coming 

to the grocery store is no longer an option. 

In 2012, I formed a relationship with Focused Community Strategies (FCS), an 

Atlanta based nonprofit ministry that is working to revitalize a neighborhood in 

south Atlanta. In 2015, I worked with them to open the Carver Neighborhood Market in an area that was previously a food desert. FCS wanted to convert an old 

thrift store into a small grocery store. Prior to the opening of Carver Neighborhood 

Market, the nearest supermarket was 3 miles away. This short distance was often 

a 3 hour round trip bus ride for many residents of the neighborhood. From the beginning, we knew we would struggle with supplying the store. Contracting with a 

traditional wholesaler wasn’t going to be an option available to Carver since the projected sale volume of the store would be fairly low in comparison to a larger store, 

so I offered to serve as their supplier. I have one truck that travels between Opelika 

and Atlanta to deliver to Carver Market. With Wright’s Market’s buying volume, it 

allows Carver Market to offer products to the residents of the neighborhood at affordable prices. This helps solve the two biggest issues in the food deserts of America—accessibility and affordability. 

Thirty-seven point one percent of retail sales at Wright’s Market and 25% of the 

retail sales at Carver Neighborhood Market are generated by customers using SNAP 

benefits. I believe it is an important program that helps families. From my perspective, for the most part, SNAP recipients are very efficient shoppers. They try to use 

the benefits allocated to them to purchase as much food as possible for their families. While we do hear stories about some who may take advantage of the program, 

that is, in our view, a very small portion of those who receive the benefits. Many 

SNAP customers in my store, especially the elderly, struggle with the realization 

that they need help and must enroll in the program. I believe that, overall, the program serves a great purpose for families, especially children and the elderly who 

are in need. At Wright’s Market, we work to serve the SNAP customer with the 

same level of service and respect as we do anyone else. I know they do the same 

at Carver Neighborhood Market. 

Carver Neighborhood Market had a difficult time getting their SNAP license. To 

me, this represents a problem with how retailer applications are processed. This is 

a store that is servicing an economically depressed area in a food desert. Participation in the program was and is essential to Carver’s success. Representatives from 

Carver had their SNAP application pending for 2 months without response from the 

USDA. NGA got involved in the process and was able to help get the application 

approved after about 3 additional weeks of processing time. 

I understand and appreciate that the USDA does not and should not grant SNAP 

licenses to all businesses that request them. But I do believe that an almost 3 

708

month wait time for approval, especially for a store opening in a food desert, is too 

long. Carver was unable to open prior to receiving their license since so many members of the community they serve are SNAP recipients. I would encourage the USDA 

to consider having a different application process for applicants moving into a food 

desert in order to expedite that process. These business owners are working against 

many obstacles in order to open supermarkets in these under-serviced areas. I 

would like to see the USDA be a better partner in this regard. 

It is also important for the USDA to become more efficient in processing applications for supermarket owners in good standing with the program who are opening 

additional store locations. It seems inefficient to force those retailers who are in 

good standing to go through the same application process as those stores that are 

coming on the program for the first time. NGA has worked with stores that have 

been SNAP retailers for over 30 years without incident and still have to go through 

the same long application process when opening an additional location. NGA appreciates the work the USDA is currently undertaking to make this process more efficient for those operators with over ten stores, but would ask them to also prioritize 

streamlining this process for those operators in good standing who own less than 

ten stores. We would appreciate any improvements the USDA can make to ease this 

process in the future. 

With regards to the administration of the SNAP program, in 2013 Alabama 

moved to a staggered SNAP benefit schedule. Benefits are staggered over 20 days 

of the month rather than the previous 14 day period. The first day benefits are 

issued is the 4th of each month and the last day is the 23rd. This has been a tremendously helpful change in policy for retailers. Since these benefits are staggered, 

we can expect steady customer traffic throughout the month. Prior to this change, 

it was a challenge to keep items in stock when all recipients received their benefits 

on a shorter cycle. I am appreciative that the Alabama Department of Human Resources has made this change. 

In addition, I can say that we did notice a decrease in participant’s stories about 

people committing fraud in the program when it changed from paper stamps to an 

EBT card. We also saw a huge increase in efficiencies at the store level. I no longer 

have to have a member of our team stamp the paper vouchers and physically take 

them to the bank to be reimbursed for those purchases. Having the system automated and integrated with our other electronic payments has made all the difference in helping improve the program for the participant and the retailer partner. 

With that said, I also believe strongly that any and all fraud in the program should 

not be tolerated, on either the retailer or participant level, and should be pursued 

aggressively by the USDA. 

In the future, I hope to work to expand our online delivery service to the rural 

areas in the counties surrounding my store. Many of these areas are without access 

to fresh foods and I believe we can solve that issue by making regular deliveries 

into those areas. I would appreciate the support of the USDA to help facilitate that 

work, especially in the area of technology. We need to be able to accept and process 

SNAP benefit cards on-site at customers’ homes or in a central delivery location. 

In the future, I would also ask that there is a focus on the elderly as it relates 

to SNAP benefits. As the generation of Baby Boomers becomes a larger percentage 

of our nation’s elderly population, I am concerned for many of them in regards to 

the increasing cost of medicine and having enough money for food. As I work in our 

community, I meet many elderly people who are struggling financially. My wife is 

a physician and she sees patients having to make a choice between food and medicine, as they cannot afford both. These citizens come from a generation where you 

did not ask for help. Many of them struggle with the fact that they are not able 

to care for themselves. These people have worked hard all their lives, paid their 

taxes, built our communities, served our country, and now find themselves struggling for the basic necessities of life. I would ask you all to look for a way to reach 

out to these people. Find a way to make the SNAP application process one that 

helps us take care of the people who have taken care of us. 

The SNAP program, in my opinion, is one of the most important and efficient programs our nation offers. In our own business, it creates jobs. In our community, it 

helps those who are in need. I appreciate your oversight of the program and your 

service and leadership of our nation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Wright. Mr. Beech, 5 minutes. 

709

STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS M. BEECH, J.D., LEGAL COUNSEL 

AND DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, CASEY’S

GENERAL STORES, INC., ANKENY, IA; ON BEHALF OF

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES 

Mr. BEECH. Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify regarding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program, or SNAP. My name is Doug Beech, and I am Legal Counsel and Director of Government Relations for Casey’s General 

Stores. Headquartered in Iowa, Casey’s has 1,931 stores spread 

throughout 14 midwestern states, and employs approximately 

34,000 people. Casey’s is a member of the National Association of 

Convenience Stores. 

Our stores are fixtures in local communities not only because of 

the products and services we provide, because of the employment 

opportunities we offer. Fifty-seven percent of our stores are located 

in towns of 5,000 people or less, so we serve rural America. Casey’s 

is a proud participant of SNAP. Virtually all of our 1,931 stores 

participate in the program, and we process roughly 5.5 million 

SNAP transactions every year. Half of our stores are open 24 

hours, 7 days a week so we can provide SNAP and non-SNAP customers with geographic convenience and extended hours in which 

to shop for food. In fact, approximately 220 of our stores are located 

in communities where we are the only business where SNAP recipients can redeem their benefits in the community, the only place 

they can get bread and milk. 

Unfortunately, on February 17, the Food and Nutrition Service 

proposed a new rule regarding SNAP retailer eligibility requirements that will push all of the Casey’s stores, and tens of thousands of small retailers, out of SNAP. The proposed rule would 

change the definitions of staple foods that stores must carry in 

order to participate in SNAP. It would change the number of staple 

foods that stores must have on their shelves at all times in order 

to qualify for the program. And the rule would impose arbitrary 

disqualification from the program for all stores that sell too many 

heated foods. I will briefly explain the problems from this part of 

the rule. 

The rule makes changes to the definition of staple foods to exclude multiple food items, such as stews, soups, and frozen dinners, 

allowing them to be counted towards our stocking requirements. 

Large numbers of the basic items that stores of all kinds sell have 

multiple ingredients in them. These foods have been treated as staple foods for a long time, and American consumers are provided 

savings and convenience in food preparation. The proposal would 

require retailers to publicly display at all times at least six units 

of every one of seven single food ingredients, and varieties in four 

staple food categories, a total of 168 items to qualify for the program. Practically speaking, Casey’s, and most convenience stores, 

will have to stock far more than 168 items to remain in compliance 

for the items we sell each week. 

Casey’s stores are larger than average convenience stores, and 

have very limited storage space. It is our practice to only have two 

units of a particular item on a shelf at a given time. This is generally because we don’t have room for more. We are limited by our 

710

distribution practices. We only deliver to our stores once a week, 

and use store-driven data to determine how many units of a particular item to deliver to each store in order to maximize sales, and 

minimize spoilage. This proposal will mean either the stores leave 

the program, or more food will spoil or be wasted before it can be 

sold, or both. 

In addition to the stocking requirements, the proposal’s change 

to the definition of variety will cause problems. The new definition 

would say that two types of the same items, like two kinds of 

meats, are no longer varieties of staple food, but just one variety. 

For example, sliced ham and bacon would be one item. This dramatically changes the qualifications for SNAP retailers. To meet 

the variety requirements in the meat category alone, Casey’s would 

have to stock items, like duck and lamb, that we don’t stock today 

because they don’t sell. 

On top of these problems, the proposal says that if a SNAP retailer has 15 percent or more of its total food sales in items that 

are cooked or heated before or after the purchase, the retailer 

would be automatically ineligible to participate in SNAP. That is 

true even if the heated foods are sold exclusively to all non-SNAP 

customers, or if the heated foods are sold by a separate business, 

like a fast food entity, that just happens to operate out of our 

space. This provision alone will knock out virtually all 1,931 of our 

stores from the program. Not only would this be a loss for our company, but it would be a loss for the customers that rely on our business. 

If a chain like Casey’s can’t meet this requirement, we believe 

that the whole industry won’t. So we would ask that you keep eligibility for customers like us, and I hope that we don’t make these 

changes. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beech follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS M. BEECH, J.D., LEGAL COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR

OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, CASEY’S GENERAL STORES, INC., ANKENY, IA; ON

BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES

The Past, Present, Future of SNAP: Retailers Are Critical Partners in Carrying Out the Program 

My name is Douglas M. Beech. I am the Legal Counsel and Director of Government Relations for Casey’s General Stores, Inc. (‘‘Casey’s’’) and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to share my views regarding the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (‘‘SNAP’’ or ‘‘the Program’’). 

I am testifying today on behalf of the National Association of Convenience Stores 

(‘‘NACS’’). NACS is an international trade association representing more than 2,200 

retail and 1,800 supplier company members in the convenience and petroleum retailing industry. NACS member companies do business in nearly 50 countries worldwide, with the majority of members based in the United States. In 2015, the industry employed more than 21⁄2 million workers and generated $574.8 billion in total sales, representing approximately 3.2 percent of the United States’ GDP—or $1 of 

every $30 spent. The majority of the industry’s 154,000+ stores consist of small, 

independent operators. More than 70 percent of the industry is composed of companies that operate ten stores or fewer, and 63 percent of them operate a single store. 

While many people associate convenience stores with gasoline sales, in-store sales 

are becoming an increasingly significant portion of our business and account for 1⁄3

of our industry’s gross profit dollars. 

Casey’s General Stores, Inc. is headquartered in Ankeny, Iowa. What started off 

as a small family run business has turned into a multi-state chain with a total of 

1,931 stores spread throughout Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin employing approximately 34,000 people. Our stores are imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
711

portant fixtures in local communities not only because of the products and services 

we provide but also because of the employment opportunities we offer. Fifty-seven 

percent of our stores are in towns of 5,000 people or less and 25 percent of our 

stores are in towns of 5,000 to 20,000 people. Our stores are famous for selling not 

only traditional grocery items, but also pizza and other prepared foods. In fact, approximately 40 percent of our total food sales come from prepared food items. 

Casey’s looks forward to continued growth. Over the last 5 fiscal years we have 

added 170 newly constructed sites and acquired 214 additional locations. In Fiscal 

Year 2016, Casey’s hopes to build or acquire approximately 80 stores and complete 

100 major store remodels. In February of this year, Casey’s marked its continued 

growth by opening its second distribution center, located in Terre Haute, Indiana. 

Due to Casey’s presence in rural towns and cities throughout the Midwest, we understand the important role convenience stores and other small format retailers play 

in providing food to low-income families through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (‘‘SNAP’’ or the ‘‘Program’’). For this reason, Casey’s is particularly 

concerned with the February 17th proposed rule put forth by the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s (‘‘USDA’’) Food and Nutrition Service (‘‘FNS’’ or ‘‘Agency’’). This proposed rule will alter the eligibility requirements that retailers must meet to participate in the Program, and would push all of our stores—and tens of thousands of 

other small format retailers—out of SNAP. Below, I offer more detailed comments 

about our role in the Program and the potential consequences of the proposed rule. 

I. Casey’s Is a Proud and Valuable Participant in SNAP 

Casey’s stores have been participating in SNAP for over 30 years. Of our 1,931 

stores, virtually all are authorized and do accept SNAP customers. In fact, Casey’s 

stores process roughly 5.5 million SNAP transactions per year. Most of our licensing 

goes through the FNS office near the District of Columbia, and we have never had 

any problems with that process or working with FNS. 

Our stores, and convenience stores throughout the country, provide consumers 

with convenient locations and extended hours in which to shop for food. Approximately 1⁄2 of our stores are open 24 hours per day, 7 days a week—so we are always 

accessible for customers to come in to purchase food items they may need, whenever 

they need them. As mentioned above, a majority of Casey’s stores are located in 

communities with a population of 5,000 or less, and many of these communities do 

not have larger format retailers like grocery stores in their town. While this can also 

be the case in urban communities, Casey’s experience exemplifies the trend in rural 

communities. Convenience stores like Casey’s are frequently the only source of many 

grocery items in these communities and the only location where SNAP recipients can 

redeem their benefits.

By participating in the Program, our stores serve as an essential access point for 

SNAP recipients. We enable recipients to purchase a wide variety of foods that Congress has determined may be purchased with SNAP benefits. Casey’s has determined that up to 220 of our stores are the only location in the community where 

SNAP recipients can redeem their benefits and in many other communities we are 

the only location to use SNAP benefits after a late work shift ends or before one 

begins. Accordingly, having Casey’s in the Program saves many SNAP recipients’ 

time and resources by not having to travel outside their home community to pick 

up such items as bread and milk. 

In addition, Casey’s works hard to ensure the integrity of the Program. As a sophisticated SNAP participant, Casey’s utilizes a modern point of sale system, which 

differentiates between almost 2,900 SNAP-eligible products we sell and our SNAPineligible products at the checkout, to ensure that only permissible products are 

purchased with SNAP benefits. Every day, Casey’s stores and employees strive to 

make the shopping experience of all its customers, including a significant number 

of SNAP beneficiaries, efficient and pleasant. Although Casey’s hopes that one day 

no Americans will be food-insecure and SNAP will become obsolete, until that day 

comes, we hope to remain an active participant in SNAP in order to provide important food access to thousands of citizens who need it. 

II. FNS’ Retailer Eligibility Proposed Rule Will Push Almost All of Our 

Stores Out of SNAP 

On February 17, 2016, USDA’s FNS issued a proposed rule that would significantly modify retailer eligibility requirements in SNAP. The proposal is intended to 

implement updated ‘‘Depth of Stock’’ requirements contained in the Agriculture Act 

of 2014, commonly known as the 2014 Farm Bill. 

As this Committee is well-aware, during negotiations over the 2014 Farm Bill, 

Congress recognized the important role that small format retailers play in SNAP, 

particularly their role as access points for SNAP beneficiaries. After extensive negoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
712

tiations between lawmakers and stakeholders, Congress adopted changes to the socalled ‘‘depth of stock’’ requirements—the requirements that address the amount 

and variety of food a retailer must have in stock to participate in SNAP as a retail 

food store. By enacting these provisions, Congress sought to increase choices for 

SNAP beneficiaries while ensuring that those enhanced depth of stock requirements 

were not unduly burdensome for retailers. Congress recognized that unduly burdensome eligibility requirements would hurt small businesses and result in restricted 

access for SNAP beneficiaries. NACS—and Casey’s—supported this compromise and 

supported the final 2014 Farm Bill. 

The proposed rule would codify the updated depth of stock requirements as contained in the 2014 Farm Bill. These provisions, which were based on the existing 

definitions of staple foods, require retailers to offer at least seven different varieties 

of food items in each of the four staple food categories, including one perishable item 

in three of those categories. This was the compromise reached by Congress and 

broadly supported as a way to increase nutritional choices for SNAP recipients without overburdening small retailers. However, FNS went far beyond Congressional intent in its proposed rule and included several additional provisions that will push 

Casey’s stores and tens of thousands of other small format retailers out of the Program.

Under the proposal, the definition of a retail food store is modified to exclude any 

retail outlet with more than 15% of its total food sales in items that are ‘‘cooked 

or heated on site before or after purchase.’’ This measure applies to all food sales—

not just SNAP food sales. And, this exclusion applies even to separate companies 

doing business under the same roof, such as a Subway or other fast food franchise 

that has a point of sale in the same building as a convenience store. If two food 

businesses operate under the same roof, FNS will consider their total food sales 

jointly to determine whether that 15 percent threshold is met. Unlike other convenience stores where they may have a separate food franchise doing business under 

the same roof, Casey’s prepared foods are sold in our store along with our traditional grocery items. Nevertheless, this provision alone would disqualify virtually all of Casey’s stores from participating in SNAP. Even though SNAP 

recipients cannot redeem their benefits on hot foods, this provision would penalize 

us for meeting our non-SNAP customers’ desire for prepared foods. 

Frankly, what foods we sell to non-SNAP customers should not be FNS’ concern. 

They don’t regulate those sales and those customers would be offended to know that 

FNS wants to penalize them (and us) for buying prepared food in our stores. And 

make no mistake; this would penalize all our customers, not just SNAP customers. 

If you take away our SNAP customers, that reduces our business and changes our 

economic model. That can mean fewer stores and jobs in many small towns. To 

make those negative changes based on sales that the Federal Government has nothing to do with makes no sense. 

In addition to this 15 percent prepared foods threshold, the proposed rule makes 

several significant changes to the stocking requirements that would make it very 

difficult for Casey’s stores or any other small stores to continue to participate in 

SNAP. For example, the proposed rule would alter the definition of ‘‘staple foods’’ 

to exclude multiple ingredient items—such as soups, stews, and frozen dinners—

from being counted towards depth of stock requirements. While these foods would 

remain acceptable items for participants to purchase with their SNAP benefits, they 

have long been treated as staple foods. For many families, of course, these are staple foods. Have you ever prepared a frozen meal for yourself or your family? Have 

you made them a can of soup? FNS is now trying to tell you that isn’t good enough. 

We all know these are foods we eat and families around the country eat them. There 

is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

And, there is nothing inherently healthier about single ingredient foods—like a 

bag of flour—than multiple ingredient foods. Yogurt with fruit, packaged salads, 

mixed vegetables, fruit salads, and many more are multiple ingredient items. The 

fact that more than one thing is in there does not make those items less healthy, 

but it can make it easier for someone to turn them into a meal. Perhaps FNS would 

like a world in which SNAP beneficiaries could spend all day preparing meals from 

scratch for their families. But that is not the world in which Americans live today—

whether they participate in SNAP or not. American families want convenient foods 

that are easy to prepare. Casey’s and other convenience stores provide those foods. 

A large percentage of the traditional grocery items that Casey’s stores stock are 

multiple ingredient items. A change in the definition of ‘‘staple foods’’ to exclude 

these items from the depth of stock requirements only serves to make it more difficult for Casey’s and other small format retailers to participate in the Program. 

If this were not enough, FNS also proposes to require retailers to publicly display 

at least six stocking units for each of the seven single-ingredient food varieties in 

713

all four staple food categories, a total of 168 items, to qualify for the program. In 

reality, a retailer must stock far more than these 168 items since the retailer would 

need to replace any item that is purchased in order to remain in compliance with 

the regulations. As a practical matter, Casey’s—and most convenience stores—will 

have difficulty complying with this requirement. In fact, many larger stores such as 

groceries have times when they run low on particular foods before they get their 

next delivery. Should those difficulties, including at times when there is unusually 

high demand for particular foods, disqualify stores from SNAP? 

On average, Casey’s stores are between 2,5002′ and 4,0002′, and there is limited 

storage space outside of the store floor. With this in mind, it is our practice to store 

approximately two units of a particular item on a shelf at any given time. Frankly, 

we don’t have room to put six of every SNAP required item on a shelf. We don’t 

tend to do that even for some of our fastest-selling items. There just isn’t enough 

space. And, we’re among the largest stores in our industry. I believe it would be 

extremely difficult for any convenience store, and even small grocers, to ensure that 

it stocks 168 of exactly the right combination of staple items at all times. 

Even though we are a vertically integrated company and self-supply and distribute, our distribution practices conform to industry averages—and our stores only 

get deliveries one time per week. We use store-driven data to determine how many 

units of a particular item to deliver to each store each week in order to maximize 

sales and minimize spoilage. We will not be able to deliver and stock extra items 

solely for the purpose of meeting the SNAP stocking requirements, particularly in 

light of the proposed definition of ‘‘variety,’’ which does not reflect economic reality 

or American eating habits. And, because many of these products will need to be perishable, we would need to stock so many items to make up for the ones we sold before the next delivery that we would end up spoiling and wasting a lot of food. 

In addition, FNS has proposed to change the meaning of the term ‘‘variety’’ in a 

way that will make it even more difficult for small format retailers to meet the 

depth of stock requirements. FNS’ rule says that two different varieties of a food 

will no longer count as two different varieties of staple foods. For example, two 

meats from the same animal—sliced ham and bacon or roast beef and ground beef—

would no longer count as different ‘‘varieties’’ for retailer eligibility requirements. 

This is absurd and fundamentally changes the way the Program has always worked. 

In order to meet the requirements for variety in the ‘‘meat, poultry, or fish’’ category, for example, FNS has listed duck, catfish, shrimp, lamb, and tofu as acceptable variety options. Without listing those types of items, it’s hard to see how a retailer could stock seven different varieties in the meat group with FNS’ odd, new 

definition. Casey’s—and many of the supermarkets in the state we operate—doesn’t 

stock lamb, duck or tofu today, because such items do not sell. If we have to stock 

those items, we will be forced to cede shelf space to those items at the expense of 

better selling items. This applies to all of the staple food categories. Having two varieties of hard cheeses, for example, no longer will count as two varieties of staple 

foods. Having two varieties of bread from the same type of flour—such as sliced 

white bread and hamburger rolls—will no longer count as two varieties of staple 

foods. The list of absurdities grows with every example. 

If FNS has to count tofu as a staple meat in our stores in Iowa to try to make 

its new rules sound plausible, that is a good indication that something is seriously 

wrong. Trying to comply with this odd change of definitions will mean huge losses 

of sales of more popular items and significant spoilage costs as FNS’ favored foods 

go bad on our shelves. 

To summarize, under FNS’ ill-advised proposed rule, Casey’s will be required to 

stock at least six stocking units of seven single-ingredient varieties of staple foods 

in each of the four staple food categories, including one perishable item in at least 

three of the categories—an unwieldy task. In proposing these requirements, FNS 

went far beyond the compromise reached by Congress, and the end result will be 

the elimination of tens of thousands of convenience stores from the Program. This 

includes the elimination of all Casey’s stores as SNAP retailers. If a larger 

sophisticated chain like Casey’s will not be able to comply with this proposal, I find 

it hard to believe that any single-store operators or small chains could. 

While the loss of Casey’s participation in SNAP would be unfortunate for our company, more importantly, it would be detrimental to SNAP recipients who rely on our 

stores to redeem their benefits. It will be these recipients who face increased travel 

and convenience burdens, and possibly the complete loss of access to the food they 

need. Our company located stores in smaller communities for a reason—because we 

knew those communities needed a retail food store. Since then, we have gotten to 

know our customers and truly become a fixture in those communities. It is disheartening to consider the potential effects of FNS’ proposed rule on those communities 

and the low-income Americans who are seeking to provide food for their families. 

714

In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress properly balanced the need to increase food 

choices for SNAP recipients while ensuring small format retailers could participate 

as SNAP retailers. FNS has gone far beyond the compromise made by Congress and 

is endangering the Program and the people who rely on it for their food.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Beech. Mr. Martincich? 

STATEMENT OF CARL MARTINCICH, VICE PRESIDENT OF 

HUMAN RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LOVE’S 

TRAVEL STOPS AND COUNTRY STORES, OKLAHOMA CITY, 

OK; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRUCK 

STOP OPERATORS (NATSO) REPRESENTING AMERICA’S 

TRAVEL PLAZAS AND TRUCKSTOPS 

Mr. MARTINCICH. Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking 

Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee. I am Carl 

Martincich, the Vice President of Human Resources and Government Affairs with Love’s Travel Stops and Country Stores, 

headquartered in Oklahoma City. I am honored to testify today on 

behalf of the National Association of Truck Stop Operators, but I 

am also here representing our customers. It is important to begin 

by discussing the business model under which truckstops operate, 

as well as the vital and growing role that we play in the SNAP 

Program. 

Our industry is diverse and evolving. Every location includes 

multiple profit centers, from fuel sales and auto repair and supply 

shops, to hotels, sit down restaurants, quick service restaurants, 

food courts, and convenience stores. Truck stops that once tailored 

exclusively to truck drivers now cater to the entire traveling public, 

and the local populations that live in close proximity to the travel 

center location. 

Many NATSO members’ convenience stores redeem SNAP benefits. Because we are typically located in rural areas with few other 

places for disadvantaged residents to purchase food, SNAP consumers often rely on our stores. If we did not participate in SNAP, 

many program beneficiaries would be forced to travel long distances to purchase eligible products. This would be not only inconvenient, but for many of our customers, virtually impossible, as 

many SNAP recipients do not have a reliable means of transportation. 

Our experience with SNAP today is excellent. There are very few 

administrative complexities or glitches, and USDA staff is professional and helpful. By the end of this year, my company will have 

over 400 locations in 40 states to redeem SNAP. When it comes to 

providing healthy food options, we have always been on the cutting 

edge of the industry. Today we offer a wide variety of fresh, 

healthy food items. We do this because our customers demand it, 

and we respond to our customers. 

However, as a staunch supporter of our customers, and the 

SNAP Program, Love’s is extremely concerned with the USDA’s recently proposed SNAP rule, which is completely incompatible with 

our business model. For example, it includes a provision stipulating 

that no more than 15 percent of a SNAP retailer’s total food sales 

can be for items that are cooked or heated on-site. A fundamental 

feature of travel plazas is that we have both convenience stores 

715

and restaurants at one location, open 24 hours a day. This is integral to our business model. 

Only the convenience stores at our travel plazas redeem SNAP 

benefits. Our restaurants do not. Nonetheless, the proposed rule 

would combine food sales across all of these different food serving 

entities, and impose a 15 percent cap on food sales for items cooked 

or heated on site. Virtually no truckstop would satisfy this criteria. 

This would not further the program’s purpose to provide access to 

healthy food choices for the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. In 

fact, it threatens the achievement of this purpose by permitting 

USDA to make arbitrary decisions, denying qualified retailers’ applications. This, in turn, denies SNAP customers a convenient 

source for food. 

If one of our convenience stores is eligible to participate in SNAP 

based on USDA’s guidelines, it should not be rendered ineligible 

simply because we also operate a restaurant adjacent to that store. 

In addition, the proposed rule contains a number of provisions revising SNAP’s depth of stock requirements. Among other things, it 

imposes a 14-fold increase in the number of items retailers must 

stock in order to participate. These provisions are unworkable for 

small format retailers. USDA’s proposed rule should be revised 

substantially before it is finalized. 

In closing, I urge the Department of Agriculture and Members of 

this Committee to evaluate retailer eligibility from the beneficiaries’ perspective. Beneficiaries are often in a position where 

balancing life’s demands require them to prefer affordable, quick, 

and easy meals for the families to eat. We should not turn this into 

a luxury unavailable to the SNAP recipients who live in the rural 

areas near our locations. Indeed, it is a situation that everybody, 

from the witnesses testifying before you today, to the Members of 

this Committee, officials at USDA, members of my own family 

often confront. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the SNAP Program is designed to make the lives of America’s most economically 

vulnerable citizens easier, rather than harder. I am hopeful that 

the travel plaza industry can continue serving these customers, 

and playing our part in fulfilling this purpose for many years to 

come. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy 

to answer any questions as well. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beech follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL MARTINCICH, VICE PRESIDENT OF HUMAN

RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, LOVE’S TRAVEL STOPS AND COUNTRY

STORES, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRUCK

STOP OPERATORS (NATSO) REPRESENTING AMERICA’S TRAVEL PLAZAS AND

TRUCKSTOPS

Summary of Testimony 

1. The travel plaza and truckstop business is a diverse and evolving industry. 

Every travel plaza and truckstop includes multiple profit centers, catering to 

not only professional truck drivers, but to the entire traveling public, as well 

as the local population that lives in close proximity to a travel center location.

2. The travel plaza industry plays a vital and growing role in the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Many NATSO members’ convenience 

stores redeem SNAP benefits. These stores are often located in rural areas 

with few other places for local, economically disadvantaged residents to purchase food. Such residents often rely on NATSO members’ stores. If these 

716

1Founded in 1964 and headquartered in Oklahoma City, Love’s Travel Stops & Country 

Stores and its affiliated companies have over 15,000 employees, 370 retail locations in 40 states, 

230 truck tire care facilities, 700 fuel transport trucks, 1,000 rail cars, seven fuel terminals, and 

five hotels throughout the United States. Love’s is one of the largest food service operators in 

the country, owning and operating hundreds of quick service restaurants and over twenty popular brands. Love’s is currently No. 14 on the Forbes list of America’s largest private companies. 

Love’s is a family-owned business, and includes Executive Chairman Tom Love, Co-CEO Frank 

Love, Co-CEO Greg Love and Vice President of Communications Jenny Love Meyer. 

Carl Martincich is the Vice President of Human Resources and Government Affairs for Love’s 

Travel Stops & Country Stores. He is responsible for all human resource functions including recruiting, training, payroll and benefits. Carl is also responsible for the direction of various government affairs initiatives at both the state and Federal level. Carl joined Love’s in 1982, beginning his career in store operations managing a single convenience store and then progressed 

to multi-unit supervision directing 60 stores in five states. He moved into the corporate office 

in the mid 1990’s and has been in his current position since 2011. 2 NATSO’s mission is to advance the success of the truckstop and travel plaza industry. Since 

1960, NATSO has dedicated itself to this mission and the needs of truckstops, travel plazas, 

their suppliers, and their customers by serving as America’s official source of information on 

the industry. NATSO also acts as the voice of the industry on Capitol Hill and before regulatory 

agencies. 

stores did not participate in SNAP, many SNAP beneficiaries would be forced 

to travel long distances to purchase SNAP-eligible products.

3. Although Love’s’ initial experience with the Food Stamp program at the beginning of the last decade was not favorable, most of those issues have been resolved. Today, our experience with SNAP is excellent. There are very few administrative complexities or glitches, and USDA staff is professional and helpful. Some potential areas for improvement include allowing retail sites to test 

SNAP point-of-sale equipment before it goes live, and providing a self-serve 

mechanism inside the store for beneficiaries to check their account balances 

prior to making purchasing decisions.

4. Love’s has always been on the cutting edge of the industry when it comes to 

providing healthier food options for the consumer. We are driven by consumer 

demand, and have responded to our customers’ evolving demands for healthy 

food items in a variety of ways. One example is our grab-and-go fresh fruit 

program, where we display a variety of fresh fruits (apples, bananas, fruit 

cups, etc.) in a high value, high visibility area near the cashier stand.

5. Love’s is extremely concerned with a recent proposed rule issued by the 

USDA. The proposal would effectively ban the truckstop and travel plaza industry from continuing to redeem SNAP benefits, harming not only these 

businesses but more importantly the beneficiaries who have come to rely on 

them to buy food for their families. Because recipients in these areas often 

have limited or no transportation to get to a qualified store, reducing the 

number of redemption points in this manner would leave them with even 

fewer options. USDA and the Members of this Committee should consider the 

beneficiary’s perspective as it considers retailer eligibility policy. The USDA’s 

proposed rule should be revised substantially before it is finalized. 

Introduction 

Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Carl Martincich. I am 

the Vice President of Human Resources and Government Affairs at Love’s Travel 

Stops and Country Stores headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.1 I am testifying today on behalf of NATSO, the national trade association Representing America’s Travel Plazas and Truckstops.2

The travel plaza and truckstop business is a diverse and evolving industry. Every 

travel plaza and truckstop location includes multiple profit centers, from motor fuel 

sales and auto-repair and supply shops, to hotels, sit-down restaurants, quick-service restaurants and food courts, and convenience stores. It is an evolving industry 

that once was tailored solely to truck drivers, and now caters to the entire traveling 

public, as well as the local population that lives in close proximity to a travel center 

location. 

Convenience stores located at travel plazas are increasingly offering fresh food 

and meals for our customers to purchase and eat at home. Healthy food options 

have increased significantly in the industry as customer demands have continued 

to evolve. As an industry that prides itself on recognizing and adapting to our customers’ needs, we realize that often times we are the most convenient place for the 

local population to shop for food. The industry has responded, and hopes to continue 

to grow in the fresh and prepared food space. 

717

The travel plaza industry plays a vital and growing role in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Many NATSO members’ convenience stores redeem SNAP benefits. These stores are often located in rural areas with few other 

places for local, economically disadvantaged residents to purchase food. Such residents often rely on NATSO members’ stores. If these stores did not participate in 

SNAP, many SNAP beneficiaries would be forced to travel long distances to purchase SNAP-eligible products. This would be not only inconvenient, but for many 

of our customers virtually impossible as they might only be able to shop at a store 

within walking distance of their home. Many SNAP recipients do not have access 

to means of transportation. 

In the testimony that follows, I will provide a brief overview of Love’s’ experience 

with SNAP, as well as a brief discussion of how the government could harness the 

travel plaza industry to improve the program. I will also address Love’s’ effort to 

increase the amount of fresh healthy food items that we offer in our stores. I will 

conclude by discussing the proposed rule that the Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) recently released, and why it would effectively foreclose Love’s and other 

travel plazas from continuing to play their important role in SNAP by providing 

food to rural America’s most disadvantaged citizens as SNAP retailers. 

Love’s’ History with SNAP 

Love’s first participated in the Food Stamp program in the early 2000’s offering 

redemption of benefits primarily in rural areas of Oklahoma at approximately fifteen Love’s Country Store locations. Participating in the Food Stamp program at 

that time was a very time-consuming process for licensing, handling the coupons, 

and redemption. The licensing process in particular was extremely difficult and laborious for adding and qualifying new stores. The certification and training process 

was inefficient as store management had to travel to a central training location, 

sometimes over 100 miles away. The Food Stamp coupons were handled manually 

at the register like cash and the reimbursement to the retailer often took many 

weeks. 

In the middle part of the last decade, Love’s briefly exited the SNAP program. 

We found that the laborious administrative costs did not justify an investment in 

the face of what was, at the time, minimal consumer demand. 

In 2008 Love’s began to reevaluate potential participation in the program. As the 

economy struggled, many more of our customers were qualifying for assistance 

and—particularly in rural areas—began asking for SNAP redemption at our stores. 

At the same time, technological advancements made our participation in the program easier. No longer did we have to travel many miles for training. The transaction complexities subsided and redemption lag times diminished exponentially. 

The licensing/authorization process became, and remains to this day, quite simple. 

Indeed, the current administration and application enrollment process for established vendors to install new SNAP redemption points of sale is de-centralized by 

region and handled efficiently through emails. Also, with the easy-to-use Electronic 

Benefit Transfer or ‘‘EBT’’ card used for redeeming SNAP benefits, it reduces the 

instances of system breakdowns, problems and glitches. 

In 2010, after a thorough examination of the program changes and our customers’ 

evolving needs, Love’s made the business decision to requalify for (now-)SNAP redemption across our network. Today more than 300 Love’s Travel Stops and nearly 

60 Love’s Country Stores are certified SNAP redemption retailers. We expect this 

number to grow, as we continue to see high demand in rural, low-income communities where a Love’s store may be the only redemption point for 20–30 miles. 

Areas for Program Improvement 

It is worth reiterating that, as a general matter, our experience with SNAP has 

been positive and efficient. USDA staff have for the most part been easy to work 

with, and have done well working with Love’s employees and the entire private-sector to facilitate widespread access to nutrition for America’s low-income households. 

Love’s is quite satisfied with our recent experience with the program and those individuals who are charged with administering it. 

In communicating with my colleagues who work with SNAP on a daily basis, several common suggestions for improvement arose, however. 

First, it would be helpful if there was a process for the retailer to test the system 

prior to activation, or ‘‘going live.’’ Once a location is certified there is no way of 

testing the system for accuracy until we run the first ‘‘EBT’’ card from a customer. 

This stands in contrast to most other technology systems we implement at the store 

level, which generally provide for numerous testing and verification opportunities. 

Second, we should have a mechanism in the store for customers to look up their 

EBT balance prior to making purchasing decisions. This could come in the form of 

718

3 Enhancing Retailer Standards in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 81 

FED. REG. 8015 (Feb. 17, 2016). 

a kiosk or other type of self-serve verification terminal. As it stands today, if the 

SNAP recipient does not have access to a computer there is no way for them to 

verify the balance on their ‘‘EBT’’ card until they get to the cash register. This may 

result in a negative interaction between the cashier and customer, where customers 

are informed, potentially with others standing within earshot, that they do not have 

sufficient funds to complete their purchase. This is not good for the customer, for 

Love’s, or for the relationship between the two. 

One area where USDA has improved is the manner in which benefit payments 

to beneficiaries have been staggered throughout the month, rather than all beneficiaries receiving their benefits on the same day. Before, there was a consistent uptick in SNAP customers coming in soon after benefits were dispersed, creating store 

traffic and other complexities. Today, benefits are dispensed on a staggered basis. 

Every month, the ‘‘EBT’’ cards are re-allocated or loaded with the new month’s benefits for the recipient. The re-allocation takes place from the 1st to the 10th of every 

month, based on the last four digits of the recipient’s SNAP case number (example: 

0–3 = 1st, 4–6 = 5th, 7–9 = 10th of each month). Spreading out the re-allocation 

in this way eliminates an influx of recipients in our stores on the first of each 

month. 

Love’s Initiatives To Sell Healthy Foods 

Love’s has always been on the cutting edge of the industry when it comes to providing healthier food options for the consumer. We are driven by consumer demand, 

both in terms of identifying popular products that we currently sell, and identifying 

products that our customers are asking us to sell that may not currently be found 

in our stores. As with any successful retailer, identifying what our customers want 

and responding to it is what we do. 

With respect to healthy food options, there has been a steady increase in demand, 

though it has not been as substantial as many public officials might prefer. Nonetheless, we have responded to it in a variety of ways. For example, with our graband-go fresh fruit program, we display a variety of fresh fruits (apples, bananas, 

fruit cups, etc.) in a high value, high visibility area near the cashier stand. This is 

the most valuable real estate in a convenience retail environment, as it offers an 

opportunity for retailers to display high margin, ‘‘impulse-buy’’ items as customers 

approach and wait in line for the cash register. This is where many Love’s stores 

place fresh fruit options. 

Although we have had great success with our grab-and-go fresh fruit program, it 

is important to note that selling perishable food products in the rural areas where 

our stores tend to be located is complex. Deliveries are less frequent than at larger 

grocery stores located in more population-dense areas. Our wholesale suppliers 

make fewer items available to us than they do larger grocery chains. Availability 

is tied largely to what our supplier identifies—through sophisticated data analysis—

to be most likely to sell in our specific channel of commerce. 

Additionally, as is common in chain retail, each Love’s store is internally required 

to carry a standard selection of items for consistency across our network, with some 

flexibility for local and regional tastes or specials whenever possible. Love’s continues to have good success when offering a variety of fresh food and other healthy 

options. 

Notwithstanding these complexities, Love’s works hard to try and expand the 

fresh and healthy offerings in our stores. Working closely with our vendors, we employ good product management skills to minimize spoilage and waste. With the typical design and layout of an existing Love’s store, there is limited space to accommodate a changing and complex selection of fresh and healthy options. Love’s’ team of 

buyers and planning experts continue to implement creative layouts and designs to 

optimize storage and food preparation space limitations. 

I am particularly proud of Loves’s’ efforts to offer more fresh, healthy food items 

to our customers, and think we should be viewed as a model retailer in terms of 

helping USDA fulfill SNAP’s objectives. 

USDA’s Proposed Rule Enhancing SNAP Retailer Standards 

Before concluding, I would like to address some of the serious concerns I have 

with a recent rule USDA has proposed that would change SNAP retailer eligibility 

requirements.3 As written, the proposal would effectively ban the truckstop and 

travel plaza industry from continuing to redeem SNAP benefits, harming not only 

these businesses but more importantly the beneficiaries who have come to rely on 

them to buy food for their families. Because recipients in the rural areas where travVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
719

4 81 Fed. Reg. 8020 (Feb. 17, 2016) (emphasis added). 5 Compare Id.

el plazas tend to be located often have limited or no access to transportation to get 

to a qualified store, reducing the number of redemption points in this manner would 

leave them with even fewer options. 

The proposed rule is all-the-more troubling because it completely disregards 

Congress’s clear intent when it passed the 2014 Farm Bill. In that legislation, after 

many hours of negotiations, Congress sought to strike a balance between (i) enhancing beneficiaries’ access to fresh, healthy food options, with (ii) the integral role that 

small format retailers—including convenience stores located within travel plazas—

play in the program. Congress clearly wanted to enhance retailers’ stocking requirements, but just as clearly it did not want to impose burdens so onerous that small 

format retailers could not meet them. 

To be clear, Love’s does not oppose efforts to increase beneficiaries’ access to fresh, 

healthy food. But the USDA’s proposed rule doesn’t do that. In fact, it would de- crease beneficiaries’ access to healthy items by prohibiting them from buying such 

items with SNAP benefits at Love’s and other similar stores. 

In the 2014 Farm Bill, Congress adopted changes to the SNAP regulations’ ‘‘depth 

of stock’’ requirements establishing minimum quantities of staple food items that retailers must offer for sale in order to redeem SNAP benefits. By increasing the minimum number of items in each staple food category from three to seven, and increasing the categories in which retailers must have a perishable item from two to three, 

Congress exhibited a clear understanding that (a) excessive stocking requirements 

would uniquely affect small format retailers and thereby restrict access for beneficiaries that frequent them, and (b) this was an undesirable outcome. 

USDA’s proposed rule exhibits no such understanding. In fact, it appears to directly dismiss Congress’s view and proceed with a rule designed to force small format retailers out of the program. The proposal would do this in two ways: 

‘‘15% Provision’’

The proposal provides that no more than 15% of a SNAP retailer’s total food sales 

can be for items that are cooked or heated on-site. 

A fundamental feature of travel plazas is that they contain both convenience 

stores and quick-serve or sit-down restaurants at one location. A good travel plaza 

is a ‘‘one-stop-shop’’ for the traveling public, both commercial truck drivers and recreational travelers. To serve the needs of this diverse customer base effectively, at 

all hours of the day and night, we need to offer a variety of food options, from quick 

grab-and-go snacks and beverages, to more formal sit-down dining options. This diversity of profit centers—all within a single travel plaza location—is integral to our 

business model. 

The proposed rule would aggregate food sales across all of these different foodserving entities, and impose a cap of 15% for food that is cooked or heated on-site. 

It does this even though only the convenience stores at our travel plazas are in the 

business of redeeming SNAP benefits. If we operate a quick-serve restaurant adjacent to that convenience store, our customers cannot buy food at that restaurant 

with their SNAP benefits. The two entities are, for purposes of SNAP and from our 

customers’ perspectives, completely separate. 

Nonetheless, USDA takes pains to emphasize that it is conflating the two entities 

for purposes of this proposed rule:

Establishments that include separate businesses that operate under one roof 

and have commonalities, such as sale of similar foods, single management structure, shared space, logistics, bank accounts, employees, and/

or inventory, are considered to be a single establishment when determining eligibility to participate in SNAP as retail food stores.4

USDA’s insistence on this issue is perplexing. If a Love’s convenience store is eligible to participate in SNAP based on USDA’s guidelines, it should not be rendered 

ineligible simply because Love’s also operates a restaurant adjacent to that store. 

Indeed, at literally hundreds of our SNAP-redeeming convenience store locations, 

there are also hot food restaurants, and these two entities can ‘‘operate under one 

roof and have commonalities, such as . . . single management structure [Love’s], 

shared space, logistics, bank accounts, and employees.’’ 5

It should be noted that there are other travel plaza companies and operators who 

take a different business approach and are more likely to lease out property at their 

travel plaza locations to third parties to operate restaurants and other businesses 

on-site. For example, rather than the travel plaza company operating a quick-serve 

restaurant as a franchisee, the company might lease out the space to a separate 

720

6 7 CFR 271.1(a). 

business to run a quick-serve restaurant as a franchisee. To the customer, there is 

no noticeable difference between these two approaches. Yet to USDA, it appears to 

be a key factor in determining whether the convenience store that happens to be 

‘‘under the same roof’’ as the restaurant is permitted to redeem SNAP benefits. 

This is silly. 

The 15% threshold is completely incompatible with the travel plazas’ business 

model—far more than 15% of a given travel plaza’s food sales will be cooked or heated on-site when factoring in these other restaurant-type entities. This 15% provision 

would likely foreclose every Love’s location from continuing to redeem SNAP. 

Beyond the negative consequences that this 15% provision would trigger, it is premised upon a flawed method of determining retailer eligibility—one that Congress 

specifically rejected during the 2014 Farm Bill negotiations. Once a retailer meets 

the necessary eligibility requirements to redeem SNAP benefits, it should be allowed 

to participate in the Program. Love’s is in the business of identifying products that 

our customers want to buy and then selling those products. As with any successful 

retailer, we understand that demand drives supply, supply does not drive demand. 

For this reason, it makes little sense to tie a retailer’s eligibility to participate in 

SNAP on what products its customers choose to purchase, for this is a variable over 

which retailers do not have control. 

Placing a ceiling on the quantity of hot and prepared food items—which are ineligible to be purchased with SNAP benefits—that SNAP retailers are permitted to sell 

would eliminate many small format retailers from the program, and discourage 

many more from getting involved to begin with. This would not further the program’s purpose to ‘‘promote the general welfare and safeguard the health and well 

being of the nation’s population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income 

households.’’ 6 In fact, it threatens the achievement of this purpose by permitting 

USDA to make arbitrary decisions denying qualified retailers’ application to redeem 

SNAP benefits. This in turn denies those retailers’ SNAP customers a convenient 

source for food. 

If a retail store stocks a sufficient quantity of healthy, staple food items to participate in SNAP, it should be able to participate without regard to whether it is operating in the same building as a restaurant or deli. Those two issues simply are unrelated. 

Depth of Stock 

The proposal would also require all SNAP retailers to stock more than 160 ‘‘staple 

food’’ items at all times in order to redeem SNAP benefits—a 14-fold increase from 

current requirements. 

Further, it eliminates many items that NATSO members sell from qualifying as 

‘‘staple food’’ items, such as multi-ingredient items that people purchase and eat at 

home, including potpies, soups, cold pizza, and frozen dinners, or snack-food items 

such as crackers and carrot-and-dip ‘‘to go’’ packs. Finally, it prevents retailers from 

counting different types of a single food source as multiple ‘‘varieties’’ of that item 

(for example, ham and salami would both qualify as ‘‘pork’’ rather than different 

items that happen to be in the same category; turkey burgers, sliced turkey, and 

ground turkey all qualify as ‘‘turkey’’ rather than different items, etc.). 

This is a dramatic and unnecessary departure from current rules. It fundamentally disrupts the compromise that Congress reached in the 2014 Farm Bill by 

changing the underlying definitions of terms that Congress relied upon in establishing enhanced depth of stock requirements. 

Most troubling is that these provisions appear to be specifically designed to make 

it extremely difficult and expensive for travel plazas and convenience stores to redeem SNAP benefits. Requiring a SNAP retailer to stock food products that officials 

at the Department of Agriculture would prefer customers to buy would not change 

customer purchasing habits. (Demand drives supply.) It would, however, discourage 

many retailers from participating in the program because it is simply bad business 

to stock products that their customers—SNAP and non-SNAP—simply will not buy. 

For those small format retailers continue to participate, it would also very likely 

lead to wasting food, as the retailers would be stocking perishable products that will 

not move quickly off of their shelves. Finally, it would lead to inventory management complications. Indeed, as the complexity of the proposed ‘‘staple food’’ requirements change so do the complexities of product management, storage, rotation, and 

display. Our stock rooms are stacked to the ceiling with products that we have determined our customers want to buy. Injecting an excessive amount of other types 

of products into our supply will be extremely complicated for our store and inventory managers. 

721

If the depth of stock provisions are finalized as proposed, it would lead Love’s and 

many other retailers to completely reevaluate the decision to participate in SNAP.

Many will exit the program. 

I urge the Department of Agriculture and Members of this Committee to consider 

the beneficiary’s perspective as it considers retailer eligibility policy. Beneficiaries 

are often in a position where, sometimes, the limited hours of the day may require 

them to prepare affordable, quick-and-easy meals for their families to eat. It is a 

situation that everybody, from the witnesses testifying before you today, to the 

Members of this Committee, and even officials at USDA, often confront. We should 

not turn this activity into a luxury unavailable to SNAP beneficiaries who live in 

the rural areas near Love’s locations. It is not fair to them, and it exhibits a level 

of disregard for the already difficult lives these citizens lead. We should be trying 

to make their lives easier, not harder. 

USDA has gone too far with this proposal. If finalized, it would effectively prohibit 

smaller format retailers from participating in SNAP, and thereby harm the SNAP 

beneficiaries that the agency is charged with helping.

Conclusion 

The truckstop and travel plaza industry takes seriously its role in the SNAP program. Love’s’ experience with the program has been largely positive. I am hopeful 

that we can continue to work together and build on past successes, while learning 

from the program’s shortcomings, to fulfill the program’s purpose of raising nutrition levels of the nation’s most vulnerable and needy citizens. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am of course happy to answer any questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank our witnesses for their testimony. 

The chair would remind Members that they will be recognized for 

questioning in order of seniority for Members who were here at the 

start of the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in 

order of arrival. I appreciate Members’ understanding. We have a 

glitch in our vaunted technology system. Our clocks aren’t working, 

so when we recognize each Member for 5 minutes, you don’t have 

the normal lights. I have my handy-dandy stopwatch here, and, in 

order to keep us moving along, I will have to give you a 1 minute 

warning, but maybe I will just—one snap there, that—1 minute 

warning for you. So, with that, I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Wright, you talked about the qualification process, or the 

way you got your Carver Market officially recognized. There was a 

story this morning in the news about a storefront in Florida, no 

food whatsoever, that had redeemed about $13 million in SNAP 

benefits, and they were raided, and those folks are going to be 

brought to justice because they stole money from the system. Can 

you walk us through what you had to go through for Carver to become a qualified SNAP beneficiary, and the mechanics of that? 

How often are you re-examined? Do folks come by periodically to 

check and make sure that you are doing what you are told to do 

on the application process? Would you help the Committee understand that approval process that USDA goes through? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Carver Market is actually operated by a nonprofit 

ministry out of Atlanta, and so the process they went through was, 

of course, contacting USDA. They also had to have some coordination with the health inspectors, I believe, from the State of Georgia 

and all that. It just became a very laborious process in order to get 

all that lined up, and just the points of contact, not being able to 

get through to people, not having the communication relayed back 

to them. 

I certainly understand what you are talking about in the store 

in Florida, and, from our industry’s perspective, we have a zero tolerance for abuse from retailer or participant in the program. We 

722

are not in favor of that. But in this case you had a nonprofit ministry that has planted themself in a community they are trying to 

revitalize, and just some sort of recognition to expedite that process 

would be appreciated. Just a lot of people to see, a lot of hoops to 

jump through, so to speak. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Could they operate their store without 

customers redeeming SNAP benefits, were they able to open and go 

into business before that? 

Mr. WRIGHT. We were able to open the store, but, needless to 

say, with the makeup of the neighborhood, and the amount of 

SNAP residents, that was certainly economically challenging for 

the store——

The CHAIRMAN. So, 25 percent of your business is SNAP? So 

those folks would come into the store, try to buy something, and 

the operator of the store would have to say, we are not ready yet? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is a bit counterintuitive that a store in that 

food desert would only have 25 percent of their business is SNAP, 

while your broader Wright Market has 31 percent. Do you think 

that SNAP beneficiaries will go there, and that will grow, or you 

think 25 percent is about right? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, the Carver Market does not offer fresh meat. 

Now, they do a good job of offering fresh produce, dairy, milk, eggs, 

and a wide variety of grocery items for a small store, and at 

Wright’s Market, 56 percent of our business is driven through fresh 

meat and fresh produce, with meat being a much bigger ring, so 

to speak. So that would be the difference between what we are able 

to offer, and what they are able to offer: 25 percent for a smaller 

store like Carver Market is pretty good. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. And just real quickly, on your Wright 2 

You Program, is that available to SNAP beneficiaries, as well as 

other customers? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. It is something that we just do on demand. We 

continue to hear the requests for people that don’t have transportation to the store, so that is certainly open to anyone who calls 

for pickup. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. Mr. Beech and Mr. Martincich, 

we had FNCS here during the 2 day review of USDA programs, 

and they were trying to walk us through how they got to their proposed rules, and I asked Administrator Rowe if any of the folks on 

the rule writing team had ever actually worked in a grocery store. 

And, of course, they hadn’t, and so that may be reflective of some 

of the things that they are trying to get done in that regard. 

Can you walk us through the process a recipient goes through at 

the checkout line, is a SNAP beneficiary going into a Love’s and 

unable to use that SNAP card for anything other than what is eligible? In other words, your electronic machines parse out what is 

and isn’t SNAP eligible, so they can’t buy food in the restaurant 

with their SNAP benefits. What is the public policy advantage to 

excluding travel plazas like yours, where they have more than 15 

percent of their food sales in non-eligible SNAP items, what would 

be the possible public policy benefit for that? 

723

Mr. MARTINCICH. That is a great question. I would have no idea 

what the rationale would be to penalize that SNAP beneficiary who 

is very well educated, and knows what to buy in a grocery store. 

And to penalize that person because I happen to sell hot food in 

another part of the store, or under one roof, I see absolutely no rationale to that whatsoever. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, then. My time has expired. Mr. 

Peterson, 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of people that want you guys to be the food police, and this is the first 

idea that is generated here. But I just want you to know some of 

the things that I hear from some of my colleagues, on the right and 

on the left. They think that SNAP recipients should not be able to 

buy candy, sugared soda pop, so-called junk food. There are people 

who think that no one should be able to use a SNAP card at a convenience store because it is more expensive than a grocery store. 

So these are things that I hear that are out there, without asking 

you, I assume that would just make it even more problematic to 

stay in the program if something like that happened. But it is out 

there, and people will talk about it. Even some of my constituents 

talk about it. 

One of the things that I am curious about is, apparently, during 

the Dodd-Frank negotiations, there was a provision put in by Senator Durbin that said that the banks can’t charge SNAP recipients 

for transactions on their cards, which is kind of a dumb idea. Anyway, it got passed. So now, from what I can tell, you can’t figure 

out how much they are charging, and who they are charging. So 

do you know how much these banks make on these cards? Supposedly, they can’t charge the recipients, so how much are they 

charging you guys per customer, or do you guys know that information? Do they give that to you? 

Ms. HANNA. Sir, on the SNAP transactions, as a merchant, we 

pay a processing fee, which is an extremely low amount. 

Mr. PETERSON. So what is that? 

Ms. HANNA. It would be sub-hundredths of a penny. That is how 

low it can be. And you have processors, and there are only two 

right now and that is creating a competition problem. And so there 

is a proposed 1¢ charge being made by one of the providers——

Mr. PETERSON. Right. So that would be to the store? 

Ms. HANNA. That would be to the merchant. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

Ms. HANNA. Yes. 

Mr. PETERSON. They supposedly can’t charge the SNAP recipient. 

Ms. HANNA. That is correct. 

And that 1¢, based on a rough calculation, would bring in $17 

million annually of revenue to this processor. That cost is going to 

drive prices up, and the customer who uses the SNAP benefits, and 

all others, will be harmed by that, from the increase in prices. We 

need more competition when it comes to being able to process these 

transactions. 

Mr. PETERSON. There was a story out there that said that some of these banks were charging people $5 to stop payment, and they 

were figuring out some way to charge the recipients if they lost 

their card, they charge them $5. And then there was some other 

724

deal where they are charging them 40¢ if they get—I don’t know 

what it is, but apparently they are getting around it somehow or 

another. Are you familiar with that? 

Ms. HANNA. No, sir, I am not familiar with there being fees 

charged by the banks on SNAP transactions. I am familiar with 

banks charging fees for other payment types that customers use 

with debit cards, but not on SNAP cards. 

Mr. PETERSON. So you haven’t heard any complaints from your 

customers about this, that——

Ms. HANNA. Not on SNAP cards, sir. 

Mr. PETERSON. So if they lose their card, they just——

Ms. HANNA. They will go back and ask for another one. But they 

have not spoken to us that they are being charged by their agency 

to get another card. 

Mr. PETERSON. On the chip situation, you are going to that? Are 

you changing all your credit cards to the chip? 

Ms. HANNA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PETERSON. So does that mean that these EBT processors are 

going to raise the fees on the card to pay for that? 

Ms. HANNA. I think that could be part of it. It is just pure speculation if that is the case, but we do know that putting a chip on 

a payment card, along with a PIN, will reduce fraud substantially. 

There was a report put out by the Federal Reserve several years 

ago that said payment cards that were only signature enabled had 

700 percent greater chances of fraud being conducted on those. So 

as we move to an environment where there is more security needed 

in the payment space, and that includes the use of these SNAP 

cards, we are looking for additional technology. And I think that 

a chip and PIN on a chip added to these SNAP cards would be beneficial to the participants, and to the retailers that accept them. 

Mr. PETERSON. I do have a short follow-up. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. PETERSON. So, as I understand it, most of the fraud is a situation where the retailer is in collusion with the recipient. So I don’t 

understand where the PIN number makes a difference, because the 

recipient knows it anyway. The majority of the fraud is where they 

have to get together and do it. My time is out, but if you could respond to whatever is going on with that? Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. We will take 

that one for the record. Mr. Neugebauer, 5 minutes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Beech, in your 

testimony you outlined how the USDA proposal would cause most 

of the Casey stores to be ineligible for participation in SNAP. And 

many of your stores, you indicated are in small communities. I represent a district that has a lot of small communities, and somebody 

would have to be living in a vacuum if they haven’t been watching 

what has happened in rural America, where we have seen the 

towns of rural communities shrink because the number of farm 

families have shrunk. Farmers are farming a lot larger tracts of 

land. 

In many of those communities, they have lost their auto dealership, they have lost their grocery store, they have lost their clothing store, and they are considered somewhat under-served. And so 

I guess the question that I would have to you is what would be the 

725

driving distance for many of your customers if your company was 

forced to quit providing SNAP benefits to those folks? 

Mr. BEECH. Yes, that is a great question Congressman, and you 

are absolutely correct. I grew up in a small town in rural Iowa, and 

we used to have a lot more services than we do now. But yes, many 

places in the rural Midwest, our customers would have to drive 15 

and 20 miles to the next nearest community that would have full 

services like that. We have 220 of our stores. We are the only provider, and we provide prepared foods, we are the bakery in the 

community, and we are the grocery store. 

So to have folks that are already on the program having to spend 

additional resources to drive 15 and 20 miles to redeem their benefits, I can’t see any rationale for that, and we are really concerned 

about some of our rural customers having to go through this to do 

that. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. You also testified that you keep a limited 

amount of stock in those stores, due to the ability to service those. 

So if you had to comply with this new regulation in keeping more 

stock, more items, it looks like to me that increases your logistic 

cost of having to make more runs, or expand those stores. Is that 

going to drive the prices up if you have to do that? 

Mr. BEECH. Yes, it would clearly drive the prices up, but for us, 

we couldn’t do it. We deliver once a week to 1,931 stores, so if we 

would have to deliver two or three times to a store to meet compliance with SNAP, it is just not that large of a piece of our business. 

So it is just something that, physically, we wouldn’t be able to do 

in our business model. It would just be too expensive, and we just 

don’t have the space to have this kind of depth of stock in our 

stores. Our stores aren’t big enough to do that. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. If they impose this 15 percent on prepared 

food, what is that going to do to your business model? 

Mr. BEECH. It makes us completely ineligible for the program. 

We sell a little bit of pizza. We are the fifth or sixth largest pizza 

retailer in the country, and so we would just have to drop the 

SNAP Program. We would not drop our hot foods program. It is 

just too integral to our business and our business success, so if we 

had to, unfortunately, make that choice, we would have to stay 

with the hot foods, unfortunately. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. What percentage of your business is SNAP, 

average across your stores? 

Mr. BEECH. It is not very large on ours. It is probably one or two 

percent. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Okay. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I think that this rule by the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service is impractical, it is unworkable, it is offensive, it is discriminatory, and it is definitely draconian, and really unnecessary. And very, very offensive and discriminatory to rural Americans and low-income Americans. So this 

is a large swath of the American people. And I am really just at 

odds trying to figure out why is the Department of Agriculture’s 

Food and Nutrition Service doing this? 

726

And so I would like to ask you, who are testifying here to help 

me with this dilemma. Clearly, here is what I think: I believe that 

the Department of Agriculture wants to stop small business retailers from participating in the SNAP Program. Now, if I am wrong, 

please tell me. Mr. Martincich, I apologize if I murdered your name 

there, but can you help me with this? Am I off base? I just don’t 

see it. Maybe somebody can clear up for me why in the world is 

the Department of Agriculture doing this, and putting such hardship on the small retail business community, and on the very 

American people that need this service the most, those in rural 

America and those in low-income America? 

Mr. MARTINCICH. I agree with all your words wholeheartedly, 

and I will start off with offensive. I do think it is offensive to that 

SNAP beneficiary, and it is offensive to the retailer also. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. 

Mr. MARTINCICH. At a stretch, I might give a benefit of the 

doubt. It is probably a noble cause to encourage healthy eating and 

healthy behavior. But our personal example is that has been 

changing over the last several years also. One of the biggest sellers 

in all of our stores is our fruit and vegetable cups. No government 

agency told me that I had to sell fruits and vegetables and put 

them at the front counter, but customers began demanding that, 

and we are selling a lot of it, and there is no regulation that told 

us we had to do that. So I think consumer behavior is changing 

anyway, without these draconian, discriminatory regulations. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. Mr. Beech, how do you feel 

about this? 

Mr. BEECH. Congressman, I totally agree with you too. I echo his 

comments. I mean, we obviously care about our customers’ health, 

and give them the benefit of the doubt of that. But when we have 

some of these stocking requirements that are egregious and things, 

it just seems clear that maybe we don’t want the small retailer in 

this. But, you folks did a good job on the farm bill, had a good compromise with some additional items in the stores. We can certainly 

live with that and support that, but this over-extension of the 

stocking requirements, and the change in the definitions of not 

having multiple ingredient foods, we can’t have chicken and noodle 

soup in there, and macaroni and cheese, and it doesn’t count anymore. People are trying to feed their families with this program, 

and you would think you would want to be more inclusive than not, 

so we are in total agreement with you. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My 

time is up in 1 minute. This really disturbs me, because there are 

sectors of our American people who are in certain types of situations that are no fault of their own. And when you take the basic 

necessity of life, which is food, and you make it harder and harder 

for these people to be able to do that, Kroger’s and Publix, these 

large grocery stores, they are not in some of these communities, in 

the rural areas particularly, they have to travel to another place. 

In the low-income communities, people don’t have the transportation to get to where they are. So it is my hope that out of this 

hearing, Mr. Chairman, that we will send a powerful message to 

the Department of Agriculture to rescind this rule. 

727

The CHAIRMAN. Well, David, to send that message, you will need 

to be a little more blunt. Mr. Lucas, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first I would like to 

note that one of our very articulate, bright witnesses noted we did 

a good job on the food stamp section of the farm bill, in a place and 

a time where rarely positive things are said. Thank you, sir. 

With that, I would like to turn to Mr. Martincich to expand on 

your comments. Your perspective in your opening testimony was 

the customer’s perspective. Do you have any idea how many of your 

SNAP customers at the travel plazas tend to be highway travelers, 

as opposed to local citizens who live in an area in close proximity 

to the facility? I am assuming a good and efficient business that 

you have examined, studied, analyzed your customer base. Tell me 

about that. Who is passing through, and who is local? 

Mr. MARTINCICH. Absolutely. There are very few traveling public 

or truck drivers eligible for SNAP, or using SNAP benefits in our 

stores. The vast majority are local, close residents. Which, again, 

is why it would be a tremendous shame for us to have to turn down 

that customer who is walking to our truckstop, maybe catching a 

ride to our truckstop. But very few are really over-the-road travelers. 

Mr. LUCAS. Several witnesses have mentioned the hot food issue. 

Since your locations often have both convenience stores and restaurants, have you noticed the SNAP customers getting confused, 

or mistakenly believing they can redeem their SNAP benefits at 

the restaurant side of the equation? 

Mr. MARTINCICH. Never. I think those SNAP recipients are very 

well educated on what they can purchase. Not once, in any of our 

experiences, have we seen a SNAP eligible customer try to purchase something that is a hot food item. Again, it is a clear distinction, because there is a convenience store on this side, and a quick 

service restaurant, or a sit down restaurant on that side. 

Mr. LUCAS. And you have convenience stores that still just have 

non-restaurant options too, right, in the smaller communities? 

Mr. MARTINCICH. Absolutely. 

Mr. LUCAS. So you have both models? 

Mr. MARTINCICH. Yes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Okay. So are you able to draw any conclusions about 

Love’s stores? The trend to do a lot of SNAP business versus Love’s 

stores that do minimal amounts of SNAP business, comparing the 

nature of your facilities? 

Mr. MARTINCICH. Certainly in the rural communities, where 

there are other limited options, and you will be familiar with quite 

a few of those in Oklahoma, and it is really around the local 

residencies. It is around the local neighborhoods. So if I am extremely isolated, and with no local population within maybe 10 or 

15 miles of my store, I won’t hardly get any SNAP recipients in 

there. 

Mr. LUCAS. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, I would just note, as I 

yield back, the comments by the Ranking Member about the PIN 

versus chip versus stripe question. While that is probably more of 

a jurisdiction of a different committee, a lot of that pertains about 

who is responsible for the fraud issue. Is it the retailer, is it the 

card issuer? Not just SNAP, but all forms of credit cards. And that 

728

is something that we have to sort out in this body, because right 

now there is a great debate over who is most responsible for security, and who is being stuck by the bill, and in many cases it is 

a substantial issue. Not in SNAP, but in other credit card issues, 

the fraud factor. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. McGovern, 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you very much. I want to thank you all 

for being here. I certainly appreciate the fact that SNAP retailers 

play a critical role in making sure that food is available to those 

in need. And many of our constituents in both rural and urban 

areas lack access to larger grocery stores. And while we would all 

love to see large supermarkets in every community in America, 

that is just not a reality. And, as we have heard from our witnesses 

today, convenience stores are frequently the only source of groceries in some communities, and are, at times, the only stores that 

accepts SNAP benefits in a particular community. 

And one of the things that is under-appreciated, I am sad to say, 

in this Congress is the fact that a large number of people on SNAP 

work. They work for a living. But, they work non-traditional hours, 

or are forced to work several jobs just to make ends meet, and 

these individuals often have to shop for their food at kind of odd 

hours, and that is where you oftentimes are the only avenue for 

them to get food. 

I sympathize with the goal of making healthier foods more available to people, and helping people make better choices in terms of 

what they buy. If we were really interested in that, we would examine the fact that the SNAP benefit in and of itself is so inadequate, that it really does limit an individual’s ability to be able 

to buy the healthiest food. But I also have concerns with proposals 

that would limit the ability of smaller format retailers to participate in the SNAP Program, which would prevent SNAP recipients 

from access to food. 

Mr. Beech, you talk a lot about restrictions in USDA’s proposed 

rule that would force stores out of the SNAP Program. Would the 

proposed rule as currently drafted eliminate access to food for any 

SNAP beneficiaries, and would it make hunger worse in our communities? And the reason why I raise that is because, while I am 

sympathetic to the impact that this might have on the retailers, I 

am most sympathetic about the negative impact it would have on 

people who are just struggling to put food on the table. 

Mr. BEECH. Your question is a good one, Congressman. I think, 

quite accurately, that is our biggest concern, is we want to make 

sure that the folks that need the program can still get it. It clearly 

does have the opportunity to increase hunger concerns. As I mentioned in my testimony, we have 220 of our stores where we are 

the only provider. There are a number of those communities where 

the other provider might be just another convenience store. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. 

Mr. BEECH. Many of these communities don’t have grocery 

stores. So it is a big problem when you have communities in this 

country that they can’t redeem their benefits, and so they have to 

make a separate trip to do that. So making available opportunities 

729

and places to redeem their benefits is a good thing. I think it has 

that potential. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. So USDA tells us that they intend to allow 

waivers for certain stores if access is compromised. How do you 

think that that would impact store participation? 

Mr. BEECH. Well, there are a number of concerns about waivers. 

We would want 1,931 waivers. And then every other convenience 

store chain would want those as well. And if you don’t give out 

waivers to everybody, you have the competitive issues. Do you give 

it to one competitor in a town, and not the other competitor in 

town? Who gets it? Who gets the waiver? So I am just not sure this 

program is designed to give out thousands and thousands of waivers. It just, to me, doesn’t make sense. We have to have the fundamental rules of the program, and the waivers should be what they 

are, waivers, used sparingly. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. As we speak about access to food, and since you 

are all here, it is important to also look at proposals that would undermine the SNAP Program and cut benefits for families living in 

poverty. Ms. Hanna, some have suggested that we block grant the 

SNAP Program, turning more responsibility for the administrative 

decisions to states. There is a Republican budget that would cut 

the program by $150 billion over 10 years. Do you have concerns 

with such proposals, and if so, what would those concerns be? 

Ms. HANNA. I do, because under that scenario, by putting that 

back in there, now we are going to lose the ubiquity that the national program has. Because with a state, or any state, and a different state having different requirements, having different food 

lists, it is going to make it much harder for the SNAP participant 

to make sure, first, that they are buying the right things when 

they are going to the stores; but second, it is going to make it much 

harder on the retailer and the merchant to program, and to train 

the cashiers to work with those customers to make sure that they 

are making the healthy food choices, and they are getting what are 

eligible products. So it is something that would be very difficult on 

the entire system. And I don’t think it would be something that 

would be good for the system. 

Right now we have a good system that is ubiquitous, it is across 

all the states. As a SNAP participant, if they have to go from one 

state to another because of some sort of disaster, or some sort of 

other event, they know that they can take those benefits, and that 

they can shop in another store in that state, and get the same benefits. But if this is administered on a state-by-state basis, that is 

not going to happen. In addition, states share information regarding fraud. If the states are allowed to administer this, then how are 

they going to manage their cross-border fraud, and look at that information? It is not going to be the same anymore. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you. That is a very powerful argument 

against block granting. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Gibbs, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I don’t use all my time, 

I will use my balance of time to yield to Mr. Scott if he needs more 

time. 

730

I appreciate the comments, and there is just one thing, he asked 

a question, Mr. Chairman, he was speculating about the reason 

USDA was doing this is to put the small business out of business. 

I don’t think that is it. I think what it is, it goes back to what the 

Ranking Member said. It is about the food police. And this is analogous to the school lunch program we are seeing, where one size fits 

all out of Washington, D.C. policy, they know best. 

And I have to tell you, what we need to do is send some of these 

people out in our remote areas, like the western states. I have a 

son that lives out in remote, eastern Oregon, and a couple years 

ago he was living in northwestern Wyoming, in a remote area, and 

you literally had to drive 30 miles to buy a loaf of bread. So all the 

comments the panel has made about access and availability is absolutely true, but people here in Washington, D.C., inside the Inner 

Belt here, don’t understand that, and don’t have a clue. 

And so that is really what it is about. It is more about the food 

police, and Washington knows best. Moving forward, I just want to 

make that point that this rule needs to be rescinded, because it is 

going to hurt people in the remote areas. And, Mr. Beech, your excellent points on the question about, you have 200 stores would you 

have to quit using the SNAP Program, and that doesn’t account for 

when there are other convenience stores. 

So I kind of got the feeling, Mr. Beech, your stores aren’t true 

convenience stores. In Ohio it is more of a general-type store, at 

least because you go out in these rural areas where our son lives, 

there are no chain stores out there. There is, but the general stores 

in small towns there have more things that you don’t have in a 

small town in Ohio. 

Mr. BEECH. Yes. Virtually all of our stores are a little bit bigger 

model, but we have an extremely competitive and broad food program. So we make our own pizzas, many of our stores have subs, 

we have donuts. So in many small communities, we are the local 

grocery store, and we are the bakery, and we are the restaurant. 

So we do all of those in one, and we are proud of it, and have very 

good products. But that has been our niche. We grew up in rural 

Iowa and Missouri, and so those are the customers we serve. 

Mr. GIBBS. And it is absolutely right that the idea is the market 

is dictating what the needs are in those locales. It shouldn’t be 

Washington dictating that. And I did want to say, since the introductions that Kroger Company is headquartered in the great Buckeye State of Ohio, in Cincinnati, and it is a great chain, so I wanted to make that point. I appreciate the panel. And my time I have 

left, I would yield to Mr. Scott, if he has any more thoughts. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. You are kind. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Graham, for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much to all the witnesses today. My question is actually directed 

at Mr. Wright. I live, and represent, the most rural district in Florida, pretty much the entire panhandle of the State of Florida. We 

have a huge food desert, and I go to Love’s all the time, by the way. 

And I am interested in and thank you for your innovative approach 

to serving your rural community. And we have great nutrition and 

food access issues in my district. I would just like for you to expand 

731

on what you have done how maybe we can take some of your innovative approaches and use them in north Florida to help the people 

of north Florida. So thank you very much. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, thank you. Yes, there are just plain and simple communities that cannot support a brick and mortar store, especially something full service where you are processing fresh 

meat, and those type of things. With all due respect to Mr. Beech, 

Casey’s does a fabulous job in some of these places, but even in 

areas like you are talking about, it is a challenge to even have 

something like that. 

We just believe with technology today that mobile and delivery 

is going to be the way to solve these. Whether it is to someone’s 

home, or preferably it could be a central location, some of the rural 

community where there is still some sort of gathering place where 

there is some sort of community center, or possibly a church, or 

something like that. So I believe that using technology would be a 

great way for people to order online, and for us to be able to get 

these fresh products to them in these communities that just can’t 

support a brick and mortar store. And I actually have been contacted by somebody from your area about trying to do something 

like that, so——

Ms. GRAHAM. I am not surprised about that. I have a wonderful 

team, and she is taking notes in the back. Which is the purpose 

of these hearings, right, Mr. Chairman? 

In rural communities we often have challenges with even having 

access to the Internet. Is this something that you have moved forward with mobile apps, and those types of things, that consumers 

could potentially use in rural areas? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, that would be correct. And, again, there are 

two things that you face in the issue we are discussing. One is just 

access to technology to order. The other would be that possibly we 

reach, especially, some of the elderly that don’t have the computer 

skills to do that. That really is where churches, and some organizations like that, can come in and fill that gap, and have access to 

that, or help someone do that. I think that would be, again, a great 

way. 

And we are very blessed and fortunate in our community to have 

a very strong faith-based community, and a number of outreach 

ministries. I have seen some things in the Gainesville, area, not far 

from you, the Casey family programs who have worked with the 

Partnership for Strong Families, and built some outreach centers, 

some community resource centers, in some rural areas. A model 

like that would be a great way for having a central point to order, 

and also have some help to go through the process to order. 

Ms. GRAHAM. I don’t know how much time I have left. I love this 

new system, Mr. Chairman. Do you find that those that you are 

serving, are they ordering and requesting fruits and vegetables, 

meats, and that type of thing? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Well, back to my opening comments, we are just 

now getting into the process, but we can see it already. Certainly 

there are several groups that we have had a lot of interest in online ordering delivery. Certainly there are people in their lives that 

are busy, that is one. We have heard from a number of elderly, so 

we run our shuttle service. We will come to a person’s home and 

732

pick them up, and bring them to the store, and then return them 

home. So we solved some of the issues like that. We have heard 

a tremendous amount of our elderly that getting out of the house 

and going to the grocery store is just not an option anymore physically. 

We also have heard from a number of people whose parents are 

in areas where they don’t live anymore. And then we hear people 

in the rural areas that have access. So it is a wide variety. We are 

getting into this program now, but based on the responses that we 

have seen, I believe it is a great opportunity for us to really solve 

a lot of the issues with access to fresh foods without having to have 

a brick and mortar store where it doesn’t work out. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Well, I am sure my time is up now. The Chairman 

is used to this with me. But thank you very, very much. I appreciate what you have done, and, again, I appreciate all of the panel 

for being here today. Thank you, and I yield back whatever time 

I don’t have. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady had 3 seconds left. 

Ms. GRAHAM. All right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. DesJarlais, 5 minutes. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. I thank the Chairman, and certainly thank you 

to the panel for attending here today, and helping us deal with the 

many problems that our food stamp program faces. What originally 

was a program aimed at improving the diets of low-income households has ballooned into an $80 billion a year government handout. 

And while the food stamp program, officially known as SNAP, was 

premised on good intentions, in reality studies have shown it has 

served to halter the economic mobility of recipients, and further 

compound the hardships that they face. 

During the Obama Administration the SNAP recipient population has nearly doubled. This drastic increase of participants has 

put a strain on the program that was already experiencing budgetary hardships due to the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse. There 

is no question that we must address the systemic failures of the 

SNAP Program if we want to ensure that it remains viable for both 

current beneficiaries and future generations. In fact, if we do nothing, and allow SNAP to go bankrupt, those who truly rely on these 

benefits will be affected most severely. 

That is why, in 2013 and 2014, when considering the farm bill, 

this Committee tried to separate the agricultural provisions from 

the unrelated food stamp program. Our legislation, H.R. 3102, 

would have allowed us to specifically address the deficiencies contained in the SNAP Program in a bipartisan manner. For example, 

H.R. 3102 would have eliminated the culture of dependency with 

the food stamp program by preventing states from issuing work requirement waivers for able-bodied adult recipients. Those who have 

the ability to work should not be able to collect benefits intended 

for those who cannot. 

H.R. 3102 would have also allowed for states to drug test SNAP 

applicants, and cut off funds to those who are abusing drugs, rather than trying to find meaningful employment. It also contained my 

legislation, the SNAP Act, which eliminated bonuses paid by the 

Federal Government to states for signing up food stamp recipients. 

It is ludicrous that we actually give states taxpayer funded awards 

733

merely for signing up additional food stamp recipients. But most 

importantly, this bill would have cut food stamp spending by $40 

billion to ensure the long-term sustainability of the SNAP Program. 

For those people who were likely abusing the program, we estimated that about 14 million would have come off of the food stamp 

rolls, and likely would no longer have qualified. 

The House of Representatives ultimately passed H.R. 3102, 

which I was proud to support, but, unfortunately, the Senate did 

not act, and as a result we are left with a bill that combined the 

agriculture and food stamp provisions, and lacked these meaningful 

reforms. As a result, I could not support this legislation. It is my 

hope that we have another opportunity to address many issues contained in the SNAP Program. We owe it to the taxpayers, and we 

owe it to the beneficiaries. There is no doubt that we are a kind 

and caring nature that takes care of our own, and all we ask is for 

those receiving government assistance to do their part as well. 

And, really, I just wanted to thank you guys for coming here to answer our questions, and we will continue to work on this, and make 

sure the program exists for those who really need it. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Ashford, 5 minutes. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing today. This is very interesting for me, 

and for all of us, because it really gets to many of the questions 

that arise in rural America, and certainly in Nebraska. I appreciate 

Mr. Beech, and Casey’s, and all of what you have said is absolutely 

true. We rely on Casey’s throughout our state. You make a major 

contribution to our small communities. 

It is interesting, in western Nebraska we have a town called 

Cody, which is a town of 300 people, and they did not have even 

a Casey’s, not that Casey’s is low on the totem pole, but did not 

have a Casey’s. And so the local high school in Cody actually 

opened a grocery store, and the students do everything. They do 

the marketing, they do the buying, and purchase local products, as 

well as more standardized products. And it kind of reflects the dilemma, and the concerns that we have in our state. 

Rural poverty is something we talk about in this Committee a 

lot. There is no question that it exists. It is not just an urban problem. It is a rural problem, and you have reflected that, all of you, 

in your testimonies, and so I appreciate the Chairman really reflecting on this. And there are lots of options. I appreciated Mr. 

Wright’s comments on the creative thinking for the future, because 

it seems to me that there are creative ways to these kinds of 

things. And organizations like yours, who are larger, who have the 

resources to invest in new technologies, or new ways of getting food 

to people that need it, and having it paid for, obviously, in an expeditious and efficient manner. That is going to come from your organizations. 

And it is going to come, not as said by some of the points made 

by other Committee Members, it is going to come through your own 

initiative. It is not going to come because government says to do 

it, or whatever. You are going to figure that out yourself. I totally 

believe that, and that is how most Nebraskans feel. I am not sure 

who is making more points. Our family came to Nebraska in the 

734

1850s. We were in the clothing business. We had little stores, and 

big stores, in Iowa and near Omaha, our family has seen the 

changes in rural Nebraska and western Iowa. 

And it was mentioned earlier, literally the drying up of family 

owned small businesses in all of our towns. And you are from Iowa, 

and you know that, certainly in Nebraska. We started out in a little town called Homer in 1862, actually, with a small grocery/mercantile store, so my entire family history has been engaged in that 

kind of business. I get it. And I really do appreciate this testimony, 

and this conversation, because it really gets to the core of how 

rural America is going to look in the next 50 years. 

I do just have one question. Just so I am absolutely clear in my 

mind about this, Mr. Beech, because Casey’s is a big player in Nebraska, and it is an important part of rural Nebraska. But I do 

want to ask you, just for the record, if this were to go into effect, 

are you telling me that, in Nebraska, for example, it would be unlikely that you would be able to offer food stamp services? 

Mr. BEECH. Yes. The way the rule is written right now, we have 

150 stores, basically, in Nebraska, and proud to be there, and a 

number of communities in your district, but basically the hot foods 

provision knocks out virtually all our stores. And then even if you 

could get over the hot foods, we couldn’t sell any pizza, or we 

couldn’t sell donuts, and hot sub sandwiches and things. The stocking requirements, with not being able to use multi-ingredients, and 

the variety, and the depth of stocking, having to have six of the 

products on the counters, we couldn’t do it. So we would not offer 

SNAP benefits at all in Nebraska if this rule stays as-is. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, this is not a good 

thing for Nebraska at all. It is not a good thing for our recipients, 

nor for our state. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the 

gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you all for being here. And we have obviously got this rule 

that needs to be reversed. I think that the goal of many is to stop 

the abuses in the system where, if you have a liquor store, for example, that is receiving—or turning in a tremendous amount of 

vouchers for food stamps, and you know that it is just not possible 

for them to be running that much through that store, how do we 

get those bad operators, if you will, out of the system? How do we 

get the operators out that are charging $10 for a gallon of milk, 

and then giving a lottery ticket with it, if you will? 

And I see you shaking your head, the kind of people I am talking 

about, and I don’t think there is any better group to help write the 

rule that gets those bad players out of the market more so than 

those of you who are here sitting at the table with us today. And 

I just wonder, has the agency been willing to listen on the rule, and 

the suggestions that you have for the rule? I mean, we share that 

common goal, to get the crooks out of the business. Have they been 

willing to listen to your suggestions on how you would do that? 

Mr. MARTINCICH. I may volunteer that, if you don’t mind? The 

2014 Farm Bill did address the fraudulent issues, and talked about 

point of sale, so probably everybody here implemented point of sale 

requirements. The USDA has chosen, up until now, to not enforce 

735

those fraud provisions, but the 2014 Farm Bill did address a lot of 

the fraudulent issues. 

And, if I may share just a little bit on behalf of the truckstop industry. We talked throughout today that it is important that it our 

responsibility to encourage more options for SNAP beneficiaries, 

and not less. So I would attest to what Mr. Beech has said about 

Casey’s. We would evaluate that in the 400 stores in our 40 states. 

We would clearly not be able to be a SNAP qualified store in our 

400 locations either. 

Mr. BEECH. I can address that briefly too. Obviously we have a 

system in place to make sure that people can’t buy different items 

than they are supposed to with SNAP. But I already think you 

have rules in place that help with fraud, and you put something 

in the last farm bill that gave them an ability to have a pilot program to start enforcing that better. So we are in complete support 

as an industry to stop fraud. We believe wasted taxpayer dollars: 

nobody should be doing that. We encourage anything you can do to 

stop fraudulent actors, and get those out of our business. But they 

are already there, they just need to be enforced. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Our association will continue to submit comments 

to USDA about the ways to do this, in agreement with my colleagues here. Things like that, they hurt the whole program. Everybody up here would be totally in agreement that we don’t want 

it wasted in any shape, form, or fashion. You are back to the people 

that do need it, back to the elderly and people like that. 

I will tell you, from my own experience in Atlanta, in a store we 

opened up, there was a small store there. I am not saying that anything was wrong, like that, but when we came in and offered a better option to that, that store closed. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. Thank you for doing the mission work in Atlanta. That is my home state as well. 

Ms. HANNA. And we work very closely with FMI, and we submit 

comments through them. When there are opportunities to talk to 

the USDA we will, and do so. But I agree with all my colleagues 

here, none of us want fraud, and want bad actors, and criminals 

in our stores, because it brings a risk that none of us want to everyone else. And we don’t want fraud, so we are open to discussions 

to make it a better system. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. And FMI, being the Food Marketing Institute, for people who are watching and may not know 

that. I do think it would help us if we could get those suggestions 

on how we get those bad actors out of there. And maybe, through 

the Committee, we can make sure that the USDA takes those into 

account. So I do appreciate your bringing up the fraud provisions 

in the 2014 Farm Bill. We want to make sure that we are getting 

the benefits to the people who need them, but we want to make 

sure that those benefits go to what they are supposed to be used 

for, which is nutrition, not alcohol, and cigarettes, and lottery tickets. Thanks for being here. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Davis, 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a quick question 

for Ms. Hanna. And thank you all for your time here today. ActuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00195 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
736

ally, before I get to your question, Ms. Hanna, Mr. Beech, you grew 

up in Ankeny, Iowa? Were you there——

Mr. BEECH. Yes, I live in Ankeny now. 

Mr. DAVIS. Did you grow up there? 

Mr. BEECH. Yes, I grew up in northern Iowa. 

Mr. DAVIS. Northern Iowa? Okay. Well, I used to live in Des 

Moines, and I remember when Ankeny got destroyed by the tornado in the 1970s, so I didn’t know if you were affected by that. 

Mr. BEECH. No, not at that time. But, yes, Ankeny has had a 

couple. 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes. Thank you for your taco pizza recipe. I have two 

cases in the hotel. Don’t change it. If you do, we will have you back 

here. 

Mr. BEECH. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Hanna, serious question. I know SNAP has completely transitioned to an EBT type system, but WIC, the Women, 

Infants, and Children’s Program, still uses paper vouchers. How 

does the administration of SNAP compare to WIC as a retailer, especially one that is in slightly larger communities, like my hometown of 11,000? 

Ms. HANNA. So the WIC Program is in transition, and I believe 

they have been given a date of 2020 to move to electronic payment 

cards. But in today’s——

Mr. DAVIS. Is that fast enough? 

Ms. HANNA. It is really not fast enough. It really needs to move 

faster. Because what we have seen is that, when you are dealing 

with a paper voucher, which is very nondescript on what is eligible 

for purchase and what is not, it creates much confusion with these 

mothers who are trying to buy nutritious items for their children 

and their babies. 

Mr. DAVIS. And they have impatient customers waiting behind 

them in line and they then may leave without the food that they 

need to feed their child because of this. 

Ms. HANNA. That is correct. 

Mr. DAVIS. Do you attribute it to the lack of the EBT card, and 

the ease of access? 

Ms. HANNA. Yes, I think that is a big part of it. And we actually 

did this several years ago. We gave a voucher to many of our leadership, and sent them out to a store, and we said, go see if you can 

figure out what you are supposed to buy with this. And they were 

all stunned, because it is very nondescript. And you bring it up to 

the register, and you scan it, well, no, that is not eligible. So when 

they moved to a card, it is very specific, and then what is eligible 

on that card does go through the system appropriately. So moving 

to a more electronic system faster for the participants in the WIC 

program would be a good thing for all. 

Mr. DAVIS. So your message to all the bureaucrats who sit in the 

concrete buildings out here at the United States Department of Agriculture and others is work faster than 2020, make it easier on 

those who need the benefits the most, let us make sure that the 

benefits go to those who deserve them and let us not cause any 

more delays and confusion in the line, which is very pressure 

packed anyway. 

Ms. HANNA. That is correct. 

737

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. I will yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Kuster, 5 minutes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. And I just want to pick up where Mr. Davis left 

off. I come from a rural district in New Hampshire, the western 

part of the state, a lot of small towns. And we have talked in this 

Committee before, in particular during the farm bill, about food 

deserts. Typically thought of in urban areas, but I have food 

deserts in rural areas. It is a heartbreak, because, honestly, if people’s lives were not so busy, and if you went back a generation, this 

was the part of the country where people grew their own food. But 

we know what lives are like now, with a single mom, and a couple 

of kids, and trying to pick up, and drop off, and get where you need 

to be. So we have communities where it would be a half hour round 

trip in the winter on bumpy roads to get to a full on grocery store 

with all the fresh fruits and vegetables that we want to be encouraging healthy families to eat. 

And I apologize, I was at the Veterans Committee, so I haven’t 

heard from all of you, but I am going to let anybody dive in. My 

question is this distinction, and I am not sure I even understand 

what the original policy was about, but both on the processed food, 

food that you heat, I am talking about. I want people to eat healthy 

food, but food that you heat, how has that regulation gotten in the 

way of getting people the food that they need? And then also, if 

anybody could speak to the convenience store food, and particularly 

how we can encourage, and help you to get more fresh fruits and 

vegetables into the convenience store setting. I know bananas are 

making a big comeback in convenience stores, but is there something else that we could do to help? And I agree with Mr. Davis, 

let us get the food to the people who need it in the most timely 

way. So any commentary on those two rules, and what we could 

do to change them? 

Mr. BEECH. Yes. I would talk a little bit about the first part of 

that, the part where we have 220 of our stores are in rural areas, 

we haven’t been able to understand the dichotomy of why you sell 

hot foods, and you wouldn’t be able to participate. I understand 

how it comes up in the rule. It is in the definition of what is called 

a retail store. So it says if you sell more than 15 percent, then you 

are not a store, so you would not be eligible. So that is how——

Ms. KUSTER. Well, they need to drive around my district, because 

these are not restaurants. This is just the only place to get it, it 

may be a braised chicken. 

Mr. BEECH. Exactly right. 

Ms. KUSTER. It could be healthy. It can be healthy but it is a hot 

meal, and maybe it is the only hot meal that day. 

Mr. BEECH. Exactly right. And, again, for single moms that come 

in, they can pick up bread and milk at our stores, and maybe bring 

home a pizza for supper as well. 

Ms. KUSTER. Yes, it gives them another half an hour to help with 

homework. 

Mr. BEECH. Yes, that is exactly right. 

Ms. KUSTER. I was a working mom. I know this problem. 

738

Mr. BEECH. Yes. And we couldn’t agree with you more. So that 

is one of the big concerns. And then the multi-ingredient foods are 

not eligible to count as your stocking requirements. So if you have 

chicken noodle soup, or if you have macaroni and cheese, we don’t 

get any credit for those. They have to be single ingredient. And so, 

when people are trying to feed their family, many of our items are 

multi-ingredient that people can eat, frozen lasagnas, or stews, or 

things like that. But, again, they don’t count in the stocking requirements under the new rules, which, again, causes small format 

stores to have major concerns. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you. And I know my time is probably close 

to up. Any comment on the fresh fruits and vegetables? 

Mr. WRIGHT. One thing that Carver Market in Atlanta was successful with is doing two for one SNAP bucks that were underwritten by private foundations. Before they started a program, nine 

percent of the SNAP benefits usage bought fresh produce. After 

they moved to that, it was 53 percent in there. So, at the end of 

the day, these are families who are trying to feed themselves, feed 

their families, and get as much as they can. But that was an avenue where it was a very efficient use of resources. It was underwritten by private organizations that were very interested in 

health and wellness, and it very much moved the needle in these 

areas in order to get people to start looking at fresh fruits and 

vegetables. 

Ms. KUSTER. Wow. What is interesting is we did the two for one 

SNAP benefit at the farmers’ markets, which is hugely successful 

in my district, both to expand the farmers’ markets and encourage 

local growers, but also for the health and well-being of the beneficiaries. But, I will get my team to look into expanding that. So 

thank you very much, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Mr. Crawford, 

5 minutes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wright, it sounds 

like your geography is an awful lot like my district. I have 30 counties, mostly rural, and the irony of our district, it is one of the most 

productive ag regions in the world, and yet we have a lot of food 

insecurity. But I like your idea, your shuttle service, online ordering, home delivery services. And they sound like really good programs that is geared toward reaching out to these communities 

that have limited access. Talk about some of the challenges you 

have had implementing those programs, and are you able to partner with some charitable organizations in the community to help 

offset your costs? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. The first thing would be just the ability to take 

SNAP through mobile, would be the biggest thing. That is not an 

option right now for us, so that would be the first step, to do that. 

And, yes, improving on what we have seen in Atlanta with the 

foundations, back to my comments about some of the faith-based 

initiatives out there, there are certainly people that would help expedite the process, as far as the cost to get food to some of these 

places. 

The Congresswoman over here said something about access to 

computers and technology. That is another issue that we believe 

private groups, whether it be faith-based, whether it be a foundaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
739

tion or something like that can be a great help in order to provide 

the resources that people could order online. And to your comments, they are just areas that are rural, and a physical store is 

just not going to be an option out there. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Beech, let me direct this to you. And we 

have Casey’s in my district, and I appreciate the services you provide. By offering groceries in your store, you allow a lot of convenience and accessibility in rural communities that might not otherwise have access, but how do you keep your prices competitive with 

larger grocery markets, or are you able to? 

Mr. BEECH. Well, thanks for the kind words. Yes, we pride ourselves that we have our own distribution system, so we think our 

prices are extremely competitive on those items. They may be a 

couple cents higher on some items, but, again, that goes back to the 

stocking requirement provision in the law. Convenience stores don’t 

stock six and seven items at a time, because we don’t have the 

space, so we only have one or two. So we have to have distribution 

on one and two items, as opposed to a case load. So our distribution 

is a little bit more expensive in that regard as an industry, but we 

are very competitive, we think, with our friends in the grocery 

store chain, and don’t think that is a concern regarding this program. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Let me switch gears just a little bit. You talked 

about the point of sale system that you use, which differentiates 

what products are SNAP eligible and what products are not. How 

are those items differentiated at the checkout? Can a cashier, hypothetically, override the system? Or how does a SNAP customer go 

about paying if they are buying both eligible and ineligible products? 

Mr. BEECH. Well, our system will specifically talk to them. It will 

say, this is eligible, this is not, and so then you will have to take 

that item, and then they will have to pay a second transaction on 

that. So it physically won’t ring that up. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Okay. Is that a proprietary point of sale? 

Mr. BEECH. No, I think it is pretty well in the industry. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Is it? 

Mr. BEECH. These guys are shaking their heads. I think everybody has this in the industry, and it is fairly common to have that. 

And you have just got to keep up with your products, do a new 

price book, to make sure that is the case. But it is not proprietary, 

no. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Okay. All right. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. LaMalfa, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wright, I am 

sorry, I also was in a previous committee, Natural Resources, and 

didn’t get to hear everything beforehand. You mentioned a couple 

times, since I have heard you talking about having charitable organizations, faith-based organizations, be able to be of assistance in 

this, could you expound on how far and wide that role could be? 

Because hearing you say that, seems to me it gives more flexibility, 

has probably more accountability than a bureaucracy that is more 

9:00 to 5:00, and can probably help people more. 

740

I remember my first term here, when we first started the discussion on the farm bill, and the food stamp portion of the program, 

I mentioned that, and I got yelled at by the press for the next 2 

or 3 years, saying we wanted to just turn it all over. But, it seems 

to me that I am hearing you say it could add an important component in helping to manage the program, or even be a bigger part 

of it. Would you expound on what you see as, right now, or potential in the future, you mentioned delivery as well. Can these organizations be part of a delivery system too? So please tell me what 

you think in the real world on how they could be more helpful, or 

take a greater role. 

Mr. WRIGHT. In Atlanta, the store we work with, Carver Market, 

is owned by a faith-based nonprofit ministry, so there is an example of someone who actually did a brick and mortar store. You continue to see organizations at Auburn University, next door. You 

have the Hunger Solutions Institute, and a large outreach from 

that. Plenty of faith-based organizations, churches in rural communities, and stuff like that. So there are a number of resources that 

can come in to assist in some of these areas. 

I think that, especially in our area, and I will say this just about 

the SNAP Program in general, we work very hard in our community in Opelika to help try to move people to self-sustainability, 

and we work very hard in this industry to do the same thing. And 

so our independent grocers are located in every district you all 

have. In our own community, I have tried to work with our city 

leaders and faith-based organizations, and we have done a good job 

to try to get people, again, into self-sustainability, but faith-based 

becomes a big part of that as we try to make connections in the 

community. You try to build relationships, you try to find out what 

is going on with people and their families that have those discussions of how they got there. 

Most all the people that we see using SNAP today are people 

that are trying. There are certainly people that do the wrong thing, 

on the retailer side, and also on the participant side, but most of 

the people we see in our store are trying very hard. And so it becomes a part where the faith-based organizations, or community organizations, or universities, or private foundations can come to the 

table and help, for lack of a better term, bridge this gap between 

having to have benefits and support in someone’s life, and move 

that to a point of self-sustainability out there. We still have plenty 

of people in our country that they are, whether they are disabled, 

whether they are elderly, or something like that, don’t need our 

help. 

So overall, the program is good, but whether it is our industry, 

whether it is faith-based or foundations, all the people who are 

coming to the table are trying to make this better. And SNAP is 

a good program, and between our industry, there is a great push 

in our industry on health and wellness. Our consumer goods companies are very much trying to make products healthier. We are all 

working collectively together. Industry, retailers, communities are 

trying to work together to make things better for our country, but 

SNAP is, for lack of a better term, that safety net, that bridge in 

there. And so we can——

741

Mr. LAMALFA. But it is one of them. It is called the Supplemental Nutrition Program. There are a lot of them, so we kind of 

have to remember we are not relying completely on that one. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Right. 

Mr. LAMALFA. And I appreciate that. Do you see that, again, Mr. 

Crawford mentioned, on the ability to get food to people that these 

organizations that aren’t the government, and aren’t the stores, 

would have a greater role in delivering, like you said, the disabled, 

or elderly and such. Is that a bigger and bigger piece coming, 

where you have grocery delivery? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. I think that for us, in our own market, and the 

customer base that we serve, we have seen that, as we introduce 

online shopping and delivery in our business, that is a lot of the 

comments we got from people looking for help. Either elderly that 

can’t get out, access to food in rural communities, there is somebody 30 miles away from us. But that is——

Mr. LAMALFA. Do you see efficiencies in that too? I mean, can 

they make——

Mr. WRIGHT. Well——

Mr. LAMALFA. My time is up. All right, sir. 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. And back to our earlier discussion, if you start 

going 30 miles away, there has to be some sort of central point that 

we can deliver a number of things to. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes, makes sense. 

Mr. WRIGHT. And so if you have a church, or community, or 

faith-based organization that can serve as that central hub to help 

with the cost of us getting that product out there, then that is 

where the organizations you are referring to really can come to the 

table and help supplement it. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Ms. Lujan 

Grisham, 5 minutes. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to 

the panel here today. Everyone on this Committee is always happy 

and supportive to hear about collaboration and private partnerships that give us opportunities to take the resources that we are 

providing that are part of the safety net, and to make sure that we 

are giving those beneficiaries as many opportunities as we can. In 

particular, the Fresh Savings Program is great. I do the SNAP 

Challenge every time that is offered to Members of Congress. And 

the only thing I could afford to buy, if I was going to have sufficient 

food for the week on $1.50 a meal at the grocery store was a banana. And everything else was processed food because it lasts 

longer, and you get bigger quantities. So, really, trying to figure 

out, through the eyes of a grocery store, how you can do that better, and how to really know your store, and, actually, to know the 

folks in the store, who are very helpful, usually. In addition, I really appreciate that Kroger and AARP are doing tours, so that you 

do have those relationships. 

I used to be the Secretary of Health and the Secretary of Aging. 

And while I am a huge supporter of the Older Americans Act programs, including their meal programs, which are either congregate 

meals at senior centers or home delivered meals, there are huge 

waiting lists. There are lots of problems currently in that system, 

742

particularly as this population is growing. But one of the larger 

issues in that program is there is not a requirement that we use 

dieticians. There are nutrition staff kind of looking at menus. We 

have to meet the USDA 1⁄3 requirements. But the reality is, with 

special needs, special diets, and chronic illnesses, we aren’t doing 

that. Do any of these programs contemplate or utilize nutritionists 

or dieticians in these tours, or helping people figure out, in Fresh 

Savings, about what is the best choices for them? 

Ms. HANNA. We have employed dieticians and nutritionists in 

many of our stores to help customers figure out what the shopping 

budget and order needs to look like in order to maximize dollars, 

and to make sure that it is nutritious and healthy, and it will avoid 

any kind of allergies they may have, or if it is any kind of medical 

issues that they are dealing with. So it is something that we have 

been able to do, and continue to promote, and work, as we can get 

into more stores with it. I think it is good. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that is 

very impressive. It is not an easy enterprise. It can be cost prohibitive for smaller stores and smaller programs, but it is exactly the 

right thing to do. And then it gets to the bigger issue that we have, 

is having those healthy outcomes, and providing the resources and 

benefits to help leverage. 

I understand that these programs, particularly the touring of the 

grocery stores, is only available in two states. Is it Tennessee and 

Mississippi, is my information right about that? 

Ms. HANNA. That is all that I am aware of. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. All right. Well, tell us what we can do to 

help you expand those efforts. And I would actually just look at it 

from this perspective, particularly with AARP, that you can focus 

on states. Tennessee and Mississippi, I would say, fall into that 

category, where you have high poverty levels, you have chronic illnesses, you have obesity issues. New Mexico, unfortunately, falls 

into that category. 

But if you were to look at both maybe high risk states, and then 

states that are not high risk, and sort of see if you can get them 

on par by having those relationships, that might be a way to benefit the country, and those beneficiaries in a meaningful way, and 

maybe gives us an opportunity, in this Committee, to expand those 

efforts, and provide incentives in some way. And that would be my 

last thing. Let us know what we can do to continue to support your 

efforts in this regard, because I do think, ultimately, they make a 

difference. 

One last point, and I don’t know how the Chairman puts up with 

me. I am lucky in this committee. But, New Mexico has one of the 

highest rates of grandparents raising grandchildren. And in this 

space, then, you have kids that are on SNAP benefits, and you 

have the senior who qualifies without raising those kids, and so 

you have that family benefit. Teaching those kids in that environment is great, so then you get kind of that family aspect. And I 

know AARP is well aware of those statistics. Florida has those 

issues, New Mexico has those issues, and that is another area for 

you to maybe highlight in the work that you are doing. Thank you 

very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Allen, 5 minutes. 

743

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks, all 

of you, for being here. And, Mr. Wright, War Eagle. I was over 

there in God’s country for 4 years, between 1970 and 1974, so I 

know a little bit about that area, but good to have you with us here 

today. 

Obviously the comments I get from folks in my district is they 

go to the grocery store, they go to the convenience store, and they 

see people using the card, and then using cash to do other things, 

and either what they term, would be inappropriate food. And with 

the technology that we have today, you would think that we could 

figure that out, or maybe, as an industry, could we figure that out? 

If the Federal Government is not real good at figuring that out, as 

far as how do we stop waste, fraud and abuse? Because, like I said, 

these practices are on display. People see it every day, and they get 

real upset about those kind of things that are going on. 

So, Ms. Hanna, from an industry, you have probably already addressed some of these things, but looking down the road, is there 

a way to make sure that the right foods, and some of these things 

that we have talked about already, as an industry, and also dealing 

with the bad actors. Maybe a certification process, or something, 

that we can make this better for those who are in need, but also 

those folks, the great American taxpayers, who are footing the bill 

for this? 

Ms. HANNA. Yes. It really comes down to collaboration of all the 

parties. So it needs to be the agencies, it needs to be the retailers, 

and it needs to be the participants in understanding and knowing 

how do you make healthy choices? What should you be buying 

which is not just going to fill your hunger need right now, but really as the medical profession and the health care profession is teaching us, and teaching children that if you eat almonds, or if you eat 

a banana, that will sustain you longer than eating a candy bar. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. 

Ms. HANNA. But the system that has been designed, which provides the information to the retailers to say, here are the eligible 

items, and the retailers that have implemented that, and that 

works well, because if it needs to be clear, then FNS could, again, 

elaborate, and make things more clear. But, our system today, because it does tell us these are eligible items, and these are non-eligible items. That is well known in our systems today, which we all 

use, restrict those ineligible items. But it becomes more education 

and understanding that if I buy this, it really is better for me, and 

it is more healthy for me, and that will sustain me longer. So, it 

just becomes a better collaboration between all of the stakeholders 

that are involved in it. 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Wright, obviously you know most of your customers on a first name basis, which is great. I love to go to the grocery store, I will be honest with you. Of course, it is a great way 

to see my constituents and whatnot as well, and, of course, they 

can’t believe that I am actually shopping for groceries, but I like 

ice cream, and my wife won’t buy me ice cream, so I have to go 

buy my own ice cream. 

But, anyway, your customers, for example, that you know they 

are using the cards, and that sort of thing. I mean, would an orientation process, like Ms. Hanna said, education is critical. Where 

744

are we missing the boat? Can we have, ‘‘Okay, now that you are 

receiving these benefits, let us have an orientation process.’’ This 

is what you can buy, these are the kinds of things that you need, 

just some real good education on nutrition that maybe they didn’t 

get when they were in school, or something like that? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, I would agree with Ms. Hanna, that there is 

a piece of education there that would help tremendously. In the 

store in Atlanta that I work with, they have done some things with 

some chefs, and had some community gatherings where they 

taught people how to cook healthier. As we talked earlier today, 

they have been very successful with a two for one SNAP Bucks 

Program that was underwritten by some private foundations, and 

it dramatically moved the amount of fresh produce that SNAP recipients were purchasing. 

So there are a number of initiatives out there. Certainly, we are 

all aware that the insurance thing affects all of us. The insurance 

rates affects all of us, the healthier our nation, the better that our 

rates are, and we certainly want to participate in that in any way 

we can. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, we certainly want to continue the program. It 

is important to those folks who need its nutrition. But, at the same 

time, we have to fix this thing, because there are a lot of folks that 

are really upset about some of the things that are going on. Thank 

you, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Benishek, 

5 minutes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for being here 

this morning. I missed the early part of the hearing, so I apologize 

for that. But I just had a couple questions, little bit more about 

this nutrition thing. I am intrigued about it. Did I hear that some 

of those grocery stores actually have, like, a cooking class in the 

store? Can you just tell me a little bit more about that? 

Ms. HANNA. Yes. In many of our stores we have chefs who actually do demonstrations of cooking classes, and talk about how to 

prepare very healthy, nutritious meals, and then help the shoppers 

to create menus, and what products to buy in order to meet those 

cooking goals. We also have dietitians and nutritionists that also 

are available to help customers when they want to understand 

about——

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, where are they available? Like, right in the 

store? You call them up, or what do you do? 

Ms. HANNA. No, they are in our stores, sir, in various locations. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, I just think that is interesting. I am glad 

you can see the usefulness of that. Let me ask another question to 

you, Ms. Hanna, because you have this big company. When you 

apply to be a part of the SNAP Program, does every single individual store have to make an application process, or do you as the 

company do it? Is it company-wide? 

Ms. HANNA. No, every individual store has to make an application to get a license to be a SNAP acceptor, so that it is handled 

on an individual level. 

Mr. BENISHEK. So every store is inspected, then at some point? 

Ms. HANNA. Yes. 

745

Mr. BENISHEK. Let me ask another question, I don’t know if it 

was asked already, but there has been one reading that I did, it 

talked about, because SNAP recipients get their benefits all on the 

same day, that that sometimes can be a problem at the grocery 

store with stocking, or would there be some benefit in staggering 

that, or giving people their benefit twice a month? Maybe each of 

you could talk to this, is there any benefit to thinking about doing 

something like that? 

Ms. HANNA. Many of the states, not all of them, but many of the 

states have staggered benefits, and some have staggered them only 

a few days. Some have staggered them bi-monthly. But we encourage states to stagger their benefits out more days through the 

month. What happens is if you are putting out all of the benefits 

on one day, then you are going to have a lot of customers come in. 

So you have a lot of customers coming in we want to make sure 

that——

Mr. BENISHEK. Right. All the hamburger is gone. 

Ms. HANNA. Well, we want to make sure that there is eligible 

stock for all the customers. And, we want to make sure that that 

is available for them. So it helps if they are staggered out. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Right. Anybody else have a comment on that? 

Mr. WRIGHT. We are very fortunate in Alabama that we moved, 

with cooperation between NGA, Alabama Grocers Association, and 

DHR, Department of Human Resources, we moved from a 14 day 

schedule to a 21 day schedule, and it was a great help to us at retail in order to run the store, and, as Ms. Hanna said, to have the 

stock on the shelves, and things like that. When it was at 14 days, 

it was a challenge to really take care of everybody on the level that 

we would want to serve our customer. 

Mr. BENISHEK. I guess I don’t understand the 14 versus 21 days. 

What does that mean? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. In the past the benefits started distributing, 

and they are distributed by case number, and they were distributed 

over a 14 day period. And then now the schedule is expanded to 

21, so——

Mr. BENISHEK. The same number? 

Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, they are spread out. Same number, just spread 

out further. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Yes, okay. Cool. All right, thank you. I will yield 

back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. I want to thank our 

witnesses for being here today. This has been one of the more bipartisan attacks on a rule system that is just not working. And, 

first off, has either your store individually, or your groups, put your 

written comments in to FNS on this new rule? Yes from everybody? 

Okay. That is really important. Clearly, I don’t believe there is any 

mal-intent at FNS. They just don’t understand the system. And 

then, when you don’t understand the system, you are in an academic mode, and you have a way of writing rules that don’t work 

in the real world. And so, hopefully, we will see FNS take this testimony, and in particular David Scott’s rather sugar coated comments, to heart in this endeavor. 

Again, thank you very much. You provide an integral part of the 

system, particularly from an integrity standpoint. None of you 

746

want the system to be besmirched with bad actors. Like I said previously, they had this issue in Florida this morning, where a storefront with no food whatsoever had redeemed some $13 million in 

food stamps, and I am not sure how that happens. That investigation will go forward. But every time that pops up, you have folks 

out there who don’t really understand the impact that feeding hungry people has, and they just come off on the wrong foot. 

Mr. Wright, I am particularly impressed with your heart for this 

issue, and the way that you have reached out. The things that you 

do to innovate, and the flexibility of having no shareholders. You 

have a wife and a family to decide how much money your store 

makes, and that gives you a little bit more freedom, perhaps, than 

others. But across all four witnesses I heard great things, in terms 

of trying to work with an important population. Some 45 million 

Americans are beneficiaries of that program, and you help to make 

that work. 

With that, under the rules of committee, the record of today’s 

hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional 

material, supplemental written responses from the witnesses to 

any questions posed by a Member. This hearing of the Committee 

on Agriculture is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(747)

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM 

(THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: EVALUATING 

EFFECTIVENESS AND OUTCOMES IN NUTRITION 

EDUCATION) 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:58 a.m., in Room 1300 

of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael Conaway 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Conaway, Goodlatte, Gibbs, 

Austin Scott of Georgia, Gibson, Hartzler, Benishek, Davis, Yoho, 

Walorski, Allen, Bost, Rouzer, Abraham, Moolenaar, Newhouse, 

Kelly, Peterson, David Scott of Georgia, Fudge, McGovern, 

DelBene, Vela, Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, Bustos, and Graham. 

Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Haley Graves, Jadi Chapman, 

Mary Nowak, Stephanie Addison, Faisal Siddiqui, Lisa Shelton, Liz 

Friedlander, Mary Knigge, Robert L. Larew, Nicole Scott, and 

Carly Reedholm. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture, 

The Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: Evaluating Effectiveness 

and Outcomes in Nutrition Education, will come to order. 

Please join me in a quick prayer. 

Holy Father, thank you, Lord, for the privilege of serving as we 

do here, Members of Congress. Help us to be worthy of the trust 

that our constituents put in us. Give us wisdom and knowledge and 

discernment as we deal with things that affect the lives of everyday, good-hearted American people. Blessings to our Service. And 

we ask these things in Jesus’ name. Amen. 

All right. Well, good morning. Thanks everybody for being here. 

I want to welcome the witnesses to today’s hearing and thank 

them for taking the time to share their impressive collaborative experience working to improve the diets and health among families 

across the country through nutrition education. This hearing, like 

those before, builds on the Committee’s top-to-bottom review of the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, so as the 

Committee concludes our review, we will be positioned to make 

748

meaningful improvements to the program. As the Committee with 

jurisdiction over USDA, it is one of our principal responsibilities to 

oversee these programs to ensure that they are working most effectively for recipients, community leaders, and the American taxpayers. 

In this hearing we will discuss the history and evolution of the 

SNAP-Ed program, which is the nutrition education arm of SNAP; 

specific program models and interventions; how SNAP-Ed complements and works with other nutrition education programs, such 

as the Expanded Food and Nutrition Extension Program, or 

EFNEP; and efforts currently taking place that put greater emphasis on measuring outcomes to ensure dollars are used effectively. 

As a component of the overall SNAP program, the mission of 

SNAP-Ed is to improve the likelihood that persons eligible for 

SNAP will make healthy choices within a limited budget, and 

choose active lifestyles consistent with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This is no short order. More than 2⁄3 of Americans, and nearly 1⁄3 of children and youth are overweight or obese. 

About 1⁄2 of all American adults; 117 million individuals, have one 

or more preventable chronic diseases, many of which are related to 

poor quality eating patterns and physical inactivity. These high 

rates of overweight and obesity and chronic disease have persisted 

for more than 2 decades and have come not only with increased 

health risks, but also at a very high cost. In 2008, the medical costs 

associated with obesity was estimated to be $147 billion. 

There is no silver bullet to these serious health issues. It is a 

complex problem that will likely take a multi-prong approach. 

While obesity cannot be tied solely to socioeconomic status, it can 

be linked to food insecurity. It will take a collaboration between 

policymakers, state and local organizations, business and community leaders, schools, childcare, healthcare professionals, and individuals to create an environment that supports a healthy lifestyle 

for all Americans, and that is what we want to achieve. 

Throughout our review of SNAP, we have consistently heard that 

community engagement and collaboration are key in addressing 

many of the challenges communities face. Responses at the local 

level are more reactive and able to address the individual needs in 

their neighborhoods 

I am eager to hear from our witnesses today how they have leveraged Federal resources to improve the nutritional quality and 

overall health of low-income families in their communities. 

Historically, Congress has supported and invested in prevention 

programs, such as SNAP-Ed and the EFNEP, which educate and 

promote healthy eating habits to prevent long-term health-related 

expenses, and to empower low-income individuals to cook nutritious meals on a budget. In addition to nutrition education, this 

February the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing to review the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive, or FINI, program 

which aims to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables. 

These approaches seem to each have their place in promoting proper nutrition. But, as we get closer to concluding our SNAP review, 

are there alternatives in which we can improve overall health outcomes? 

749

Again, I want to thank our witnesses for providing their expertise and working with our Agriculture Committee to ensure SNAP 

recipients are given a recipe for successful health. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

I want to welcome our witnesses to today’s hearing and thank them for taking 

the time to share their impressive collaborative experience working to improve the 

diets and health among families across the country through nutrition education. 

This hearing, like those before, builds upon the Committee’s top-to-bottom review 

of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, so as the Committee 

concludes our review, we will be positioned to make meaningful improvements to 

the program. As the Committee with jurisdiction over USDA, it is one of our principal responsibilities to oversee these programs to ensure they are working most effectively for recipients, community leaders, and the American taxpayers. 

In this hearing we will discuss the history and evolution of the SNAP-Ed program, which is the nutrition education arm of SNAP; specific program models and 

interventions; how SNAP-Ed compliments and works with other nutrition education 

programs, such as the Expanded Food and Nutrition Extension Program, or EFNEP; 

and efforts currently taking place that put greater emphasis on measuring outcomes 

to ensure dollars are used effectively. 

As a component of the overall SNAP program, the mission of SNAP-Ed is to ‘‘improve the likelihood that persons eligible for SNAP will make healthy choices within 

a limited budget and choose active lifestyles consistent with the current Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans.’’ This is no short order. More than 2⁄3 of adults and nearly 1⁄3 of children and youth are overweight or obese. About 1⁄2 of all American adults—

117 million individuals—have one or more preventable chronic diseases, many of 

which are related to poor quality eating patterns and physical inactivity. These high 

rates of overweight and obesity and chronic disease have persisted for more than 

2 decades and come not only with increased health risks, but also at a high cost. 

In 2008, the medical costs associated with obesity were estimated to be $147 billion. 

There is no silver bullet to these serious health issues. It’s a complex problem that 

will likely take a multi-prong approach. While obesity cannot be tied solely to socioeconomic status, it can be linked to food insecurity. It will take a collaboration between policymakers, state and local organizations, business and community leaders, 

schools, childcare and healthcare professionals, and individuals to create an environment that supports a healthy lifestyle for all Americans—and that’s what we want 

to achieve. Throughout our review of SNAP, we have consistently heard that community engagement and collaboration are key in addressing many of the challenges 

communities face. Responses at the local level are more reactive and able to address 

the individual needs in their neighborhoods. I am eager to hear from our witnesses 

today how they have leveraged Federal resources to improve the nutritional quality 

and overall health of low-income families in their communities. 

Historically Congress has supported and invested in prevention programs, such as 

SNAP-Ed and EFNEP, which educate and promote healthy eating habits to prevent 

long-term health related expenses, and empower low-income individuals to cook nutritious meals on a budget. In addition to nutrition education, this February the Agriculture Committee held a hearing to review the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive, or FINI, program which aims to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables. These approaches seem to each have their place in promoting proper nutrition, 

but as we get closer to concluding our review of SNAP, are there alternative ways 

in which we can improve overall health outcomes? 

Again, I want to thank our witnesses for providing their expertise and working 

with the Agriculture Committee to ensure SNAP recipients are given a recipe for 

successful health.

The CHAIRMAN. And with that, I turn to the Ranking Member for 

any comments that he has. 

750

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would also like 

to welcome today’s witnesses to the Committee, and I look forward 

to hearing your testimony on SNAP education efforts. 

SNAP education and outreach is important, and there are a lot 

of lessons that can be learned from some of these efforts that the 

states have undertaken. Minnesota, for example, has a collaborative program called Choose Health that makes CSA shares available to low-income households. I am looking forward to learning 

more about other state programs. 

I believe this is the 15th hearing the Committee has held to review SNAP. It has certainly been a thorough review. And hopefully, what we learn today can be combined with information from 

past hearings, and we can focus on developing good policies. 

So with that, I look forward to hearing the witnesses, and yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair would request other Members submit their opening 

statements for the record so the witnesses may begin their testimony, to ensure there is ample time for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Adams follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ALMA S. ADAMS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM NORTH CAROLINA

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

It is well established by public health professionals that the consumption of more 

fresh fruits and vegetables is key to better weight management. 

Funding from SNAP-Ed and the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program have provided critical resources to land-grant universities such as my alma 

mater North Carolina A&T, to educate families and children on healthy eating and 

living habits in the 12th District. 

The current level of SNAP benefits is not enough for families to purchase fresh 

fruits and vegetables and to put food on the table through the end of the month. 

SNAP benefits must be increased to allow families to fully utilize the skills they 

learn in SNAP education programs. 

That is why last month I introduced H.R. 5215, the Closing the Meal Gap Act 

of 2016. 

Among its several provisions to strengthen the SNAP program, this bill requires 

that SNAP benefits be calculated using the Low Cost Food Plan instead of the 

Thrifty Food Plan. Using the Low Cost Food Plan takes into account how much 

working people, including SNAP recipients, spend on food in order to have a nutritious diet. 

I thank Members of this Committee who have already joined this important legislation, and encourage all Members to cosponsor this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to welcome to our witness table 

today Dr. Kimberlydawn Wisdom, Senior Vice President, Community Health and Equity at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan. I was just in Detroit on Friday. The weather was 

perfect, along with my visit. I had a good time. Ms. Susan Foerster, 

Founding Member of the Association of SNAP Nutrition Administrators, Carmichael, California. Dr. Shreela Sharma, Professor of 

Epidemiology at the University of Texas, and she is a Co-Founder 

of Brighter Bites, Houston, Texas. And I would like to recognize 

Mrs. Hartzler to introduce our final witness. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really excited 

to introduce a real hero of nutrition education from Missouri, and 

751

that is Dr. Jo Britt-Rankin. She is the Associate Dean of Extension 

at the University of Missouri, and Dr. Britt-Rankin serves as the 

Administrative Director of the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program and SNAP Education Programs for the State of 

Missouri. 

Dr. Britt-Rankin received both her Master’s and Doctorate in nutrition education from the University of Missouri, my alma mater, 

and her Bachelor’s in human development and family studies from 

the University of Illinois. 

Like myself, Dr. Britt-Rankin has spent a significant amount of 

her career dedicated to nutrition education. We appreciate her 

leadership and expertise, and we look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Wisdom, when you are ready to begin, the microphone is 

yours. 

STATEMENT OF KIMBERLYDAWN WISDOM, M.D., M.S., SENIOR 

VICE PRESIDENT, COMMUNITY HEALTH & EQUITY AND 

CHIEF WELLNESS AND DIVERSITY OFFICER, HENRY FORD 

HEALTH SYSTEM, DETROIT, MI 

Dr. WISDOM. Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak before you today to discuss the critical importance of SNAP and SNAP nutrition education for good health. 

My name is Dr. Kimberlydawn Wisdom, and I am Senior Vice 

President of Community Health and Equity, and the Chief 

Wellness and Diversity Officer at Henry Ford Health System in 

Detroit, Michigan, one of the nation’s leading comprehensive integrated health systems, and a Malcolm Baldrige National Quality 

Award winner. I am a board certified emergency medicine physician, and previously served as Michigan’s, and the nation’s, first 

state-level Surgeon General. I also serve on the Board of the Public 

Health Institute, which has been one of the nation’s leading implementers of SNAP nutrition education, also known as SNAP-Ed. 

Henry Ford Health System is proud to implement a SNAP-Ed 

program in the City of Detroit and Macomb County. As a physician, I can attest that both SNAP and SNAP-Ed are vital tools in 

our arsenal to tackle the challenges of obesity, chronic disease, and 

hunger that threaten the health and well-being of our nation. 

For over 50 years, SNAP has served as the foundation of the nation’s hunger safety net, helping to combat the impact of poverty 

and subsequent malnutrition. In the 21st century, the face of malnutrition looks very different than the extreme hunger that 

shocked so many Americans when the food stamp program was 

first established. 

Today, SNAP recipients live in neighborhoods and communities 

where making healthy choices can be challenging, if not impossible, 

due to the lack of safe, well-equipped, and well-maintained places 

to work and play, and the absence of nearby full-service grocery 

stores and other health services. These factors contribute to the 

malnutrition that now coexists with overweight and obesity. Comprehensive literature reviews examining neighborhood disparities 

and food access have found that neighborhood residents with better 

752

access to supermarkets tend to have healthier diets and reduced 

risk for obesity. 

While the face of malnutrition today is different than it was, the 

root cause and solutions remain the same, and SNAP continues to 

be our nation’s first-line defense to improve nutrition and wellbeing among low-income Americans. 

Research clearly shows that USDA Federal nutrition programs 

do not contribute to the current obesity crisis in the United States. 

Instead, SNAP participation is associated with better dietary quality among low-income adults who are food-insecure. In fact, by improving dietary intake and reducing food insecurity, participation 

in Federal nutrition programs plays a critical role in obesity prevention. 

Henry Ford Health Systems’ SNAP-Ed program funded through 

a grant from the Michigan Fitness Foundation is called Generation 

With Promise, and is one example of 49 effective programs 

throughout the State of Michigan that are changing the culture of 

food and health. Now in its ninth year, the program reaches youth 

and families in Detroit and Macomb County, and provides nutrition 

education, physical activity promotion, youth leadership development in elementary, middle, and high schools. We also work with 

community and faith-based organizations to promote healthy eating through cooking demonstrations and nutrition education. 

Today, our program serves among 40,000 youth and adults at 

schools, community organizations, and faith-based sites, with nearly 115,000 contacts. As a result of our program, just under 90 percent of adults reported an increase in their consumption of fruits 

and vegetables, and over 80 percent of youth reported an increase 

in their consumption of fruits and vegetables. All aspects of our 

program are evaluated to measure impact and outcomes. 

Overall, in 2014 and 2015, Michigan’s SNAP-Ed program, funded 

through the Michigan Fitness Foundation, has shown an annual increase in fruit and vegetable consumption of 170,000 to 200,000 

cups per day statewide; a health and an economic driver. 

SNAP-Ed is also making connections to healthy food systems and 

other resources and communities, including gardening, cooking 

classes, and farmers’ markets. These partnerships benefit Michigan’s farmers, strengthen the local economy, and provide farmers 

with new revenue streams and increased sales of specialty crops. 

SNAP-Ed is helping low-income families learn the importance and 

value of agriculture and the source of their food. 

Last October, as news of the public health water crisis in Flint 

emerged, the Michigan Fitness Foundation and SNAP-Ed partners 

were able to react quickly to adjust and augment their nutrition 

education focus, and reach under-served neighborhoods and residents to highlight food and food safety practices that were lead-protecting. 

In closing, I want to underscore that both SNAP and SNAP-Ed 

are key in our fight to address the epidemic of obesity and overweight in children and adults that leads to largely preventable 

chronic diseases. These programs are critical in the effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition, particularly in children, and can 

help improve overall poor health that perpetuates a cycle of poverty. 

753

Thank you so much for your time and attention. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wisdom follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KIMBERLYDAWN WISDOM, M.D., M.S., SENIOR VICE

PRESIDENT, COMMUNITY HEALTH & EQUITY AND CHIEF WELLNESS AND DIVERSITY

OFFICER, HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, DETROIT, MI 

Good morning Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of 

the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

My name is Dr. Kimberlydawn Wisdom, and I am the Senior Vice President of 

Community and Health Equity and Chief Wellness and Diversity Officer at Henry 

Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan. I am a board-certified Emergency Medicine Physician, the Chair of the Gail and Lois Warden Endowment on Multicultural 

Health, and previously served as Michigan’s—and the nation’s—First State-level 

Surgeon General. For the last 4 years, I’ve served on the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion and Integrative and Public Health, appointed by President 

Obama, where we advise his cabinet regarding health promotion and prevention 

health policy. I am on the faculty of the University of Michigan Medical School’s 

Department of Medical Education, adjunct professor in the University of Michigan’s 

School of Public Health, and have focused my work on health disparities and health 

care equity, infant mortality and maternal and child health, chronic disease, physical activity, unhealthy eating habits, tobacco use and youth leadership development. I also serve on the Board of the Public Health Institute, a global nonprofit 

headquartered in California, which has been one of the nation’s leading implementers of SNAP nutrition education. 

Henry Ford Health System 

Henry Ford Health System is one of the nation’s leading comprehensive, integrated health systems that provides health insurance and health care delivery, including acute, specialty, primary and preventive care services backed by excellence 

in research and education. Founded in 1915 by auto pioneer Henry Ford, we are 

committed to improving the health and well-being of a diverse community and in 

2011 we were recognized for our commitment to quality through the receipt of the 

prestigious Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Henry Ford Health System 

is proud to implement a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) nutrition education program in the City of Detroit and Macomb County that works to 

improve the long term health and well-being of the SNAP-eligible families. 

SNAP and SNAP-Ed Vital for Health 

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to talk about the critical importance 

of SNAP and SNAP Nutrition Education (SNAP-Ed) for good health. As a physician, 

researcher/educator and public health leader, and as Michigan’s former Surgeon 

General, I can attest that both SNAP and SNAP-Ed are a critical part of our Federal arsenal working to confront the twin threats of obesity and hunger that threaten the health and well-being of our nation. 

Just as the health of the American people is vital to our economic and national 

security, good nutrition is fundamental for public health, educational achievement 

and work productivity. Food security is a fundamental social determinant critical to 

community resilience. Without question, SNAP is helping low-income families put 

healthy, nutritious food on the table during times of need. 

For over 50 years, SNAP has served as the foundation of our nation’s hunger safety net, helping to combat the impact of poverty and subsequent malnutrition. In the 

21st century, the face of malnutrition looks very different than the extreme hunger 

that shocked so many Americans when the Food Stamp program was first established. 

Today, SNAP recipients live in neighborhoods and communities where making 

healthy choices can be challenging, if not impossible, due to the lack of safe, wellequipped and well-maintained places to walk and play, and the absence of nearby 

full service grocery stores and other health services. Many of these communities are 

considered ‘food swamps’ due to the inadequate access to supermarkets and reliance 

on convenience stores, as well as a higher concentration of fast-food outlets limiting 

food choices to high calorie low nutrient foods. 

These factors contribute to the malnutrition that now co-exists with overweight 

and obesity. Comprehensive literature reviews examining neighborhood disparities 

in food access have found that neighborhood residents with better access to supermarkets and limited access to convenience stores tend to have healthier diets and 

a reduced risk for obesity (Larson, et al., 2009; Bell, et al., 2013). Low income communities and communities of color, including those in households eligible for SNAP, 

754

are disproportionately affected by obesity and chronic disease resulting from limited 

access to the fundamentals of a healthy lifestyle-healthy food and safe places to be 

active. 

The health-related costs attributable to food insecurity nationwide were estimated 

to be $160.07 billion in 2014 alone (Cook, et al., 2016). At the same time the costs 

in health care, disability, workers’ compensation, and economic losses from lost 

worker productivity are matched by the personal toll on individuals and their families. 

For the first time in U.S. history, reported by the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, our youngest generation is expected to have a shorter lifespan than 

their parents—a result of childhood obesity and chronic disease. Obesity is linked 

to increased risks for many serious and largely preventable diseases, including type 

2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and some cancers. Nationally, the prevalence of 

diabetes among adults has nearly tripled over the past 30 years. Research has found 

that African American and Latino populations are disproportionately affected, with 

a lifetime risk of more than 50 percent compared to the general population’s 40 percent. 

While the face of malnutrition today is different than it was, the root causes and 

solutions remain the same and SNAP continues to be our nation’s first line of defense to improve nutrition and well-being among low-income Americans. SNAP benefits provide an essential resource and are a powerful tool to help ensure that verylow-income Americans can afford a nutritionally adequate diet. Expanding the use 

of these types of Federal nutrition assistance programs and child nutrition programs 

such as school meals and the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants 

and Children (WIC), is critical to help reduce high rates of food insecurity among 

the low-income population. 

Let me be clear, SNAP participation does not lead individuals and families using 

the program to make poor choices or be overweight. Far from it. Research clearly 

shows that United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Federal nutrition programs do not contribute to the current obesity crisis in the U.S. (Fan & Jin, 2015; 

Gleason, et al., 2009; Hofferth & Curtin, 2005; Linz, et al., 2004; ver Ploeg, 2009; 

ver Ploeg, et al., 2008). Instead, SNAP participation is associated with better dietary 

quality among low-income adults who are food-insecure (Nguyen, et al., 2015). More 

specifically, compared to similar low-income non-participants, SNAP participants 

with marginal, low, and very low food security have better overall dietary quality. 

In fact, by both improving dietary intake and reducing food insecurity, participation 

in the Federal nutrition programs plays a critical role in obesity prevention. 

SNAP is effective in its mission to mitigate the effects of poverty on food insecurity and is further enhanced by SNAP-Ed, the nutrition education and obesity prevention arm of SNAP that works to ensure that low-income families will make 

healthy diet and physical activity choices within a limited budget. 

SNAP-Ed is a critical piece of the equation working to improve nutrition and prevent or reduce diet-related disease and obesity among SNAP-eligible households. 

Throughout the United States, SNAP-Ed programs work to promote healthy behaviors and reach low-income families where they live, learn, work, play and pray. The 

program helps low-income families understand the importance of healthy choices 

and empowers parents and their children to make the healthy choice the easily accessible and affordable choice. 

SNAP-Ed plays an active role in improving dietary and physical activity practices, 

while helping to increase community food security, prevent obesity and reduce the 

risk of chronic disease for low-income Americans. A study conducted in California 

in 2012 found that the greatest concentration of SNAP-Ed interventions was associated with adults and children eating more fruits and vegetables, and adults eating 

fast food less frequently. These findings demonstrate the potential impact of such 

interventions and how SNAP-Ed plays an important role in addressing both chronic 

disease and the obesity epidemic in the United States (Molitor, et al., 2015). 

SNAP-Ed: Generation With Promise 

Henry Ford Health System’s SNAP-Ed Program, funded through a grant from the 

Michigan Fitness Foundation, is called Generation with Promise (GWP) and is one 

example of 49 effective programs throughout the state of Michigan that are changing the culture of food and health. Now in its ninth year, GWP reaches youth and 

families in Detroit and Macomb County and provides nutrition education, physical 

activity promotion and youth leadership in elementary, middle, and high schools, 

alongside proven public health approaches that increase healthy behaviors. GWP 

also works with community and faith-based organizations, promoting healthy eating 

through cooking demonstrations and nutrition education. 

755

Today, GWP serves 37,360 youth and adults in 2015, at schools, community organizations and faith-based sites with nearly 115,000 contacts. Due to GWP, 89.9% of 

adults reported an increase in their consumption of fruits or vegetables and 81.4% 

of youth reported an increase in their consumption of fruits or vegetables. All aspects of our program are evaluated to measure impact and outcomes. Overall, in 

2014 and 2015, Michigan SNAP-Ed programs funded through the Michigan Fitness 

Foundation, including GWP, have shown an annual increase in fruit and vegetable 

consumption of 170,000 to 200,000 cups per day statewide, a health and economic 

driver! 

We are proud of the breadth of interventions within our programs, from cooking 

classes taught by a chef and dietitian or nutrition educator classes that include a 

grocery store tour, to interventions that teach menu and meal planning and how to 

stretch food dollars on a low-income budget. Participants willingly learn about 

healthy and delicious food that is not expensive or difficult to make. The number 

one most common comment we hear at the end of the class series is that participants wish the class was longer! 

Leveraging other funds and demonstrating the value of a true community partnership, Henry Ford Health System is also able to provide groceries to participants 

so that they replicate the recipes at home. Nearly all participants report that they 

made the recipe at home during the week. Participants have followed up with our 

team to share their great news including losing 50 pounds and keeping it off for 

6 months after the program, cooking dinner with their middle-school aged children, 

and enrolling in classes related to culinary arts, dietetics or health. 

SNAP-Ed is also making connections to healthy food systems and other resources 

in communities including gardening, cooking classes and farmers’ markets. For example, GWP provided 60 recipe demonstrations, tastings, and nutrition education 

at ten Detroit Community Markets and other farmers’ markets in low-income neighborhoods. Nearly all attendees said they were inspired to prepare new recipes. GWP 

has provided SNAP-Ed in grocery stores in partnership with Michigan Fitness 

Foundation and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and with 

Double Up Food Bucks and the Fair Food Network using Michigan Harvest of the 

Month educational strategies and materials. 

Through these community partnerships with local organizations, SNAP recipients 

can shop at the local farmers’ markets and some grocery stores and receive twice 

as much of locally grown produce at an affordable price. This partnership also benefits local farmers, strengthening the local economy and providing farmers with new 

revenue streams and increased sales of specialty crops. SNAP-Ed is helping low-income families learn the importance and value agriculture and the sources of their 

food. 

I cannot underscore enough the way in which SNAP-Ed is a versatile tool that 

can respond to the nutrition and health needs of low-income families in our state. 

Last October, as news of the public health water crisis in Flint emerged, the Michigan Fitness Foundation and SNAP-Ed partners were able to react quickly to adjust 

and augment their nutrition education focus to highlight foods and food safety practices that were lead protecting. Over the past months, Michigan Fitness Foundation 

and SNAP-Ed have been essential in continuing to connect increasing numbers of 

partners and programs to reach under-served neighborhoods and residents to support a foundation on which to build the Flint of the future. 

Priority Recommendations 

Improvements can be made and I would suggest the following recommendations 

to further strengthen and maximize the health and nutritional impact of SNAP and 

SNAP-Ed.

1. To better combat food insecurity and childhood hunger, income eligibility criteria should not exclude children whose families happen to live in high-cost 

states. USDA should index income criteria for food assistance program eligibility to local or regional cost of living, such as the Cost of Living Index or 

other recognized measure, rather than the nationally-applied Federal Poverty 

Level (FPL).

2. The Thrifty Food Plan, used as the fiscal base for SNAP, should be modified 

to increase the benefit value and accommodate the generally-higher prices of 

healthy food and regional variability in cost of living.

3. Remove restrictions that prevent retailers from offering Electronic Benefit 

Transfer (EBT) point of sale—and promotional prices for healthy foods such 

as fruits and vegetables, whole grains etc.

4. SNAP-Ed should be utilized to provide technical assistance and training to 

convenience store business owners and smaller retailers, combined with comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
756

mon sense stocking standards for SNAP that increase the availability of fresh 

foods in all four food categories. This would have the benefit of increasing the 

availability, accessibility and possibly lower the price of healthy food in many 

low-income communities. SNAP-Ed implementing agencies can be encouraged 

to work with the private sector and community partners to help small businesses and convenience stores identify and establish procurement systems 

that increase healthy food options for their customers.

5. Initiatives such as Double Up Food Bucks and Michigan Farm to Family in 

Michigan, Market Match in California, and other Food Insecurity Nutrition 

Incentive (FINI) grants across the county should be leveraged and replicated 

to increase healthy food purchasing by SNAP-eligible families and encourage 

the participation at more local and chain grocery stores.

6. Congress and USDA should provide startup grants and establish a public-private innovation fund that would support technical assistance networks that 

help states and localities implement, adapt and take to scale evidence based 

nutrition education interventions and strategies throughout the country. Topics and activities that could be part of such technical assistance networks 

could include: community food system assessments, Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) at farmers’ markets, corner store conversion projects, communitysupported agriculture, farm-to-fork sourcing, state or local food policy councils, agricultural preservation, small farm and new farmer programs, and 

community/school gardens. This low-cost network might be established using 

public and private grants or cooperative agreements with nonprofit public 

health, anti-hunger and food security organizations; the existing Cooperative 

Extension system; FNS programs; partnerships with other sectors like foundations, nonprofit health plans, insurers and hospitals; and sister Federal 

agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Transportation, Department of Education, and Housing and Urban 

Development.

In closing, I want to underscore that both SNAP and SNAP-Ed are key in our 

fight to address the epidemic of obesity and overweight in children and adults that 

leads to largely preventable chronic diseases. These programs are critical in the effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition, particularly in children, and can help improve overall ill health that perpetuates the cycle of poverty. 

Across our country SNAP families are striving, working hard to make ends meet 

and put healthy food on the table, often in very challenging circumstances. These 

families are the solution finders. Many are the families of those serving in our 

armed forces here at home and overseas. With limited resources, SNAP-Ed is empowering these families with the tools necessary to make a healthy choice. SNAPEd is a small program but it has an impact and influence well beyond its size. 

I welcome the opportunity to work with Congress and USDA to identify measures 

that can identify and remove obstacles limiting the reach, impact and effectiveness 

of the Federal nutrition programs, including SNAP-Ed, and to create sustainable 

healthy change in under-served communities. 

Thank you for your time and consideration of my recommendations. I am happy 

to answer any questions. 

References 

J. Cook and A.P. Poblacion (2016) ‘‘Estimating the Health Related Costs of Food 

Insecurity.’’ 2016 Hunger Report. www.hungerreport.org. 

M. Fan and Y.H. Jin (2015). ‘‘Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and 

Childhood Obesity in the U.S.: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Survey of 

Youth 1997.’’ American Journal of Health Economics.

Hofferth, Sandra L., and Sally Curtin. ‘‘Poverty, food programs, and childhood 

obesity.’’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24.4 (2005): 703–726. 

Gleason, Philip. School meal program participation and its association with dietary patterns and childhood obesity. No. 55. DIANE Publishing, 2010. 

Leung, Cindy W., et al. ‘‘Dietary intake and dietary quality of low-income adults 

in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.’’ The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2012): ajcn-040014. 

Molitor, Fred, et al. ‘‘Peer Reviewed: Reach of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program-Education (SNAP-Ed) Interventions and Nutrition and Physical ActivityRelated Outcomes, California, 2011–2012.’’ Preventing Chronic Disease 12 (2015). 

Ver Ploeg, Michele L., and Katherine L. Ralston. ‘‘Food Stamps and obesity: What 

do we know?.’’ Economic Information Bulletin 34 (2008). 

Ver Ploeg, Michele, et al. ‘‘U.S. Food assistance programs and trends in children’s 

weight.’’ International Journal of Pediatric Obesity 3.1 (2008): 22–30. 

757

Gregory, Christian, et al. ‘‘Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

participation leads to modest changes in diet quality.’’ Economic Research Report

147 (2013). 

Nguyen, Binh T., et al. ‘‘The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, food insecurity, dietary quality, and obesity among U.S. adults.’’ American Journal of Public Health 105.7 (2015): 1453–1459.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Wisdom. 

Ms. Foerster. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN B. FOERSTER, M.P.H., EMERITUS AND 

FOUNDING MEMBER, ASSOCIATION OF SNAP NUTRITION 

EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS, CARMICHAEL, CA 

Ms. FOERSTER. Good morning. Chairman Conaway, Ranking 

Member Peterson, Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

invitation. 

My name is Susan Foerster, and I am here today representing 

the Association of SNAP Nutrition Education Administrators. We 

have members in all 50 states and territories, and our job is to administer the SNAP-Ed program in the organizations that we come 

from. My background is that I ran the largest SNAP-Ed program 

in California, and during that time we were able to see an increase 

in fruit and vegetable consumption among low-income adults, to 

the point that it reached the same level as higher-income and higher-education people. We don’t know for sure if it was SNAP-Ed, but 

there was nothing else going on, so we think it was. In addition, 

we have some studies from California that show a dose response 

relationship. The more intervention, the better the dietary practices. 

Today, I am talking with you in my capacity as the co-lead for 

evaluation with the ASNNA organization, and so I am going to be 

able to talk a little bit about the background of SNAP-Ed and the 

way it looks today, and the way we want to see it in the future. 

In my 2 years in retirement, I have been able to work with the 

other states, across state lines, to address the issue of evaluation 

and outcomes. So I know you are interested in that, and we will 

go from there. 

I am going to talk about the farm bill policies; how Federal policy 

has influenced the history of the program, what SNAP-Ed looks 

like now, what has been done administratively to be sure that the 

program is accountable for results and well-administered, and finally, where we are going in the future. 

What we really have in SNAP-Ed are three generations. Nutrition education in the SNAP program was authorized in the Farm 

Bill of 1981. It was based on the EFNEP model which was direct 

education by paraprofessionals. By the middle 1990s, however, 

evaluations were being done, we had the Dietary Guidelines telling 

us that many more Americans were not eating well, and so the 

idea was that we needed a wider range of techniques. And so social 

marketing was introduced as a social innovation model, and that 

allowed us to use the same kind of techniques that the food industry was using to get people to eat healthy. 

Then by 2010, when the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act was 

passed, many of the changes that we had wanted to see and had 

experienced in the field made the third generation of SNAP-Ed, 

and that was that our scope expanded to include physical activity 

758

and obesity prevention, larger-scale approaches and community approaches. The funding changed so that there was a grant mechanism rather than Federal financial participation, and the program 

was capped based on the 2009 funding to 2018. So that is kind of 

where we are right now. There is a reallocation schedule in place 

that started in 2014, and will conclude in 2018 when the new farm 

bill comes up. 

In terms of where we are right now, the size of our population 

that we are trying to influence is 90 million people that have incomes below 185 percent of poverty. Of that, about 40 million are 

already SNAP participants, and you can see that the scope of our 

effort is quite large. 

We reach people through the places they go, the institutions that 

they use, and through mass communications. We work in highly 

targeted ways in Census tracks and institutions where the majority 

of people have incomes below 185 percent of poverty. 

We work through all the state SNAP programs, and there are 

about 144 what we call state implementing agencies that actually 

administer the funds and usually put most of them out the door to 

other kinds of nonprofit and government agencies. They also pay 

for business processes such as mass media, printing, and so forth. 

The reach of the program, we can only tell you really the tip of 

the iceberg, and that is in 2015, we know that we educated at least 

six million people, on whom we have demographic information, 

with direct education. We do not have numbers on those that were 

reached indirectly through community programs where we couldn’t 

get the demographics on the people, but the services for direct education were in 50,000 low-income sites across the country. So six 

million people with direct education, 50,000 sites, 20 different 

kinds of channels, from worksites to churches, to parks and recreation, to shelters and so forth. What we don’t have, as I said, is 

information about the number of people reached otherwise. We do 

have 28 states doing actual social marketing campaigns, and they 

reported reaching about 19 million more people that they know 

about. Of those people, about 65 percent that we know of were 

SNAP participants, 25 percent were school-age children, and a very 

small proportion were seniors. 

So to just conclude, sorry I went on like that, SNAP is not as 

visible as we would like it to be because of the way that it is differently named. It is run usually through another organization or 

it has its own brand name. We do not call ourselves by the Federal 

name. 

In conclusion, we are very excited to have put together a compendium of over 100 evidence-based interventions that are developed 

for physical activity and nutrition, and for different channels where 

we administer those programs that are available for everyone to 

use. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms.——

Ms. FOERSTER. Most recently, we have put together what is 

called——

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Foerster, I am going to have to ask you to 

conclude. Thank you. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Foerster follows:]

759

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN B. FOERSTER, M.P.H., EMERITUS AND FOUNDING

MEMBER, ASSOCIATION OF SNAP NUTRITION EDUCATION ADMINISTRATORS, CARMICHAEL, CA 

Good morning, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, Committee Members and fellow panelists. Thank you for the opportunity to think together about 

how SNAP-Ed, the nutrition education arm of SNAP, can be made even more effective in future years. 

My remarks will be mostly from the perspective of a former state official who 

founded and directed the country’s largest SNAP-Ed program. Through the California Department of Public Health, we had already used an NCI grant to establish 

the California 5 a Day—for Better Health! Campaign, the world’s first public-private 

partnership with the nation’s produce industry to increase fruit and vegetable consumption. Its purpose was to help prevent cancer and other diet-related chronic diseases. In the 1990s, the 5 A Day Program was adopted for nationwide use NCI and 

CDC, as well as 25 other countries. 

In FFY 96, we used this experience to win a USDA competition for planning 

grants that allowed us to establish the Network for a Healthy California in FFY 97. 

It was the country’s first of what became 22 FSNE (Food Stamp Nutrition Education) social marketing nutrition ‘networks’; nutrition education was an optional 

administrative activity that could qualify for Federal Financial Participation if nonFederal matching funds could be generated. In California, we used the FFP to develop, test and roll-out at least 20 different statewide and community interventions. 

Our program efforts coincided with an upward trend in reported fruit and vegetable 

consumption by low-income adults that, to the best of our knowledge, was unique 

among states. 

In the 2 years since retirement, I have worked through the Association of SNAP 

Nutrition Administrators (ASNNA) to co-lead its evaluation and outcomes activities. 

As a former state leader, I want to help states realize the potential of SNAP-Ed. 

As the nation’s largest, most flexible and dynamic community nutrition program, I 

believe that SNAP-Ed can be used to generate significant, unique and 

groundbreaking improvements that will help improve eating and physical activity 

environments, advance food security, reduce or eliminate diet-related disparities 

among low-income income Americans, while also benefitting many in the agriculture 

and food industry sectors. 

Today I will address four questions:

• What farm bill policies have informed the direction and impact of SNAP-Ed?

• What is SNAP-Ed now, and why isn’t more known about its impact?

• What has been done administratively to assure that SNAP-Ed serves low-income communities and is fully accountable?

• What new, cutting edge measures have been put in place to help states and 

their partners to be even more effective in the future, and to build out the scientific foundations that have been put in place over the last 20 years? 

What farm bill policies have informed the direction and impact of SNAPEd? 

SNAP, once known as the Food Stamp Purchase Program (1933), is the oldest of 

the major food assistance programs, while SNAP-Ed is the youngest of USDA’s 

major nutrition service efforts.

Chronology of Federal Statutory and Administrative Landmarks in SNAPEd 

1981 Food Stamp Nutrition Education (FSNE) was authorized in the farm bill as an 

optional administrative expense funded though state/local cost-share or 

‘match’ that would qualify for an equal amount of Federal Financial Participation; it cited nutrition education using the EFNEP as peer education model 

established in 1969. 

FFY 1992 Only seven states conducted FSNE (∼$750K for the entire U.S.). As national 

concern about the impact of diet-related diseases on health grew; USDA commissioned a report on the effectiveness of nutrition education which called for 

theory-driven approaches and recommended using social marketing, akin to 

marketing that the food industry uses (JNE 1995). 

FFY 1995–97 USDA funded 22 states with $100–$200K planning grants to establish social 

marketing nutrition networks, create state plans, and raise cost-share/match 

to support the state plans. 

FFY 2004 All 50 states and D.C. conducted FSNE; funding totaled ∼$280M in FFP. 

760

Chronology of Federal Statutory and Administrative Landmarks in SNAPEd—Continued

2005–2010 OMB conducted sequential Program Assessment evaluations recommended establishing clearer missions and goals, strengthening strategic planning, developing standardized measures, and capturing program results. 

2008 Farm Bill changed Food Stamps to Supplemental Nutrition Program (SNAP) 

FFY 2010 USDA introduced the Education and Administrative Reporting System (EARS) 

for FFY 2010 to collect annual statistics on people reached, services provided, 

content, and materials used in state programs. Administrative system did not 

collect information on results or outcomes. 

2010 In November, Congress used the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act to establish SNAP-Ed as a new grant program in the farm bill, replacing the prior incentive-type model, primarily to redistribute funds among the states and relieve burden of obtaining and documenting match. 

New provisions added physical activity, obesity prevention, community and public health approaches to the SNAP-Ed charge; clarified that 185% FPL was 

the income eligibility level; required coordination with CDC; added ‘evidencebased approaches’ as a criterion. 

Capped funding until 2018 at 2009 baseline ($400M) without matching requirements, established SNAP State Agencies as managers of the annual grant 

process, reallocated funds among states over a 5 year period using a formula 

that redistributed funds in 10% increments according to the state’s proportion 

of U.S. SNAP participation. By eliminating the state/local match, the overall 

investment would be reduced by 1⁄2. 

FFY 2012 The state/local share requirement for states was dropped for FFY 2012. 

2013 USDA issued an Interim SNAP-Ed Rule in the Federal Register and invited 

public comments. 

FFY 2014 The first year of the 5 year reallocation formula was implemented; work on 

what became the SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework and the SNAP-Ed Strategies & Interventions: An Obesity Prevention Toolkit for States.

FFY 2015 USDA’s Annual SNAP-Ed Guidance for FFY 2016 fully implemented provisions 

in the 2010 HHFKA.

FFY 2016 Final Rule for SNAP-Ed was issued. 

USDA established the SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework as its overarching, 

science-based to capture outcomes in 51 SNAP-Ed topics areas and completed 

a companion Interpretive Guide to the SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework to 

help define consistent metrics that could be reported consistently by states. 

An expanded SNAP-Ed Strategies & Interventions: An Obesity Prevention 

Toolkit for States was released, and USDA’s SNAP-Ed Connections website 

was revamped with an updated, searchable Resource Library that is intended 

to be a searchable inventory for ‘all things SNAP-Ed’ that is readily available 

to any user. 

USDA issued a Request for Quote solicitation to review the state reports, identify to what degree plans, reports and EARS align with the SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework, and develop a standardized template for annual state reports to allow aggregation of state-level data. 

What does SNAP-Ed look like today? 

Size of the Eligible Low-income Population: Low-income in SNAP-Ed is defined as a household income below 185% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) because 

they would be eligible for other means tested Federal programs such as WIC, Free 

and Reduced Price school meals (FRPM), and many public health programs. Among 

low-income Americans, the 90 million people includes about 40 million who participate in SNAP because their incomes fall below 130%. 

How low-income people are reached: People are not means tested by SNAPEd but rather served because the community they live in, an institution they use, 

or a geographic area that they frequent has a majority of the population with incomes below 185% FPL. For example, SNAP-Ed programs may work only with grocery stores in low-resource Census tracts or with monthly SNAP receipts exceeding 

$50,000. Similarly, SNAP-Ed may work only with schools or districts where over 

50% of the students qualify for Free/Reduced-Price Meals (FRPM) or in worksites, 

faith organizations, park districts, housing, shelters, and other community sites 

where over 50% of the people have incomes <185% FPL. Since SNAP-Ed work products are public use, other organizations may use them freely. 

Number and Diversity of SNAP-Ed Implementing Agencies: All 54 states, 

the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam receive SNAP-Ed grants 

761

that flow through the SNAP State Agency to one or more State Implementing Agencies (SIAs). The 144 SIAs that deliver SNAP-Ed themselves are diverse and bring 

a variety of strengths to SNAP-Ed; they include Land-Grant University Extension 

services, other universities, public health departments, nonprofits, Indian Tribal Organizations, and some SNAP agencies. In turn, most SIA funds flow to other public, 

nonprofit and business entities that provide statewide or local services. The state 

grants have no matching requirements, and states make decisions about funding 

priorities for service based on needs assessments, partner readiness and the skills 

of each SIA. A detailed state plan is approved annually by USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). 

Reach of SNAP-Ed: In 2015 the 144 SIAs collectively provided direct education 

services to over six million low-income people in 20 different community channels 

with nearly 50,000 low-resource community locations. Channels are organizations or 

systems such as schools and school districts, child care centers, food banks and 

emergency food sites, community youth organizations, public housing, churches, 

health centers, park and recreation sites, food stores, and community gardens where 

food and physical activity decisions can be influenced. Of the 144 SIAs, 28 reported 

also conducting larger-scale social marketing initiatives that reached over 19 million 

people. 

Of the people receiving direct education, about 65% were SNAP participants, 25% 

were school-aged children, and .05% were elders. There are no estimates of the 

number of people reached though policy, systems or environmental approaches, or 

on outcomes. More detail on that will be provided below. 

Why is SNAP-Ed not more visible, like other nutrition programs? 

SNAP-Ed has the largest scope and most diverse mission among USDA’s community nutrition programs, but for a variety of reasons SNAP-Ed activities may not 

be readily identified. 

Names of SNAP-Ed Programs: Like many other Federal programs, many 

SNAP-Ed programs have established a specific branded identity and do not use the 

Federal categorical designation. Other times, SNAP-Ed funds are used to help organizations or campaigns augment their services to better reach SNAP-Ed audiences, 

so the SNAP-Ed targeted activities may not be identified as such. For all entities, 

SNAP-Ed rules must be followed and mandatory reports completed. 

The term, nutrition education, includes more than direct education: The 

term, ‘nutrition education’ was added to Food Stamp language in 1981 and has not 

been updated. As science and practice have matured, the term ‘nutrition education’ 

had to be reinterpreted to achieve the needed population outcomes. In SNAP-Ed, 

nutrition education means ‘any combination of educational strategies, accompanied by environmental supports, designed to facilitate the voluntary adoption of food and physical activity practices . . . conducive to the health and 

well-being of . . . SNAP participants, individuals eligible to participate, 

others eligible . . . for other means-tested Federal assistance, and individuals residing in communities with significant low-income populations.’

SNAP-Ed requires a broad science-base, which adds to its complexity: To 

address the many social determinants that are known to impact healthy eating (including food security and food access), physical activity, and obesity prevention, today’s nutrition education approaches use a widely accepted theory, the Social Ecological Model (SEM). This approach often involves working with partner organizations behind the scenes. The SEM helps planners systematically focus on four 

spheres of influence that support healthy behavior change in populations. The four 

spheres are: individuals and peer groups, institutions that impact low-income people, multi-sector community efforts, and larger scale social norms. Activities in these 

spheres may appear fragmented, but they are designed to create synergy and drive 

toward similar outcomes. The SEM is recommended by many authoritative bodies, 

including the National Academy of Sciences and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

What has been done administratively to assure that SNAP-Ed serves lowincome communities and is fully accountable? 

Similar to SNAP itself, SNAP-Ed is highly structured. USDA oversight of SNAPEd is guided by statute, namely the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and implemented through:

• Final Regulations issued in 2016.

• Annual SNAP-Ed Guidance that governs targeting, activities, allowable expenditures.

762

• The seven FNS Regional Offices review and approve annual state plans and 

budgets, including SMART objectives, and most mid-year amendments.

• Mandatory process evaluation measures through the Education and Administrative Reporting System (EARS).

• Annual Reports that report on specific progress toward achieving each state’s 

annual SMART objectives; development of new programs and materials; evaluation activities, reports, and publications; and expenditures.

• Regular on-site Management Evaluations (ME) with a formal process when 

corrective action is required.

Program Requirements: The experience and know-how accrued over the last 20 

years is well-codified in SNAP-Ed Guidance. In SNAP-Ed, states are asked to select 

a set of complementary educational, social marketing and environmental support 

approaches that will work together to achieve population and community outcomes. 

Each state is now required to deliver community and public health approaches in 

addition to direct education. 

Social marketing is defined as using commercial marketing techniques to influence voluntary behavior for personal welfare and that of society. Techniques based 

on formative research and market segmentation may include: advertising, PR, promotion, multiple forms of mass communication, and education that is synchronized 

across different organizational channels such as worksites, retail stores, and civic 

organizations. 

Community and Public Health Approaches. These may include techniques 

such as consumer empowerment, community development, public-private partnerships, and policy, systems and environmental change (PSE). In SNAP-Ed the definitions are:

• Policy change: In the public, nonprofit or business sectors, policies are written 

organizational decisions or courses of action, resources, implementation, evaluation and enforcement. In accord with Federal law, SNAP-Ed may provide information to elected officials but may not lobby for any bill, ordinance, or funding 

level.

• Systems Change: These are unwritten organizational decisions about services, 

locations, staffing and budgets that can reach large numbers of low-income people.

• Environmental Change: These are changes in the physical, visual, economic, 

social, normative or message environments that can positively influence eating 

and physical activity behaviors.

The well-respected RE–AIM model may be used by states to help decide what 

interventions to sponsor. Choices may be based on a structured needs assessment 

that includes the probability of reaching large numbers of people, the availability 

of effective interventions, the likelihood of adoption and implementation of those 

interventions by partnering organizations, and the probability that the effort will be 

maintained in the future without SNAP-Ed resources. 

What new, cutting edge measures have been put in place to help states and 

their partners to be even more effective in the future, and to build out 

the scientific foundations that have been put in place over the last 20 

years? 

As shown in the Chronology, many evaluation efforts by SNAP-Ed stakeholders 

have culminated in 2016. A cutting-edge set of intervention and evaluation resources has been compiled to help the very diverse community of SNAP-Ed agencies 

deliver strong, evidence-based interventions, map their progress, and report the results. This has been done as a partnership among USDA, SIAs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Collaborative on Childhood Obesity 

Research. Most notably, these include:

• The SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework, a breakthrough approach to large-scale, 

long-term outcome evaluation. It is designed as a ‘menu’ from which states can 

select, according to their priorities, and an overarching, aspirational and 

science-based scheme for the country. It is intended to capture key outcomes in 

51 different areas that lead to community and population improvement.

• Interpretive Guide to the SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework, a companion howto document that suggests standard metrics, instruments and data sources for 

the 51 Indicators in the Framework so that results can be aggregated across the 

country. It was compiled and reviewed by 40 contributors from 28 different 

states. As experience is gained with the measures and instruments, it will provide the basis for standardized reporting and aggregated data.

763

• Practitioner Stories that outline how nine early adopting states are using the 

Framework and Interpretive Guide.

• SNAP-Ed Strategies & Interventions: An Obesity Prevention Toolkit for States

that links to almost 100 evidence-based interventions, the great majority of 

which were developed through SNAP-Ed funding. This Toolkit reflects a brand 

new science base for large-scale interventions—especially those using social 

marketing and policy, systems and environmental change approaches—that is 

customized to low-resource settings and diverse populations. It will soon be 

posted as a searchable electronic format. It provides a resource that any likeminded organization to use. No such resource has ever been available.

• USDA’s SNAP-Ed Connections website now has an updated Resource Library 

that can be populated by SNAP-Ed partners and others to house survey and 

evaluation instruments, intervention materials, reports and published papers. It 

is searchable by population group, community channel, intervention goal, date, 

state, type of material, method and many other characteristics. It will help 

bring new SNAP-Ed partners up to speed and allow mature programs to extend 

their impact in new intervention areas and with new partners more quickly. 

What evidence is there that these efforts will be successful? 

These evaluation breakthroughs have been done well. Strong groundwork was laid 

for rapid uptake of these new approaches because states were involved from the beginning. We contributed in soliciting and reviewing interventions to select the very 

best, choosing the most important and feasible outcomes, and selecting evaluation 

metrics that will be practical for local, state and national stakeholders. In FFY 14, 

the nine states and territories in the Western Region reported over 900 PSE 

changes in just 1 year. 

State plans for FFY 17 are due soon. But one example is that one Midwestern 

state that was not involved in the Framework has already adopted it by challenging 

itself to secure 50 PSE changes in FFY 16, namely:

• Starting a local food policy council or health coalition (4).

• Community gardens (4).

• New pantry locations (3).

• Food donation systems (5).

• Food insecurity screening (3).

• Increasing number of food vendors at farmers’ markets who accept SNAP (10).

• Establishing school wellness committees (6).

• School wellness policy reviews and updates (4).

• Increasing park and trail use in communities (3).

• Healthy checkout lanes (3).

• Shared use policies to increase physical activity options (1).

• Healthy vending machines at workplaces (4).

ASNNA is aware that these efforts are aggressive and very new for the entire 

field of nutrition. Similar to other reporting systems, we expect that the devil will 

be in the details. However, we recognize that the collective impact approach that 

SNAP-Ed is undertaking is the only way that the significant population and community changes that SNAP-Ed aims for can be achieved. 

We are committed to continuing our collaboration with USDA and other organizations. In our work plan for this year are projects that will convey the vision and 

encourage wide use of the materials, continually upgrade the models based on real 

world with experience, help populate the new SN[A]P-Ed Library as a practical resource, identify or develop common data sources, and provide training and peer support to sister agencies 

We are committed to remaining visionary, open, transparent, accountable and 

well-grounded so that these funds are spent to achieve maximum impact. 

Thank you for this opportunity and for your support of SNAP and SNAP-Ed. 

764

SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework 

Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Prevention Indicators

April 2016.

SNAP-Ed State Implementing Agencies, 2015

State/

Territory 

State Implementing Agencies Reporting in EARS, 2015

(N=144) 

AK Alabama Nutrition Education Program 

AL University of Alaska Fairbanks 

AR University of Arkansas, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 

AZ Arizona Department of Health Services 

CA California Dept. of Public Health, University of California Davis, Catholic Charities of California, 

California Department of Aging, California Dept. of Social Services 

CO N/A 

CT Connecticut Department of Public Health, University of Connecticut, University of Connecticut 

College of Agriculture, University of Connecticut Health Center, University of Connecticut Neag 

School of Education, Hispanic Health Council, Inc 

DC Department of Health 

DE University of Delaware 

FL University of Florida 

GA Health M Powers, University of Georgia, Georgia Coalition for Physical Activity and Nutrition 

GU N/A 

HI Hawaii Department of Health, University of Hawaii at Ma ̄noa 

IA Iowa Department of Public Health, Iowa State University 

ID University of Idaho, Boise Center 

IL Chicago Partnership for Health Promotion, University of Illinois 

IN Purdue University 

KS Kansas State University 

KY University of Kentucky 

LA Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Southern University Agriculture Center 

MA University of Massachusetts, Share Our Strength/Cooking Matters MA, Lutheran Social Services of 

New England, Inc., Kit Clark Senior Services 

MD University of Maryland 

ME University of New England 

MI Michigan Nutrition Network at Michigan Fitness Foundation, Michigan State University 

MN University of Minnesota Extension Service, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe 

MO University of Missouri 

MS Mississippi State University 

MT Montana State University Extension 

NC North Carolina Cooperative Extension—Surry Center, Durham County Health Department, Alice 

Aycock Poe Center for Health Education, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, North 

Carolina State University, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC Agricultural and 

Technical State University, East Carolina University MATCH 

ND North Dakota State University Extension Service 

NE University of Nebraska 


11403130.eps
765

SNAP-Ed State Implementing Agencies, 2015—Continued

State/

Territory 

State Implementing Agencies Reporting in EARS, 2015

(N=144) 

NH University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension Merrimack County 

NJ Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey 

NM New Mexico State University Cooperative Extension Service, Cooking with Kids, Kids Cook!, Las 

Cruces Public Schools, University of New Mexico Prevention Research Ctr., Institute of American 

Indian Arts 

NV Help of Southern Nevada—Baby First Services, Yerington Paiute Tribe, University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, Food Bank of Northern Nevada, Step 2, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone, Three Square 

NY Cornell Univ. Cooperative Extension Oneida County, New York State (NYS) Department of Health, 

Cornell Cooperative Extension of Erie County, Food Bank For New York City, Cornell Univ. Cooperative Extension Orange County, City Harvest, Inc., Cornell Cooperative Extension of Onondaga County, The Children’s Aid Society, Cornell Univ. Co-op. Extension of Suffolk County, Common Pantry, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Albany County 

OH Ohio State University 

OK Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma State University 

OR Oregon State University 

PA Pennsylvania State University 

RI University of Rhode Island 

SC South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Clemson University, South 

Carolina Department of Social Services, Low Country Food Bank 

SD South Dakota State University 

TN Tennessee State University, University of Tennessee 

TX East Texas Food Bank, East Texas Food Bank, South East Texas Food Bank, Texas A&M Cooperative Extension, Houston Food Bank, North Texas Food Bank, Tarrant Area Food Bank, South 

Plains Food Bank, Food Bank of Corpus Christi, Food Bank of Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio 

Food Bank, Capital Area Food Bank of Texas, ActiveLife Movement 

UT Utah State University Cooperative Extension 

VA Virginia Tech University 

VI N/A 

VT Vermont Department of Health 

WA Washington State University, Washington State Department of Health 

WI University of Wisconsin—Extension, Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, Ho-Chunk Nation Health 

Center, Milwaukee Health Services Inc., City of Milwaukee Health Department, Northwest Wisconsin Community Services, Inc., Chippewa County Department of Public Health, Bayfield County Health Department, Polk County Health Department, Outagamie Health and Human Services 

Public Health, Oneida County Health Department, Kewaunee County Health Department, Family Plan Health Services, Kenosha County Dept. of Human Svs., La Crosse County Health Dept, 

Portage County Comm. Human Service, Juneau County Health Dept, West Allis Health Dept, 

Jefferson County Health Department, Wood County Health Department, Vernon County Health 

Dept., Sauk County Dept. of Health, Waupaca County Dept. Human Servs., Hunger Task Force 

of Milwaukee 

WV West Virginia University 

WY University of Wyoming Cooperative Extension Service 

SIAs, by state 2015 EARS 6–20–16. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Sharma. 

STATEMENT OF SHREELA V. SHARMA, PH.D., R.D., L.D.,

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DIVISION OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 

HUMAN GENETICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES,

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS; CO-FOUNDER, BRIGHTER BITES, 

HOUSTON, TX 

Dr. SHARMA. Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, 

and Members of the Committee, good morning, and thank you for 

the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing on SNAP-Ed. 

My name is Dr. Shreela Sharma. I am a Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Texas, School of Public Health, and CoFounder of Brighter Bites nonprofit organization, and I have spent 

the last 10 years contributing to childhood obesity prevention and 

control program efforts in Texas. 

In 2012, I was approached by Lisa Helfman, a mom and an attorney, who had an idea to help solve the lack of access to fresh 

produce that exists in under-served neighborhoods. Back in 2011, 

766

Lisa was participating in a food co-op where she received a box of 

fruits and vegetables every week, and over time, she watched her 

children’s eating habits change. She describes this moment when 

she was with her 5 year old son at a birthday party, and he called 

her over to ask if he had to eat the cake. He said it was too sweet 

and he would rather have fruit instead. At that moment, she wondered if she could replicate the same behavior change that she saw 

in her young son in under-served neighborhoods. And today, I am 

here to tell you that you can, and we did. 

Together, we built a program called Brighter Bites. Our threepart formula is simple: first, produce distribution where each family gets 30 pounds of fresh produce; second, nutrition education in 

school and for parents; and third, a fun food experience where families try a healthy, tasty recipe, all done each week for 16 weeks 

during the school year and 8 weeks during the summer, in low-income communities. Our parents try kale smoothies with their child, 

and receive the recipe and the ingredients to make it at home. And 

parents are volunteering at our co-ops and engaging in our communities of health. As one of our parents said, Brighter Bites made 

me cook things I wouldn’t have bought, for fear of wasting money 

if my children didn’t like it. 

In 2012, we started with one elementary school in Houston, 

Texas, and thanks to funding from the USDA SNAP-Ed program, 

as of 2016 we have expanded this same formula in Houston, Dallas, and Austin, and distributed more than 8 million pounds of 

produce to over 20,000 low-income children and their families, 

across more than 90 schools, Head Start centers, YMCAs, and community centers in these three cities. 

As a behavioral epidemiologist, I have focused on building a 

strong research and data infrastructure for Brighter Bites, and our 

results are compelling. We know that 98 percent of the families 

participating in Brighter Bites are eating more produce during the 

program, and what is more compelling is that 74 percent are maintaining the same levels by buying it on their own, even after the 

Brighter Bites season ends. 

Recently, we completed a 2 year study among 760 first grade 

children and their parents, and results showed that both children 

and their parents receiving Brighter Bites had a significant increase in intake of fruits and vegetables as compared to those who 

did not receive the program. Moreover, Brighter Bites parents reported a twofold increase in cooking at home, using nutrition facts 

labels to make purchasing decisions, eating more meals together as 

a family, and having more fruits and vegetables available at home 

during meals, as compared to those who did not receive the program. 

So you might wonder how we have grown such a transformative 

program so quickly and so effectively. Brighter Bites is leveraging 

the support of corporations like H–E–B, Sysco Foods, and the 

Produce Marketing Association. Sysco is collecting produce that 

would otherwise be discarded, directly from farmers across the 

country, and then sending it to local food banks who are aggregating the food from Sysco and other sources and distributing it to 

our Brighter Bites locations. Brighter Bites also has a partnership 

with Feeding Texas to develop a statewide model for nutrition eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00226 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
767

1Ogden C.L., Carroll M.D., Kit B.K., Flegal K.M. Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity 

in the United States, 2011–2012. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION 2014; 

311(8): 806–814. 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT. 

Vital Signs: Fruit and Vegetable Intake Among Children—United States, 2003–2010, 2014; 

63(31); 671–676. 3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables,

2013. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/downloads/state-indicator-report-fruits-vegetables-2013.pdf. 

cation, and with the UT School of Public Health on developing the 

education and research framework for the program. These collaborations allow us to conquer the last mile of delivering the produce 

directly to our families, while teaching them how to use it. We plan 

to continue to use SNAP-Ed funding, couple it with corporate and 

private sponsors and expertise to expand Brighter Bites programming and research. We have the ability to spread Brighter Bites 

throughout the country to build demand for fresh produce, empower people to achieve a better health, and tackle food waste all 

at the same time. Our metrics show that this approach can work. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sharma follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHREELA V. SHARMA, PH.D., R.D., L.D., ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR, DIVISION OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, HUMAN GENETICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL

SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS; CO-FOUNDER, BRIGHTER BITES, HOUSTON, TX 

Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, Members of the Committee, good 

morning. And thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing on SNAPEd. My name is Dr. Shreela Sharma. I am a Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Texas School of Public Health, and the Co-Founder of Brighter Bites nonprofit organization and I have spent the last 10 years contributing to childhood obesity prevention and control program efforts in Texas. 

Over the past 30 years, obesity in children has doubled in the United States with 

34% of 6 to 11 year olds being overweight or obese, and quadrupled among adolescents.1 Most children in the United States do not meet the recommended intakes 

of healthy foods including fruits and vegetables, putting them at risk for chronic diseases including obesity in childhood and adulthood. Recent reports from the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) using data from 2003–2010, indicate a 

12% per year increase in intake of fruit among children ages 6 to 11 years, and 

among those from low-income families; however, there were no increases in intake 

of vegetables or whole grain foods.2 About 60% of children consume fewer fruits 

than recommended, and 93% of children consume fewer vegetables than recommended. In Texas, child consumption rates of fruits and vegetables is among the 

lowest as compared to other states with over 50% of the children consuming fruits 

and vegetables less than once per day.3

In 2012 I was approached by Lisa Helfman, a mom and an attorney, who had an 

idea to help solve the lack of access to fresh produce that exists in under-served 

neighborhoods, where childhood obesity rates are high and health problems are an 

epidemic. Back in 2011, Lisa was participating in a produce co-op where she received a box of fruits and vegetables every week, and over time she watched her 

children’s eating habits change as a result of this consistent access to fresh produce. 

She described this moment when she was with her 5 year old son at a birthday 

party and he called her over to ask if he had to eat the cake. He said it was too 

sweet and he would rather have fruit instead. At that moment, she thought she may 

be on to something and wondered if she could replicate the same behavior change 

that she saw in her young son in under-served neighborhoods. And today, 5 years 

later, I am here to tell you that you can and we did. 

Together we built a program called Brighter Bites with the purpose of providing 

fresh fruits and vegetables combined with hands-on nutrition education in schools 

and to families in under-served neighborhoods and food desert areas. Our formula 

is simple. Produce Distribution (50–60 servings per family per week) + Nutrition 

Education in school and for parents + Fun Food Experience consisting of a healthy 

recipe tasting, all done on a consistent basis for 16 weeks during the school year 

768

4Sharma S.V., Markham C., Helfman, L., Albus K., Pomeroy M., Chuang R.J. Feasibility and 

acceptability of Brighter Bites: A food co-op in schools to increase access, continuity and education of fruits and vegetables among low-income populations. JOURNAL OF PRIMARY PREVENTION. 2015, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp. 281–286. 5Sharma S.V., Markham C., Chow J., Ranjit N., Pomeroy M., Raber M. Evaluating a schoolbased fruit and vegetable co-op in low-income children: a quasi-experimental study. Under review. 

and 8 weeks during the summer. The program uses a food co-op model to engage 

parents and families where they participate in the bagging and distribution of the 

produce at the schools. 

In 2012, we implemented the formula with 150 kids at one Knowledge is Power 

Program (KIPP) charter elementary school in Houston, Texas that was 93% low-income. We distributed 50 servings (∼30 lbs) of 8–12 different produce items a week, 

trained the school to teach CATCH, a Texas Education Agency-approved evidencebased coordinated school health program, in the classroom and provided corresponding nutrition education and recipes to parents.4 When the parents came to 

pick up their children from school, each family received two bags of beautiful, fresh 

produce at no cost and a fun food experience—they tasted a sample of the recipe 

of the week made from a hard-to-use item in the bag. Parents tried kale smoothies 

with their child and received the recipe and the ingredients to make it at home! Parents also received two nutrition handbooks consisting of information on food preparation, food storage, how to use nutrition facts labels to make food purchases, 

MyPlate, easy menu planning and recipe ideas, and other tips and tools on how to 

enhance the home nutrition environment. Children who had never eaten an orange 

were now chasing us for kale smoothies! And parents were volunteering at our coops and engaging in our communities of health. 

Thanks to the funding of the USDA SNAP-Ed program, as of 2016, we have expanded this same formula in Houston, Dallas and Austin and distributed more than 

8 million pounds of produce to over 20,000 low-income children and their families 

across more than 90 schools, Head Starts, YMCAs and community centers in these 

three cities. 

Brighter Bites is giving parents living on a limited income, who have traditionally 

been afraid of buying fruits and vegetables because they either don’t know how to 

prepare it or can’t manage the financial risk that their children won’t eat it, a ‘‘risk 

free trial’’ to practice cooking and eating healthy foods with their children. And our 

research shows that these trials are creating lasting behavior change. 

As a behavioral epidemiologist and registered dietitian, I have focused on building 

a strong research and data infrastructure for Brighter Bites. We have collected data 

consistently for the last 4 years on program effectiveness, dosage, reach and fidelity 

on all our families. Data collection happens several ways. Each week Brighter Bites 

coordinators complete surveys to provide data on produce distribution (what was 

distributed and how much), and education implementation at each site. Attendance 

rosters provide data on weekly produce pick up by each family; parents complete 

surveys two times a year on acceptability, usage and effectiveness of Brighter Bites 

program components; and cost of providing produce per family per week is obtained 

from the food banks who aggregate and deliver the produce to the Brighter Bites 

sites. We have a centralized database that aggregates data from all three cities 

(Houston, Dallas, and Austin) on an ongoing basis. Qualitative and quantitative 

data in the form of focus groups with the parents and systems-level surveys with 

the food banks, and schools further informs program development and evaluation. 

These data points have not only informed our program, but also helped further 

the scientific dialogue to understand how our children and families eat. Our results 

are compelling. We know that 98% of the families participating in Brighter Bites 

are eating more produce during the program, and what’s more compelling is that 

74% are maintaining the same levels by buying it on their own even after the 

Brighter Bites season ends. Also, 93% of the families reported that they ate all or 

more of the vegetables, and 96% said they ate all or most of the fruit that was provided to them through Brighter Bites. Brighter Bites families also reported saving 

on average $34.40 on their weekly grocery bill while in the program. And, parent 

engagement is high with between four to ten parents volunteering each week in the 

Brighter Bites co-ops at schools to assist with the bagging and distribution of the 

produce. 

Recently we completed a 2 year rigorous study among 760 first grade children and 

their parents in 2013–2015.5 At baseline, 42% of the first grade children ages 5 to 

7 in our study were overweight or obese, which is higher than the national average 

for this age, and they were consuming only one serving of fruit and 0.5 servings of 

vegetables per day. Results of our study showed that both, children and their parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
769

ents receiving Brighter Bites had a significant increase in the intake of fruits and 

vegetables and reported consuming fewer calories from added sugars as compared 

to those who did not receive the program. Moreover, we saw promising improvements in the home environment. Brighter Bites parents reported a two-fold increase 

in cooking at home, using nutrition facts labels to make purchasing decisions, eating 

more meals together as a family, and having more fruits and vegetables available 

at home during meals as compared to those who did not receive the program. 

You might wonder how we have grown such a transformative program so quickly 

and so effectively? 

Brighter Bites is leveraging the support of corporations like H–E–B Grocery Company and Sysco Foods. Sysco, with 9,000 trucks running daily, is collecting produce 

that would otherwise be discarded directly from farmers across the country and then 

sending it to local food banks. We are partnering with the local food banks in Houston, Dallas and Austin who are aggregating the food from Sysco and other sources, 

and then distributing it to our Brighter Bites locations. We are also collaborating 

with the Produce Marketing Association, which is committed to advancing kids’ consumption of fruits and vegetables. Our cooperation with such industry experts aims 

to determine how to tackle food waste by finding more produce that might otherwise 

be tilled under or go uneaten. Brighter Bites also has a partnership with Feeding 

Texas, a statewide association representing 21 Texas food banks, in efforts to develop a statewide model for nutrition education. Finally, Brighter Bites has a strong 

academic partnership with the Michael and Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living 

at the University of Texas School of Public Health, an internationally-recognized 

leading research center in child health, and the CATCH Global Foundation to further the educational, evaluation, metrics and scientific rigor of the program. 

Through these partnerships, we are able to conquer the last mile of delivering the 

produce directly and consistently to our under-served families while teaching them 

how to use it. And, we are creating opportunities for the children to practice these 

healthy behaviors while at school. We are also successfully linking the school and 

the home—the two environments where children spend a majority of their time. 

Thus, we are creating communities of health through fresh food, and we look forward to bringing this impact to more cities across the country. 

In summary we have found the results of our program effectively address multiple 

key concerns related to promoting healthy eating behaviors, and our food chain including:

• educating children and their parents, how to eat healthier, in school and at 

home,

• tracking the impact of the program with regards to health, shopping/eating habits, and parent participation in schools,

• addressing the last mile by actually delivering a substantial amount of fresh, 

healthy food to underprivileged children to take home and practice healthy eating,

• taking advantage of partnering with private corporations and nonprofit food 

banks for distribution, and

• addressing food waste by working with farmers to utilize overgrown crops.

I would like to end with a couple of quotes from our Brighter Bites parents who 

said the following in one of our focus groups:

‘‘Brighter Bites made me cook things I wouldn’t have bought for fear of 

wasting money if my children didn’t like it.’’

‘‘Brighter Bites is a huge support for my budget as it helps me save 

around $140 a month. Although the cost of fruits and vegetables [in grocery 

stores] is high, as a single mother it is hard but I try to maintain a healthy 

diet based on what Brighter Bites has taught me.’’

We plan to continue to use SNAP-Ed funding, couple it with corporate and private 

sponsors with both expertise and dollars, to expand Brighter Bites and our research 

to push the dialogue forward on how to healthfully feed our families. We have the 

ability to spread Brighter Bites throughout the country to build demand for fresh 

produce, empower people to achieve better health and tackle food waste all at the 

same time. Our metrics show that this approach can work. Thank you for the opportunity to present and I look forward to your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Sharma. 

Dr. Rankin. 

770

STATEMENT OF JO BRITT-RANKIN, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DEAN/

PROGRAM DIRECTOR, HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 

EXTENSION, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, COLUMBIA, MO; ON 

BEHALF OF EXTENSION COMMITTEE ON ORGANIZATION 

AND POLICY 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee, it is an honor to be 

invited to be here to share more about SNAP-Ed in land-grant universities. 

I have spent my career at the University of Missouri, and for 18 

years have worked with both SNAP-Ed and EFNEP, and I can tell 

you that there is no better job out there. 

Land-grant institutions have a rich history with SNAP-Ed. Beginning in 1988, the first SNAP-Ed program was delivered by the 

University of Wisconsin Extension. By 1992, seven land-grant institutions via extension delivered SNAP education, and it grew to 

over 49 states and territories by 2002. As many as 55 land-grant 

institutions have provided SNAP-Ed in any given year. That includes both 1890 and 1862 institutions. 

Land-grant universities, via cooperative extension, are uniquely 

positioned to deliver SNAP education. We are primarily an educational serving institution. We have the ability to translate the research that is conducted into educational programs. We conduct 

program evaluation that informs future research. Our annual community needs assessment also reaches out and understands what 

are the needs of the constituencies that we serve. 

Currently, there are over 3,600 faculty and staff members that 

work with extension SNAP-Ed programs nationally. We have 

moved from a paraprofessional model, as Ms. Foerster mentioned, 

in the early years, to more of a professional model. Many of our 

professionals hold Master’s, Bachelor’s, and Ph.D. degrees. They 

are registered or licensed within the nutrition and physical activity 

communities. 

As is the case, our educators are located in communities often 

where they live and work. They understand the needs of the individuals that they serve. They are also there to receive the feedback 

and the evaluation throughout that community. I can tell you that 

our educators across the country receive feedback every day because they are there, seeing where people are purchasing their 

food, where they are eating, where they are participating in physical activity. 

As stated in opening comments, the goal of SNAP-Ed is for participants to make healthy food choices, stretch their food dollars, 

and have active lifestyles. We feel that the impacts that are seen 

in extension SNAP-Ed programs are doing that. We know that we 

see people increasing the variety of fruits and vegetables that they 

consume, increasing the quantities of fruits and vegetables. They 

are increasing their water consumption, decreasing sugar-sweetened beverages, and consuming more low-fat and no-fat dairy products. An example that we saw in Idaho with their Eat Smart Idaho 

Program, there was an over 50 percent increase in both fruit and 

vegetable consumption. In addition, 47 percent of the participants 

increased their physical activity levels. 

771

In 2015, SNAP-Ed began to encourage policy, system, and environmental interventions. These interventions may include, and this 

is a very limited list, edible gardens, farm-to-institution procurement, and smarter lunchroom approaches. We know that all of 

these approaches will increase food access and food security in 

SNAP participants. 

Gardening is probably one of the strategies that is most widely 

utilized. It reinforces direct education that we see in classrooms. 

We know that it improves dietary quality. We see increased food 

access and a reduction in food insecurity among SNAP recipients. 

I believe the strongest piece I would say is SNAP-Ed, we know that 

SNAP recipients are only on SNAP for a limited amount of time. 

We need to make their behavior changes sustainable. 

I would leave you with one we-can-see impact throughout the 

country. We see that we are helping schools make policy changes, 

increasing physical activity, increasing healthier options in the 

schools. My time is limited, but I will leave you with one impact 

that demonstrates the impact that land-grants can have. In Missouri, we had an educator in 2014 that taught a fifth-grade class. 

Eight weeks each time, they received a nutrition lesson, and as 

their physical activity, they jumped rope. One young lady, fifthgrader, overweight, very self-conscious, she excused herself each 

time that it was time to jump rope. At the end, every child, including this young lady, was presented a jump rope. In the fall of 2014 

the educator returned to the same school, and she is walking down 

the hall and a young lady runs up and she goes, Ms. Suzie, do you 

remember me? And she said, Honey, I am sorry, I meet so many. 

Remind me of your name. And she said, I am the girl that can’t 

jump rope. She said, I thought about what you taught me. I started 

drinking more water over the summer instead of soda. I started to 

eat carrot sticks instead of chips, and I taught myself to jump rope. 

I jumped rope every day. I lost 26 pounds. Not everybody loses 26 

pounds, but we are making differences in SNAP-Ed. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Britt-Rankin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JO BRITT-RANKIN, PH.D., ASSOCIATE DEAN/PROGRAM

DIRECTOR, HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES EXTENSION, UNIVERSITY OF

MISSOURI, COLUMBIA, MO; ON BEHALF OF EXTENSION COMMITTEE ON

ORGANIZATION AND POLICY

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee, it is 

an honor to be invited to testify before you today and submit testimony for the 

record on SNAP-Ed. Land-grant universities have a rich history with SNAP Education (SNAP-Ed). Beginning in 1988, SNAP-Ed was first delivered by University 

of Wisconsin Extension. By 1992, seven land-grant universities, via Extension, delivered SNAP-Ed programming and this number grew to 49 states and territories by 

2002. Currently in FY 2016, there are 49 land-grant universities/Cooperative Extension services providing SNAP-Ed, including both 1862 and 1890 institutions. 

With the growth of Extension-lead SNAP-Ed programs, USDA NIFA established 

the SNAP-Ed Program Development Team (PDT) in 2001. This team includes Family and Consumer Science Program Leaders and other university administrators, 

SNAP-Ed Program Coordinators, an office manager, and a NIFA representative who 

are committed to improving the consistency and effectiveness of SNAP-Ed programming through Cooperative Extension in addressing national health and nutrition-related problems facing low-income populations. Each member serves a 2–3 year team. 

I served as a member of the PDT from 2006–2009. 

772

The Land-Grant Mission and SNAP-Ed 

Land-grant universities (LGUs), through Cooperative Extension, are uniquely positioned to serve as SNAP-Ed Implementing Agencies. First and foremost, Extension 

and the land-grant university has a primary educational mission. They are not a 

service provider. University faculty have the ability to translate research into educational programs and conduct program evaluation which informs future research. 

This creates a continuous quality assurance feedback loop. Annual community needs 

assessments also help shape programming that meets the SNAP participant where 

they are most receptive to engage in education. These activities are all part of what 

we call the Land-grant Mission and what Justin Morrill, Hoke Smith and Asbury 

Lever envisioned over 100 years ago. 

Figure 1. Program Development Process

With the passage of the Morrill Act of 1862 and 1890, land-grant universities 

were established in each state to provide greater access to higher education to the 

citizens with two primary missions—Research and Teaching. With the passage of 

the 1914 Smith-Lever Act, these institutions created a third mission, what is known 

as Extension. The Extension mission was designed to translate the university-generated research and teaching beyond the campus to farms and consumers. Extension 

was to be a cooperative activity between the Federal Government (USDA), the 

states (via land-grant institutions) and county governments.1

The Ohio State University (OSU) SNAP-Ed, in collaboration with Case Western 

Reserve University (CWRU) and Ohio Department of Health’s Creating Healthy 

Communities Initiative, is currently demonstrating how land-grant universities can 

conduct research and translate it into educational interventions. This OSU-lead collaborative is working together to develop a tool that will help front line staff to determine what Policy, Systems, Environments (PSE) intervention a group or community is willing to undertake and be successful. The tool will take the interested 

group through an online questionnaire and depending on the question responses will 

determine the most reasonable intervention and provide online resources to guide 

implementation. OSU faculty recruited SNAP-Ed participants and SNAP-Ed staff 

for the core formative evaluation and have been engaged in the ongoing development of the tool. They also assisted with further refinement by engaging practitioners in farm to school, early child care, farmers markets and healthy corner 

stores. Given the statewide reach of OSU Extension, they were able to provide populations from a variety of environments rural, urban, and suburban. CWRU is providing their expertise in data analysis and tool construction. The tool questionnaire 

is now in the preliminary phases of testing and the website is being developed. 

The Extension mission continues today being delivered across each state by a network of faculty, ensuring educational opportunities from the urban core to the most 

rural locations. These faculty are often referred to as agents, educators or specialists. In 2016, the PDT conducted a survey 2 of land-grant university SNAP-Ed faculty to determine what the qualifications and education those who provide SNAPEd programming have. Based on the results of 43 institutions reporting, a total of 

3,620 persons (2,269 FTE) work with SNAP-Ed. Although some individuals held 

multiple degrees, SNAP-Ed faculty and staff hold 754 bachelor degrees, 450 master’s degrees and 54 Ph.D.s in the areas of nutrition, health, physical activity and 

education. Two hundred thirty-four (234) held degrees in other fields. In addition, 

these individuals hold the following registrations or licensures: 209 registered and/

or licensed dietitians, 85 state licensed nutritionists, four state licensed in physical 

activity and 32 other certifications. These individual roles are paraprofessional program delivery (54%); professional faculty/staff program delivery (30%); administration and budget (7%); program leadership (6%) and curriculum and support staff 

(3%).3

These educators deliver research- and evidence-based educational programs 

through both face-to-face and on-line delivery methods. They provide technical assistance to producers, consumers, communities and businesses. Extension faculty 

also work closely with local, regional and state service agencies and institutions to 

provide referrals, develop community plans, and to provide education to their clients. By doing so, Extension faculty are able to meet the needs of participants 

where they live, work, learn, play and pray. 


11403131.eps
773

University of Georgia Extension has developed ‘‘Food eTalk’’, an online eLearning 

nutrition education program designed to provide cost-effective and efficient nutrition 

education for low-income populations by capitalizing on trends in Internet access 

and use as well as mitigating barriers to attending traditional face-to-face classes. 

‘‘Food eTalk’’ is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. It is mobile friendly and designed to be taken at the user’s pace and lessons do not have to be taken 

in a specific sequence. An extensive multi-year evaluation is underway currently, 

but clearly demonstrates how the Georgia Extension is meeting SNAP participants 

where they live and learn.2

University of Alabama Extension combined research and Extension efforts in the 

program development process when they developed and continue to evaluate their 

‘‘Body Quest’’ program. Alabama Cooperative Extension first implemented the child 

obesity prevention program ‘‘Body Quest’’ in 1999, and since then program has become a 15 week, multi-level program aimed at reducing childhood obesity in thirdgraders through multiple delivery methods. In FY2015, the program was implemented to both a treatment and control group of students and their parents, which 

included social marketing, community coalitions, and parent and child engagement, 

among other things. The curriculum included materials and iPad applications with 

[anime]-style cartoon characters representing different healthy habits to help make 

the curriculum relatable to the children. By the end of the 15 week period, treatment students reported eating more fruits and vegetables offered through the School 

Lunch Program compared to the control group. Parents of the treatment group children were given easy to make and inexpensive recipes that incorporated more vegetables, and were given other information and tips through a texting initiative. A 

post-survey texting poll found that 100% of the parents who received the texts enjoyed them, and as a result treatment group parents found that their third-graders 

ate an increased amount of vegetables per day compared to the control group.3

Focused on Positive Behavior Change 

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that more than 1⁄3 (34.9% or 

78.6 million) of U.S. adults are obese and 17% (12.7 million) of U.S. children 

and adolescents (ages 2 to 19) suffer from obesity.4

Data indicates that low-income individuals are more likely to be overweight and/

or obese. Programs such as SNAP-Ed are critical to addressing the current obesity 

epidemic within the United States and trying to prevent these numbers from increasing with future generations. 

The goal of SNAP-Ed is to improve the likelihood that persons eligible for SNAP 

will make healthy choices within a limited budget and choose active lifestyles consistent with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans and MyPlate.5

While not the only SNAP-Ed implementers, LGUs have deep educational roots in 

communities across the United States. This infrastructure, coupled with the landgrant mission of providing practical, hands-on education, has provided an ideal 

partnership between SNAP and LGU’s.6 Research has shown that exposing children 

to hands-on activities with unfamiliar fruits and vegetables can increase a child’s 

willingness to taste these foods.7–8 By understanding the research and educational 

delivery methods, Extension SNAP-Ed programs can focus their efforts on positive 

behavior change. 

Nationally, youth under the age of 18 is the greatest segment of the population 

to participate in SNAP-Ed programs. By targeting a youth audience allows SNAPEd influences behavior change earlier in life, promotes lifelong healthy habits, and 

helps to influence behavior of peers and family members. By adopting healthy eating and physical activity behaviors earlier in life, there is a greater likelihood of reducing risk of nutrition-related diseases and minimizing future healthcare costs.

Table 1. Age of Participants 

FY15 SNAP-Ed 2 FY14 SNAP9

Under 5 Years 7% 13.9%

5–17 Years 67% 30.3%

18–59 Years 19% 45.6%

60 Years & Older 7% 10.1%

Extension SNAP-Ed programs are committed to providing education to a diverse 

audience. That audience reflects the SNAP participation within each community, 

state and the nation. Table 2 demonstrates how LGU SNAP-Ed programs serve racially and ethnically diverse audiences throughout the country.

774

Table 2. Race and Ethnic Diversity (46 States Reporting) 2

SNAP-Ed

Participants U.S. Population 

Race (2,398,271 reporting)

American Indian or Alaska Native 2.2% 1.0%

Asian 2.0% 4.8%

African American 19.8% 12.6%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.5% 0.2%

White 69.8% 72.4%

Other 4.7% 9.1%

Unknown 0.9%

Ethnicity (2,386,463 reporting)

Hispanic 17.5% 16.3%

Non-Hispanic 81.4% 83.7%

Other 1.1%

Offering a Complement of Nutrition & Physical Activity Programs 

Land-grant universities offer a complement of nutrition education programs. It is 

important to understand that, although an entity may deliver multiple programs via 

multiple funding sources, these programs are complementary and not duplicative. In 

addition, program funding mechanisms often vary. 

For example, SNAP-Ed funds are distributed to state SNAP agencies. The state 

agency may retain a part or all of the funding. They may also choose to grant funding to one or more implementing agencies. States may elect to accept a multi-year 

scope of work but often approve only single year plans. Budgets are only allowed 

to be for a single year funding period with the ability to utilize the funding for a 

period of up to 24 months. When plans are for only a single year, program continuity and long-term evaluation becomes more difficult. Annual funding proposals 

can also lead to greater turnover or change in the type and number of implementing 

agencies within states. 

In addition to SNAP-Ed, LGUs receive Expanded Food and Nutrition Education 

Program (EFNEP) funding through USDA NIFA. These Smith-Lever [(3)(d)] funds 

are distributed as capacity funding. EFNEP began in 1968 and is conducted by all 

Cooperative Extension Services. EFNEP provides education utilizing a paraprofessional model in many states. EFNEP is grounded in direct education. On average 

a participant receives an average of 9 hours of instruction over 6–18 months utilizing evidence-based curricula. They must complete a series of standardized evaluation and dietary recalls prior to program graduation. EFNEP is designed to reach 

families with children in the home and low-income youth. 

Extension faculty also utilize local, state, regional and national funding from Federal, state, foundation and private sources to fund nutrition education opportunities. 

Each funding source can be used to complement and expand the body of knowledge 

and scope of an intervention. For example, University of Missouri SNAP-Ed conducts a social marketing campaign entitled ‘‘Live Like Your Life Depends on It.’’ 

This campaign is targeted to adults’ 35 years and older promoting healthy dietary 

and physical activity behaviors. This campaign utilizes billboards, radio and print 

media as well as posters and flyers to promote these messages. SNAP-Ed funding 

can only be utilized within geographic areas where 50% or greater of the population 

is at or below 185% of poverty. By leveraging their partnership with the Missouri 

Council on Activity & Nutrition (MOCAN) and its partner agencies, the message can 

be further replicated throughout the state in geographic areas where SNAP-Ed cannot fund this effort. 

Improving SNAP Participants Lives and their Food Environments 

Food insecurity affects 14.9% of American households, and rates are approaching 

25% among black and Hispanic households. Nutritionally poor foods are often less 

expensive than healthful foods, and food insecurity is associated with poor diet quality and diet-sensitive diseases, including diabetes, hypertension, and 

hyperlipidemia. Food insecurity has also been associated with other behavioral factors related to chronic disease self-management and poor disease control.10

SNAP-Ed is the educational component of SNAP. SNAP is the nation’s first line 

of defense against hunger and a powerful tool to improve nutrition among low-income people.4 SNAP-Ed is designed to provide nutrition and physical activity education to SNAP recipients of all ages. While not having a specific food security goal 

or focus, SNAP-Ed supports SNAP’s role in addressing food security.4 SNAP-Ed is 

775

grounded in the Social Ecological Model (Figure 2) 11–13 which demonstrates that 

education and interventions must occur at the individual, policy, system and environmental level of a community. SNAP-Ed must now be delivered as a combination 

of direct education and either multi-level interventions and/or public health approaches. All curricula and interventions must be evidence-based, meaning they 

must be tested for validity and reliability. Simply put, SNAP-Ed is changing participants’ health, lives, and their food environments.

[Figure 2.] A Social Ecological Framework for Nutrition and Physical Activity Decisions

Extension SNAP-Ed programs would all agree that they strive to do the following:

• Improve diet quality.

• Increase physical activity.

• Stretch food dollars. (avoid running out of money before the month ends).

• Increase healthy food access.

‘‘Better Living for Texans’’ (BLT) demonstrates how one evidence-based program 

may have several of these goals within itself. BLT is a statewide program serving 

217 of 254 counties in Texas, and is aimed at helping educate how to eat healthier 

while saving money on their grocery bills. BLT offers educational classes, newsletters and other services with a goal of providing up-to-date nutritional advice to 

SNAP recipients so that these consumers will be able to make healthier food 

choices. The program has documented positive behavioral changes in its participants 

in many areas, including the ability to prepare nutritious family meals; improved 

food shopping skills; the ability to manage their food budget; increased physical activity levels and improved safe food handling practices. 

Regardless of the state or the community, Extension faculty are working to meet 

the needs of SNAP-Ed participants where they live, work, learn, play and pray. 

Table 3 provides just a few of the sites where Extension SNAP-Ed programs are 

being delivered.

Table 3. Delivery Sites Examples (not an exhaustive list) 

Direct Education Policy, Systems, Environments (PSE) 

Community Centers Farmers’ Markets 

Emergency Food Assistance Sites School & Community Gardens 

Churches Retailers 

Healthcare Local Government Entities 

Libraries Food Producers 

Retailers Community Agencies 

SNAP Offices Healthcare 

Worksites Childcare Providers 

Youth Program sites Community Design Agencies 


11403132.eps
776

Finally, I would like to leave you with a few examples of how SNAP-Ed delivered 

by a land-grant universities can make an impact on a local community as well as 

individual SNAP recipients. 

The presence of SNAP-Ed in the Tracy, MN classrooms has led to a strategic partnership with others in the school district, such as school food service as well as the 

FFA chapter’s community garden. Because the school district procures food directly 

from local producers, the SNAP-Ed educator was able to work with the school food 

service director to promote locally grown menu items to the students. Through a 

USDA grant that Tracy Schools received, they were able to install a walk-in freezer 

and cooler which allowed the district to purchase greater quantities of produce and 

created new markets for producers. In 2012, University of Minnesota SNAP-Ed evaluated these efforts impact on increasing fruit and vegetable consumption. Their results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Tracy MN SNAP-Ed Fruit and Vegetable Intake Data 

Increased Fruit Consumption Increased Vegetable

Consumption 

Grade 3 68% 46%

Grade 4 57% 29%

Grade 5 51% 33%

Grade 6 64% 41%

In Lyon County, Kansas, the SNAP-Ed nutrition educator expanded the regularly 

offered nutrition classes by working with the local grocer to provide in-store healthy 

food demonstrations that correspond with the store’s weekly sales circular. For 

many years, the store manager has provided discounts on purchases made for 

SNAP-Ed food demonstrations for nutrition classes. Now, the educator has been invited to conduct in-store demonstrations with an emphasis on proteins, fruit and 

vegetables. With the assistance of Kansas State University graphic artists, recipe 

card, menu and full sheet recipe templates have been created. These items can be 

localized to promote store-specific information. The grocer displays recipe cards with 

the sale items. The local school district also promote these recipes on its parent 

webpage. This community-wide support has resulted in (1) increased sales of featured items; (2) customers reporting replicating the recipes at home; (3) grocery staff 

also report making the recipes at home; and one person who indicated they were 

able to ‘‘cook something for dinner that wasn’t frozen.’’ The store manager summarized the project success ‘‘I am very happy with the (SNAP-Ed) partnership to provide informational resources for our community, in trying to make it a better place 

to live, work and raise a family.’’ 14

In Missouri, MU Extension faculty developed a number of programs for direct 

education as well as Policy, Systems and Environment (PSE) interventions.

‘‘Show Me Nutrition’’ (SMN) is a comprehensive curriculum that teaches youth 

from preschool to junior high how to adopt a healthy lifestyle and make positive behavior changes. The curriculum supports both Missouri and national health education standards. Several important themes are taught at each grade level, such as 

nutrition, food safety, physical activity, media influence and body image. Each grade 

level is designed to be taught alone or promotes continuity for children as they are 

promoted through school. Age-appropriate content, activities and handouts make 

learning about healthy eating fun for students of all ages. The pre-school through 

fifth grade curricula include family newsletters that help engage family members 

and caregivers in supporting their child’s education as well as replicating the recipes 

and physical activities at home. Each curriculum also includes handouts to reinforce 

each lesson.15 ‘‘Show Me Nutrition’’ has been sold into 47 states and three foreign 

countries. As of FY2015, over 19% of Extension SNAP-Ed programs incorporated 

SMN into their program. Additional non-Extension SNAP-Ed Implementing Agencies also utilize the SMN curricula. 

‘‘Eating from the Garden’’ (EFG) is an MU-developed curriculum that combines 

direct education with PSE strategies. EFG provides research-based information to 

high needs youth in schools and community programs. Through nutrition education 

and gardening activities, EFG’s goal is to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables as well as increasing local access to fresh produce. Each school or community 

program that participates is actively involved in the preparation and maintenance 

of the garden site. The local program also determines how the produce, in excess 

of food tastings, is utilized—sent home with participants, donated to emergency food 

sites, used to augment their food service program, or as part of a local farmer’s market. One school worked with their nutrition educator to be referred back to the state 

SNAP agency to determine how they could accept EBT/SNAP benefits if they utiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
777

lized the produce grown in a school-based [farmers’] market. The market would be 

held once a week during after-school pick-up so parents could select fresh produce 

to incorporate into their family’s meal. Given a poor spring 2016 growing season, 

they were not able to provide adequate produce for their school families, so they invited local producers to join their market. This was the only market available to a 

community where over 60% of the school children are eligible for free-/reduced-lunch 

and SNAP recipients. At a separate school, one family, whose child participated in 

EFG, replicated the garden effort in their own home. This family reported being 

able to provide adequate produce for their family for over 3 months in 2015, thus, 

stretching their limited food dollars and reducing their reliance upon SNAP benefits.

‘‘Eat Smart in Parks’’ and ‘‘Shop Healthy, Stock Healthy’’ are two more recent 

interventions developed to address the policy, system and environmental change 

component of SNAP-Ed and to improve the overall food environment of the SNAP 

audience. 

‘‘Eat Smart in Parks’’ (ESIP) was developed by a statewide collaboration, including University of Missouri Extension, Missouri Parks and Recreation Association 

(MPRA), and the Missouri Council for Activity & Nutrition (MOCAN) as well as MU 

Parks, Recreation and Tourism faculty and the MU School of Journalism’s Health 

Communication Research Center. The goal of ESIP is to promote healthy eating options in Missouri state and local parks. Although parks are a valuable resource for 

children and adults to maintain and improve their health through exercise and 

recreation, the high-calorie, salty foods served at some parks can quickly negate the 

benefits of being outside and moving more. Parks who participate in the ESIP program receive customer research, menu analysis, taste tests, healthy product identification and sourcing assistance, marketing materials and healthy food incentive 

ideas. In Fountain Bluff, MO, park customers surveyed indicated they wanted 

healthier options. This research inspired the park manager to partner with a local 

grocery to buy fresh fruit and vegetables packaged in small, snack-sized servings. 

The grocer packages the produce which reduces labor and ensures a fresh, quality 

product. The park manager also decided to keep the price point lower and have a 

smaller profit margin on the healthy items to increase sales.16

‘‘Stock Healthy, Shop Healthy’’ is a comprehensive, community-based program 

that allows communities to improve access to healthy, affordable foods by working 

with small food retailers. Millions of Americans, many whom are SNAP recipients, 

have limited access to a supermarket, which means they rely on fast food restaurants, gas stations and corner stores to feed themselves and their families. This 

often reduces their ability to buy healthy foods and can increase their risk for overweight and obesity. ‘‘Stock Healthy, Shop Healthy’’ provides guidance to a community to increase healthy food access by engaging small food retailers and community 

members, therefore, addressing supply and demand at the same time.17

Let me close by again thanking Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, 

and all of the Committee Members. It has been an honor to be able to share just 

a small portion of the impacts made by Cooperative Extension and the land-grant 

university system through SNAP-Ed. 

[Endnotes] 1 Colleges of Agriculture at Land-grant Universities. Chapter 2. History and Overview of the Land-grant System. http://www.nap.edu/read/4980/chapter/2. 

Accessed on 6/15/16. 2Qualifications of Land-Grant University Staff Delivering SNAP-Ed. Land-Grant 

Program Development Team. June 15, 2016. Unpublished data. 3FY 2015 Land-grant University SNAP-Ed data accessed from SNAP-Ed Program 

Development Team. 6/15/16. 4http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/index.html. 5http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-education-snap-ed. 6 Julie S. Sexton. ‘‘Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education 

Through the Land-Grant University System for FY 2010: A Retrospective Review.’’ 

Published January 2013. Funded by Cooperative Extension Service Directors/Administrators through National Land-Grant University SNAP-Ed Assessment. 7Dazeley P., Houston-Price C. Exposure to foods’ non-taste sensory properties. A 

nursery intervention to increase children’s willingness to try fruit and vegetables.

Doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.040. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01956

6314004486. 8Dazaley P., Houston-Price C., Hill C. Should healthy eating programmes incorporate interaction with foods in different sensory modalities? A review of the evidence. THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION 108(5): 769–77. 2012. 

778

9Distribution of SNAP/FSP participation by age and year. USDA Economic Research Service http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-(snap)/charts/snap-participants-by-age.aspx. 

Accessed 6/15/2015. 10Grilo S.A., Shallcross A.J., Ogedegbe G., Odedosu T., Levy N., Lehrer S., et al. 

Food Insecurity and Effectiveness of Behavioral Interventions to Reduce Blood Pressure, New York City, 2012–2013. PREV. CHRONIC DIS. 2015; 12:140368. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd12.140368. 11What is the Social Ecological Model (SEM), Communication for Development 

(C4D)? www.unicef.org/cbsc/files/Module_1_SEM-C4D.docx. Accessed 6/16/16. 12System, Environmental, and Policy Changes: Using the Social-Ecological Model 

as a Framework for Evaluating Nutrition Education and Social Marketing Programs 

with Low-Income Audiences. JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION. 2001. Vol. 33(1): 

S4–S15 13Social Ecological Model. SNAP-Ed Plan Guidance. https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/

national-snap-ed/snap-ed-plan-guidance-and-templates. Accessed 6/20/2016. 14Lyon County Grocery Success. Kansas State University. Information submitted 

by Paula Peters. Received 6/17/16. 15Show Me Nutrition. University of Missouri. http://extension.missouri.edu/p/

SMN100. Accessed 6/15/16. 16 Eat Smart in Parks. University of Missouri. http://extension.missouri.edu/

mocan/eatsmartinparks/. Accessed 6/15/16. 17Shop Healthy, Stock Healthy. University of Missouri. http://extension.missouri.edu/stockhealthy/. Accessed 6/15/16.

The CHAIRMAN. The doctor’s time has expired. 

Well, thank you, all four of you, for terrifically inspiring testimony. 

The chair would remind Members that they will be recognized for 

questioning in order of seniority for Members who were here at the 

start of the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in 

order of arrival. And I appreciate Members’ understanding. 

I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Dr. Sharma, the Brighter Bites has an extensive network of private-sector businesses, as you mentioned, H–E–B and Sysco, as 

well as nonprofits. How do you sell them on your idea and get them 

to support your overall mission, and can you tell us how integral 

they are to the success of what you have done so far? 

Dr. SHARMA. Thank you for this important question. The key is 

alignment of mission and alignment of expertise. H–E–B and Sysco 

Foods have been our strong partners, and one example that H–E–

B is that community engagement is not just something that they 

do, but it is at the foundation of how the company works. And for 

Sysco Foods, Rich Dachman, who is the Vice President for Produce 

for Sysco Foods, is on the board of Brighter Bites, and the mission 

for Sysco Foods is how to healthfully feed our families. And so 

there is alignment of mission and that is critical when you are 

looking for this for-profit-nonprofit partnership. And alignment of 

expertise. We have leverages on the Sysco Foods ability of having 

9,000 trucks that run daily around the country, and they have relationships with the farmers so they can then directly aggregate the 

excess produce and bring it in to the food banks, who can then 

bring the produce to our Brighter Bites locations. 

The CHAIRMAN. There are a lot of things going on in Texas. Feeding Texas, the A&M Extension Service, represented by Dr. BrittRankin, all of them get SNAP-Ed grants. How do you coordinate 

with them so you are not overlapping and serving the same populations? 

779

Dr. SHARMA. Thank you again. It is a very important question. 

We do not want to duplicate efforts. We do not want to reinvent 

the wheel. And we have leveraged on the infrastructure of a lot of 

our partners, like local food banks who we work with in produce 

procurement, inventory and delivery. We also work with Feeding 

Texas that actually oversees the 21 food banks in the State of 

Texas. And we are working with them closely, and Feeding Texas, 

as you know, receives funding from the USDA, on developing a 

statewide model for nutrition education. For Texas Agriculture Extension services at A&M: first, we are working with them very 

closely too, they have been funded for school gardens, where you 

are creating the seed-to-plate nutrition education, material and information for the children, and with Brighter Bites they get to try 

the produce at home. We are linking the school and the home, and 

we are doing it by really leveraging the expertise of our partners 

and not duplicating the efforts. 

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned as part of your bio that you have 

some expertise in measurements and we are all interested in success, reducing the obesity rates and lowering the rates of chronic 

illnesses. Talk to us a little bit about how you see your role in evaluating Brighter Bites, walk us through what you evaluate and how 

you define success. 

Dr. SHARMA. Thank you for the opportunity to answer that question. We have seen very compelling results with Brighter Bites. We 

have tracked our families for the last 4 years. We collect data on 

all our families and the schools that——

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have health data on the individuals or 

weight data? 

Dr. SHARMA. We have weight. We track children’s weight. We 

have the weight of the children, so we track that. And our rates 

of obesity in the children that are in our population are higher 

than the national average. It is 42 percent of our children are overweight or obese. And we are going back, this year we are going 

back and seeing if the children who were in the Brighter Bites programs, what does their weight gain trajectory look like for 2 years 

that they have now been in the program. So we are tracking health 

metrics. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are saying there was a 42 percent obesity 

rate at the beginning of your program, and they were——

Dr. SHARMA. First-grade children. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Dr. SHARMA. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead. 

Dr. SHARMA. Yes, first-graders. And we are doing a project with 

Texas Children’s Hospital where we are actually looking at stool 

samples of children who are receiving Brighter Bites, because if 

you have a healthy gut, bacteria, that is sort of the window into 

your health. And so we are looking at stool samples of children who 

are receiving fruits and vegetables to see how that impacts the gut 

bacteria as well. Which is another really important health marker 

as well. So we are tracking metrics both at the behavioral as well 

as the health level. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you very much. Again, I appreciate 

all four of you being here this morning. 

780

The Ranking Member, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Britt-Rankin, the 

University of Minnesota Extension has a SNAP education program 

in Staples, which I mentioned earlier, is partly in my district and 

partly in Mr. Nolan’s district. This program called Choose Health 

not only provides qualified families with fresh produce, through a 

CSA community board agriculture share, but also offers classes on 

some ways to cook the fruits and vegetables that they are given. 

My question is, what is the more important and effective piece 

of this model? Is it the availability of the food, or is it learning how 

to cook it? 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. I would say it is a combination. I think you 

have the skills. You may know of our——

The CHAIRMAN. You need to turn your microphone on please. 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. My apologies. I would say it is a combination. 

We know that many of our young people today are almost two generations from having cooking skills. And so we have to know how 

to prepare the food, but we have to have access as well. We know 

that nutrition education, if we have lessons that are encouraging 

people to increase their fruits and vegetables, if there are none 

available in their local community, they can’t put that to use. So 

they need the hands-on, we know there is research to show that 

hands-on opportunities to prepare the foods we are talking about, 

increase the likelihood that they are going to keep those in their 

diet and prepare those long-term. But we do have to have the access. So it is really a combination. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. Ms. Foerster, I recently read a history of SNAP and am fascinated by the evolution of the program, 

from the old days of coupons and surpluses to the program that we 

oversee today. And in some ways, the topic that we are here to discuss, SNAP education, mirrors one of the major challenges that the 

Committee faces in setting policy for farmers. And that challenge 

is that the majority of the people in this country are detached from 

agriculture. Knowledge about agriculture and our food supply used 

to be common information, as was knowledge about nutrition and 

cooking. And, you used to have home economics in school. But I 

don’t want to date myself too much. 

Why is it that so many of our citizens are not able to do a good 

job of food preparation, and how do we solve this problem? SNAP 

education has a large role to play, but what other things can we 

be doing to help re-educate the American public on how to cook instead of going to the fast-food place? 

Ms. FOERSTER. Thank you very much for the question. In terms 

of being an historian, what we see now with SNAP-Ed is that it 

has evolved from boots-on-the-ground understanding, what it is 

that people want. What we see in low-income communities is acute 

concern about overweight in children, about high rates of diabetes 

and hypertension, early heart attacks, and that sort of thing, 

which, when people learn that these are rooted in poor dietary 

practices and physical inactivity, they get very much interested in 

how they can be doing better, and they start looking at the food 

supply. And so we see a resurgence really of farm-to-fork, farm to 

local agriculture, farmers coming into schools, chefs being interVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
781

ested in local produce, these kinds of things that can really get people engaged in where their food comes from. 

With SNAP-Ed, we are trying to go upstream. Part of what happens after nutrition education is done is that people do get interested in their food supply, how to cook, culinary careers that people 

can get into, high school or chefs and so forth, moms, even just becoming interested in the heritage of the food that maybe their culture had been interested in, and being concerned about what food 

is offered in the stores where they shop. It is evolving naturally 

that low-income people as well as others are watching where the 

food comes from, they are interested in gardens, community gardens, they are interested in selling the produce that they might be 

able to grow there. There is a lot of opportunity that we have with 

the connection between SNAP, SNAP-Ed and agriculture being 

very strong. Food policy councils, for example, are a growing institution that looks at entire food systems, it could be a rural area 

or an urban area. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Gibbs, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. 

I have a couple of questions. The first thing I want to try to talk 

about, I guess to Dr. Rankin. The SNAP-Ed and the EFNEP have 

similar goals but they are separate programs, and funded separately. Can you bullet point differences of the two programs, and 

if a SNAP recipient participated in both programs, would they be 

getting different information from the programs? 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. Thank you for the question. 

Mr. GIBBS. Microphone. 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. Thank you for the question. To compare and 

contrast first. EFNEP, as you said, it is capacity funding directly 

to land-grant institutions from USDA and NIFA. SNAP-Ed is a 

grant program that goes to the state SNAP agencies. EFNEP targets families with children in the home and youth groups, where 

SNAP-Ed is all SNAP recipients. 

Program delivery for EFNEP is grounded in long-term, deep, rich 

nutrition education. For adults, there is an enrollment process, a 

graduation process, looking very much at dietary intake with food 

recalls——

Mr. GIBBS. So we are really talking behavioral changes eating 

and——

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. It does change. SNAP-Ed uses multiple methods. They may use single session, multi-session, as Dr. Sharma 

says, up to 16 weeks. So it can go—we are in the school district—

in schools maybe year-round. However, we have the additional, the 

policies, the systems, the environments, as we have talked about, 

the gardens, the farm-to-fork those are complementary and look at 

the community system that we may not do as much of EFNEP. I 

would say that basic nutrition, food preparation, safe food handling 

doesn’t change depending on the funding source. However, SNAPEd complements the direct education, which is the foundation. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. Okay, I want to move on. 

782

Dr. Sharma talked about in her testimony that in the last 30 

years, obesity rates in children have doubled, and as you know 

there is a 12 percent increase in intake of fruits, so it has improved 

somewhat. The question I want to get to is coordination between 

the SNAP people, education, SNAP-Ed and all that, and the 

schools, and the USDA and the School Lunch Program. And I know 

the Ranking Member mentioned home economics. Behavioral 

change is possible, physical activity, and it seems to me that especially for our children, that has to go hand in hand. 

And so I guess my question really is what can we do as policymakers to really encourage more coordination between all the 

agencies involved, and so we are doing the right education on eating behavioral changes, but also physical activity and all that? 

Dr. SHARMA. Thank you for the important question. At Brighter 

Bites, we implement CATCH, which is Texas Education Agency approved. It is a coordinated school health program that is implemented in the schools, which includes very strong nutrition, physical activity, and a food service component. Schools are trained and 

empowered in implementing all of these components, and integrating into the day-to-day lives of the kids. It is a holistic approach where you have the nutrition, physical activity, and a food 

service component. So you are sort of elevating the opportunities. 

Mr. GIBBS. When you started this program, Brighter Bites, what 

were the hurdles to get everybody working together. Were there 

state law changes, or how did that come about? 

Dr. SHARMA. It was the formula that we intended. We wanted to 

link the school with the home, and we wanted to combine access 

with education. So that is where we brought in the food banks to 

procure the donated produce, and the schools to implement 

CATCH, and then we work very closely with the families where we 

integrate both these messages and link it to the home so they can 

practice these behaviors. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. In this program, do you have challenges working with the schools to encourage more physical activity? How is 

that intertwined with that? 

Dr. SHARMA. We train the schools. We work with the schools very 

closely, and we actually provide them with the equipment that they 

need to implement the nutrition and physical activity components. 

Schools will get basketballs, volleyballs, hula-hoops, whatever it is 

to make physical activity fun and keep the kids moving, while they 

are learning to eat healthier. It is a combination of both. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Dr. SHARMA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is 

indeed a very interesting hearing, but it is very important that we 

get to the focus of this hearing. And the focus of this hearing is to 

determine the budget for SNAP education. I have been here 14 

years, and SNAP education has been a target. 

I would like to give each of you an opportunity to state for the 

record how you measure the success, what evidence do you have to 

show, and how do you make what you are doing accountable to the 

taxpayers, because we need that in order to help us maintain the 

783

funding for what you are doing. So share with us how you measure 

the success of the program. 

Well, why don’t you start, Dr. Wisdom? 

Ms. FOERSTER. Thank you. 

Dr. WISDOM. Thank——

Ms. FOERSTER. I am sorry. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Well, I have another question. 

What I am after here is that we have these hearings, but we need 

to get to the meat and potatoes here. Your programs are being targeted. Right now, you are at $414 million. It is clear to me this is 

a very, very serious issue, and oftentimes, you are not given the opportunity to say here is how we are measuring the success, here 

is what happened, here is where we started this year, here is 

where we are now, this is what we have accomplished. I want to 

give you an opportunity to plead your case here. 

Okay, Ms. Foerster. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Thank you for the question. The SNAP-Ed evaluation framework that you have in my testimony attempts to put 

together the major endpoints that experts recommend are needed 

for good nutrition in the country, for food insecurity, physical activity, and obesity prevention. And so what this framework does is 

put together 51 indicators, I know that sounds very bureaucratic, 

but it puts together 51 indicators, each of which has specific 

metrics that a state or locality can mark their progress against, 

and that as a national level we can compile these data across state 

lines to provide you with information about how the program is 

doing, what are the successes that it is having. Ultimately, we are 

aiming for health changes in the entire population, and I mentioned 90 million people. What we think we can do is give you that 

data about changes that are occurring for individuals in organizations that the individuals frequent, and in the communities where 

people live. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Okay. Well, we have some specific 

programs like Health MP. In other words, I guess what I am looking for, if you take a measurement of where we were in 2012, and 

then here we are in 2016, is there any numerical data that we 

could have of how many children, how many young people were effectively losing the weight? I mean that is what we need when we 

point to this, because this SNAP program is always in constant 

jeopardy. I would like to have some numbers that show: here is 

what we did in this state. If we don’t show real visible things that 

we can communicate to the American people and here in Congress 

to really illustrate how many students, how many young people we 

were able to help, and give us some success stories. 

Ms. FOERSTER. We are starting to be able to do that across the 

country, and compile those individual results. There is a dose response relationship where, in communities where enough interventions are being done, enough help is being provided to the community, that is where you are going to see the changes. You won’t see 

them statewide. You are going to see them where there is enough 

density of intervention in order to show. In a way, it is a natural 

control group that where we can do enough, we change. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Okay. I have like 20 seconds, and 

I do want to make a point. Dr. Sharma, you really hit it when you 

784

mentioned that over the past 30 years, obesity in children has doubled. Now, that gives a reason for what we are doing. 

Do you see a relationship between that 30 year period and when 

the schools stopped having physical education as a course every 

day? Don’t you think there is some correlation with that? 

Dr. SHARMA. Yes, and also with the home economics program. 

The shifts have definitely lowered the opportunities for the children 

while they are at school, where they spend a majority of their time, 

to practice these healthy behaviors. And we are tracking the obesity rates in our children. The families that go through Brighter 

Bites, we track their heights and weights, and we monitor them as 

they are going through the program. And we have data for the last 

3 years on the families. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. And wouldn’t it be good if we could 

maybe begin the process of reinstituting that physical education 

class in the schools? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SHARMA. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Austin Scott, 5 minutes. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that last question about physical education got a lot of 

yeses from up here. As I looked around, people nodding their 

heads. I think our family life today has a tremendous impact on it 

as well. It seems that parents have less time with their kids, and 

so when you do have the time with them, you want them to be 

happy, and sometimes what makes them happy and what is right 

for them isn’t necessarily the same thing. I am thinking of maybe 

Dairy Queen and——

Mr. GIBBS. Pick on Dairy Queen. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia.—things. Well, all right, I won’t 

pick on Dairy Queen. I think you understand what I am saying. 

But thank you for what you do. 

And I guess my question is: we talk about what people eat a lot, 

but the serving size is just something that has amazed me is they 

have continued to get larger and larger and larger, and what was 

a large Coke when I was a child, when you went through the driveway today is a small Coke. And how much emphasis is there on 

portion sizes, and what is being done or not being done with regard 

to that? 

Dr. WISDOM. I would be delighted to answer that question, to at 

least start off the conversation. And that is a very, very important 

question because many individuals do not understand what a portion size is. They think a portion size is whatever they put on their 

plate. That is a portion, that is a serving. So one thing that SNAPEd does in a very deliberate, intentional, and a repetitive way is 

to help individuals and families understand, children, adults, entire 

family units, understand the importance of portion size and how 

that has to be understood as well as monitored. 

What we do in our program at Henry Ford Health System is we, 

for one, simplify what portion size is. We help them understand 

through very simple methods such as using their hand as a source 

of understanding what is 3 ounces? The palm of an adult-size hand. 

What is a cup? A fist. What is a teaspoon? The tip of the thumb. 

785

What is an ounce? The entire thumb. So we try to find ways to engage the youth as well as the families in very simple ways so that 

they can make very thoughtful decisions around portion size on a 

regular basis, without having cups and necessarily those tools at 

hand when they are making that decision. And we repeat those 

messages over and over again. We keep it very simple, very repetitive, and we have youth that are very clearly understanding what 

portion sizes are, if they are deviating from the recommended portion size. Through that simplification and repetition, we are driving 

that message home, the importance of portion size. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Ma’am? 

Dr. SHARMA. Thank you for the important question. And Brighter 

Bites as well, we work with the families using hands-on techniques, and part of that is working with them using the MyPlate. 

Half of your plate should be fruits and vegetables, and you have 

to have a well-balanced diet where you have the other meats and 

dairy and other components as well. 

We have seen that our families demonstrated a twofold increase 

in the knowledge of using portion sizes as part of planning their 

meal. 

Empowering the families and just sort of demystifying this information is critical because there is intimidation of produce, there is 

intimidation in how much do I serve to my family. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. 

Dr. SHARMA. We really work with the families in sort of breaking 

these pieces down, using the simple MyPlate guidelines, half your 

plate fruits and vegetables, to sort of send home these messages in 

a very easy, concise, and a repetitive way. Thank you. 

Ms. FOERSTER. And a third area would be that in working with 

other food service operations, whether it would be with a worksite 

food service or in schools, other places like that, the portion sizes 

that are offered on the plate and the distribution to have, say, more 

fruits and vegetables and fewer fried foods, that sort of thing, that 

is kind of the upstream way of trying to de-normalize in other 

areas of people’s lives how much food is being eaten. 

We are all really looking forward to the new nutrition labels as 

well that are going to kind of demystify how much food is in that 

container, because a big single serving of a soft drink is not one 

portion. That is a very important aspect. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. That is right, and I am——

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. I would just add, extension programs across 

the country are utilizing many of the things that our first three 

presenters, I would also say that we have children that are bringing materials home to the families, so that we can replicate this in 

the home. We are trying to empower this population to advocate. 

We see children, and we have had a number of school food service 

tell us, that the children have come, they realize their portion was 

not the full-sized portion of vegetables, because they were trying to 

reduce food waste, and these children, after nutrition education, 

are actually saying we are not getting our full serving. We would 

like our full serving. 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am out of time, 

but I would just reiterate that everybody was nodding their head 

when it came to the question of physical education in the school 

786

systems, and making sure that our kids get enough exercise, because they sure don’t seem to be getting it. 

The CHAIRMAN. I agree with the gentleman. The gentleman’s 

time has expired. 

Mr. McGovern, 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you. First of all, let me start by voicing 

my strong support for SNAP-Ed and thank you for all the work 

that you all do. And I appreciate all the great work being done in 

my district with the support of USDA SNAP-Ed program. The University of Massachusetts Extension School, which is based in Amherst, is one of my state’s SNAP-Ed implementing agencies, and in 

Fiscal Year 2015 alone, UMASS partnered with over 80 community 

agencies and organizations to provide nutrition education to over 

60,000 adults and children in Massachusetts. And because of this 

programming, children began eating fruits, vegetables, and whole 

grains more often, they increased their levels of physical activity. 

I have been to a SNAP-Ed class, and I learned about issues about 

what constitutes an appropriate portion, and how to cook things 

with alternative ingredients to make them healthier and more nutritious. And at that class that I attended, there were two issues 

that were raised, and one was some of the people didn’t have access 

to supermarkets, which made it more complicated for them to be 

able to comply with all that they learned, and the other was basically that the SNAP benefit is really inadequate. We can talk about 

all the different ways to improve SNAP-Ed, and we should, and we 

ought to. This is a good investment of taxpayer dollars, but we also 

need to admit that boosting SNAP benefits would improve the diets 

of low-income households. Sometimes the discussions we have here 

don’t reflect the realities all throughout country. Often, as we talk 

about SNAP here in Washington, people think it is this extravagant benefit. The average benefit is about $1.40 per person, per 

meal, per day. 

I would like to get your input. Would you agree with me that if 

we boosted SNAP benefits, we would improve the diets of low-income households, and that combined with proper SNAP education 

would yield an even better result? Maybe we will begin with Dr. 

Wisdom. 

Dr. WISDOM. Thank you for the question. And I agree completely 

with the concept of boosting SNAP benefits combined with the education. One way that we are doing it in the interim is, in Michigan 

particularly, through the Double Up Food Bucks approach where, 

for SNAP-eligible families when they use their EBT card, they actually can receive double the amount of Michigan-grown produce. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. And we have a similar program in Massachusetts too. 

Dr. WISDOM. Excellent. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Yes. 

Dr. WISDOM. So that is one way that we are, in the interim, finding ways to augment what people can do in terms of educating 

them around that, and then showing them how to prepare meals 

together. And particularly related to the portion aspect we co-educate parents or caregivers with the child so that they understand 

portion size together, they understand nutrition together. Then we 

give each family, after they have prepared a meal together, we 

787

have them prepare four separate meals on four different occasions, 

and then do a supermarket tour. But we also leverage dollars 

through the health system, and we give them each, covered 

through the health system, a $10 bag of groceries to replicate that 

recipe again at home. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. 

Dr. WISDOM. What we are finding are families are waiting for, 

and adults are waiting for, their children to come home so they can 

cook together. There is a lot of interest in the culinary arts, and 

moving in that direction, social work. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. 

Dr. WISDOM. So we are finding a ripple effect of the core significant funding that has been provided through the SNAP education 

program. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. And one of the things I remind people all the 

time, a lot of the SNAP families work. It is not like they have all 

the time in the world to do preparation of foods and stuff for the 

week. But, we ought to be moving this discussion at some point toward how we boost the overall SNAP benefit. 

I have about 43 seconds left, but I am just curious to hear quickly what you all think. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Well, the fact that SNAP is equal throughout the 

country is one factor, that the SNAP benefit is not adjusted for cost 

of living around the country is a factor. Fruits and vegetables are 

the most price-sensitive foods and so smaller stores, for example, 

we can help with getting better supply chains, particularly with 

local fruits and vegetables, so that the price differential in small 

stores is less. 

In addition, the incentive programs, stores may not offer any 

lower prices to SNAP participants than to other customers. That is 

something that could be looked at in terms of trying to make that 

dollar stretch. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. I am out of time, but, again, I appreciate your 

responses in writing or thumbs up that we ought to be increasing 

the benefit. Thank you, because that is where the focus of this Congress ought to be, instead of block-granting or cutting or revamping 

a child nutrition bill that would make it more difficult for kids to 

get meals in schools or during the summer. 

But I thank you very much. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mrs. Walorski. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to our witnesses for being here and lending your expertise as we continue 

our review of the past, present, and future of SNAP. 

I chair the Committee’s Nutrition Subcommittee, which has been 

heavily involved in this review. I want to point out this is the first 

hearing this Committee has held on the SNAP-Ed program in a 

very long time, so I am especially glad you are all here today, and 

to ensure that our review is a comprehensive one. 

And that said, my question is how much conversation has gone 

on about all this integration in schools. And two things strike me 

listening to these conversations. First, I am from the Midwest 

where we have frozen tundra. Fresh fruits and vegetables only last 

seasonally. They are expensive because they are so seasonal. And 

788

* Editor’s note: High tunnels, also called high hoops or hoop houses, are temporary structures that extend the growing season. (http://articles.extension.org/pages/18358/introductionto-high-tunnels) 

I can relate to your world in Detroit, Michigan, probably more than 

anybody else’s here, maybe Missouri. But so much of this conversation is talking about the integration in schools. And our schools in 

the State of Indiana, our curriculum—I am married to a public 

school teacher, I can tell you on behalf of all school teachers in my 

state, there is so much curriculum mandated, there is no room for 

anything else. And fighting for phys. ed. and physical time outside 

is a question all of its own. But I also feel like, when we are talking 

about this education program, I also feel like we are pushing upstream because the whole country is eating and doing the things 

that we are trying to tell a very small group of people not to do. 

I know that the funding is targeted to a very small specific group 

of people, but, for example, and I am not sure who to direct this 

to, maybe Dr. Britt-Rankin, I don’t know, Dr. Sharma, but what 

are we doing, and maybe it doesn’t matter because you guys geographically are in places that grow food all the time, but the frozen 

food industry has to play such a large role in this because, for those 

of us in the country where we live in frozen tundra, there is no food 

available. 

And then second, for places where, in the Midwest, outdoor activities like playgrounds, basketballs and soccer balls, and that 

kind of stuff, don’t exist when it is frozen tundra. So now you are 

relegated to inside activities. How does that all play in places 

where you don’t have the luxury of sun 365 days a year? 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. I would say that in many of our extension 

programs, we have tried to bring in ag faculty to work with producers. We have worked with school districts, FFA, ag teachers, to 

think about how can they add high tunnels * when it is cold outside 

in Missouri, and how can we extend that growing season. We have 

a lot of school districts that are very interested in incorporating 

this, so how can we make this more possible. 

We went to our nutrition and exercise physiology faculty across 

the country. They are looking at how do we increase activity not 

just at recess, but throughout our educational processes. So oftentimes, a nutrition lesson is always complemented with physical activity, even if it is for a few minutes, getting kids up, getting the 

moving, even in the classroom. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. But what about the issue that SNAP recipients 

are watching the same TV programs everybody else is, they are 

going to the same apps online everybody else, they are doing the 

same thing, I mean they are people in our country, they are in our 

nation, being exposed to everything the majority of people are. So 

is there a way to broader educate the general population, knowing 

you are going to be educating SNAP recipients as well? 

Dr. WISDOM. Go ahead, and I will follow up. 

Dr. SHARMA. Thank you for the important question. The answer 

is yes. Everybody needs to eat healthy, and the social norms, if you 

will, where a majority of our population is practicing behaviors that 

probably need to change. We have partnered with the FN We Campaign, that is a social marketing campaign, for example, that exposes the entire population with regards to the benefits of eating 

789

fruits and vegetables, and a variety of fruits and vegetables. We 

want to get people excited about eating healthy food. And it is everybody, which is why in Brighter Bites we work with the entire 

school, and we work with the entire communities that we are in, 

and we are linking these behaviors and these environments that 

the child spends a majority of their time in, and that is what we 

need to do to move these social norms towards——

Mrs. WALORSKI. Right. Yes. And I appreciate that, but I guess 

to respond to Representative McGovern’s point, I don’t look at this 

as just the issue of throwing more money into a situation just by 

saying, ‘‘Hey, if we throw more money at this, it is going to be better.’’ Statistics in this country prove that is not true. It is a behavior modification. And if that is the case it is the same behavior happening all over this country. Couldn’t we do better then, modeling 

some of the things that you all have done, but being able to do 

that, which really integrates Internet and apps and the things that 

kids are going—and the things our whole country is accessing? 

Dr. WISDOM. Right. That is an excellent question, and we are 

using the core funds of SNAP-Ed to help drive policy systems and 

environmental change in many dimensions. 

Let me just give you a few examples in terms of messaging for 

the general population. We message with our SNAP-Ed families, 

the 5,210 messages around the consumption of fiber, more fruits 

and vegetables per day, 1 hour physical activity, non-recreational 

screen time, limiting it to 2 hours or less per day, 1 hour physical 

activity, and zero sugar-added beverages. We take that messaging 

and we work with our SNAP-Ed-eligible families, but we also disseminate that same messaging in our faith-based organizations, in 

our clinic settings with our students. So we do that in multiple 

ways. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. I have to stop you there because I am out of 

time, but I appreciate it. Thanks so much for you all being here 

and for your expertise. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. DelBene, 5 minutes. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of 

our witnesses for being here today on this important topic, and for 

the work that you are doing. 

We were talking about the challenges of the amount of the SNAP 

benefit, and the expense of fresh fruits and vegetables and the 

challenges that that poses, and also the perishability and how critical it is, if you do have access, that you are able to use it right 

away. 

I wanted to ask you, Ms. Foerster. I know the dieticians recently 

published a report on food waste, and so I was wondering if you 

could tell us a little bit more about what is being done to educate 

consumers on food waste, and how can states do a better job? I 

know we have been focused a lot on composting in my region, in 

Washington State, but also making sure that a food can be used 

right away is also important, especially when you have limited resources. So I would love your feedback. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Thank you for the question. We are teaching people that all farms fit. So whether it is fresh, frozen, canned, or 

790

dried, that all the fruits and vegetables are beneficial for health. 

We do, in terms of menu planning, perishability is an issue if people are only shopping once a month because that is when their benefits come in, then they do need to be helped to figure out how to 

have their fruits and vegetables last through the month, and how 

to balance. This is where the corner stores having an adequate supply of fruits and vegetables at a reasonable cost and quality really 

comes in. But in terms of the fruits and vegetables, I think that 

that is an area that people really want the fresh fruit and vegetable access. 

We do have a job to do in frozen, and also people do have challenges sometimes with their refrigeration and freezing capacity. So 

there are a lot of other barriers that have to be dealt with. 

Ms. DELBENE. Yes. Do others have feedback on what we can do 

to help address food waste? 

Dr. SHARMA. In Brighter Bites, we work with the local food 

banks and with our for-profit partners, like Sysco Foods, to help 

aggregate the produce that would otherwise be discarded. They 

have an ongoing relationship with the farmers, and we optimize 

that relationship to then get the produce to the food banks. And 

then we work with the food banks and leverage their infrastructure, to then purposefully channel this produce in a continuous way 

using a co-op concept, so we engage the families and empower then, 

and then get this produce for a continuous 16 weeks in the school 

year. 

We use schools because it is a trusted venue for parents to come 

and engage with the school as well. From a food waste perspective, 

again to answer your question, it is leveraging on the expertise of 

for-profit and other nonprofits that we have been able to now push 

out over 8 million pounds of produce to our families. 

Ms. DELBENE. Yes. Thank you. 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. It is also important to think about the education side of this. Eating fruits and vegetables in-season when the 

costs are lower, knowing the portion size that we have addressed 

earlier, talking with our partners about aggregation. It is a holistic 

approach that, not just one agency, but we are going to have to 

work in concert together to address the food waste issue. 

Ms. DELBENE. One of the other things that we have done in our 

state is, when there is waste, to help educate families about 

composting, and we actually have composting in our cities, so it is 

all used together, but it has brought people closer to understanding 

agriculture and the process, and how they can be more involved in 

that awareness about agriculture and what our farmers are doing 

has been very, very important in terms of broad education on how 

our food comes to our table. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Well, and if I may add, food policy councils typically will be dealing with food waste on a large scale. Whether it 

is food waste from restaurants or unused food from supermarkets, 

that kind of thing, whether it goes into a food bank system or it 

does have to be composted for energy, that is a lot of what food policy councils do deal with. So it goes from seed to composting, I suppose you could say. And that is going to vary a bit around the country or around different communities, but that is part of what 

791

SNAP-Ed does, trying to assist on behalf of low-income communities. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thanks. My time has expired. I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. Newhouse, 5 minutes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome everyone. I 

appreciate you being here to talk about this important issue. 

I just had a couple of questions for all of you, to begin with. More 

and more we see industry initiatives that are designed to give consumers more options to help people make better-informed choices. 

Some examples could include lower calorie options or smaller portions, or something that I have heard of, the facts up-front, which 

list calories, fat, sodium, the things that people are interested in, 

on the packaging itself. 

How do you guys see this working with other nutrition education 

efforts, and what are your thoughts on these voluntary programs, 

and can they be effective with SNAP recipients? And we will start 

with you, Dr. Wisdom. 

Dr. WISDOM. Well, thank you for that question. And certainly, 

consumers are receiving more and more options in terms of what 

is available to them. What we have been doing is identifying ways 

that we can, for one, increase the healthy options that they have 

available to them. Through our efforts, we do grocery store tours, 

we have farmers’ markets, in order to help them, not just educate 

them about what are the healthy options, but to ensure that they 

have the ability to access those healthy options, because oftentimes 

people make choices based on what is available to them. They have 

limited options, and we try to expose them to as many options, and 

have them pick the right option in that particular setting. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. 

Ms. FOERSTER. I work closely with table grape industry, and one 

of the things that we do need to do there is do more of our marketing and promotion aimed at low-income audiences. Typically, 

the marketing that is done is to a more middle-income marketplace. And so the market segmentation to reach low-income consumers or consumers that don’t speak English, for example, that 

is a really important thing to be doing, promoting the food not just 

making it, so that there could be cross-promotions as well. We have 

done that with WIC in California, where shelf markers can point 

people from the WIC foods over to the produce section, or the 

produce section back to the milk section, that kind of thing, to augment and bring alive the combinations and trying to get healthier 

foods in a real way, not just producing them, but promoting them, 

marketing them, pricing, cross-promotions, those kinds of things 

are all important things that can be done, targeted to low-income 

audiences. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. In a more coordinated way. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Yes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Yes. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Yes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. 

Dr. SHARMA. Thank you for the question. It is such an important 

concept of educating your consumer. Right? So in Brighter Bites, 

792

the families actually get 30 pounds of fresh produce every week. 

And so they get a risk-free trial to try eight to 12 different kinds 

of fruits and veggies in their bags. And then while they are getting 

the food, we also work with them on how do you read a label, right, 

how do you read nutrition facts labels. And so on one side, they get 

to try these foods and develop a taste for it, so you are creating demand for a product. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. We hope. 

Dr. SHARMA. Right. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Yes. 

Dr. SHARMA. And then you are making them a more informed 

consumer of that produce so they can use the SNAP dollars, and 

when they go to the grocery store they can then buy the fruits and 

veggies and the foods that they know that their children now eat. 

We had a mom: just a quick story. We had a mom who told us 

that she wouldn’t buy Brussels sprouts because she didn’t know if 

her kids would like it. But through Brighter Bites, she now knows 

her kids like Brussels sprouts. So even when she doesn’t get it 

through our bags, she goes to the grocery store and buys it. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Good. Good. 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. I would just add that the education of how to 

read the labels, as we are seeing new labels, so we do create informed consumers. But, especially in this population we have 

found, partnering with Feeding America across the country is doing 

grocery store tours. We see a lot of marketing dollars. There are 

more marketing dollars than there are nutrition education dollars. 

Taking people into those places where they are going to make 

choices, whether it is a supermarket or whether it is a farmers’ 

market, and providing them hands-on information, be able to compare and contrast products so that they can make those choices 

then long-term, even when they have graduated from the program, 

they have moved off SNAP, they are continuing to make those 

choices, and we need that hands-on education. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. So we are actually seeing some changes in behavior in purchasing as a result. That is great. 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. Yes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. My time has expired. Thank you very much 

again. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. Fudge, 5 minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you all so much for being here today. 

There is an old saying that people would do better if they knew 

better. I think that it is especially important that you are here to 

talk about SNAP-Ed today, because I do believe that people do better when they know better. 

Dr. Wisdom, in your written testimony you mentioned that many 

of the communities where SNAP recipients live are considered food 

swamps. Please take a moment to explain how food swamps differ 

from food deserts. 

Dr. WISDOM. Thank you for that question. Food deserts, I will 

start off with that, is considered where there is a dearth of food for 

individuals to easily gain access to them. When we talk about food 

swamps, and oftentimes it is in some communities a myth that 

793

there is truly a food desert because it is a matter of people not having access to the food when they need it. So there is plenty of food 

but it is an access issue. 

When we talk about food swamps, it is more the aspect of having 

a plethora of fast food restaurants, of corner stores where there is 

a lack of receiving that healthy and nutritious food. So there are 

a lot of eating venues where individuals can access, however, they 

are not healthy, so we call those food swamps. 

Ms. FUDGE. Like most poor neighborhoods in urban communities. 

Dr. WISDOM. Exactly. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. 

Dr. WISDOM. Sure. 

Ms. FUDGE. Dr. Britt-Rankin, I am a proud graduate of the Ohio 

State University, Ohio State University and Case Western Reserve 

University have collaborated to develop a tool based on best practices that would help determine which policy system or environmental intervention would prove most effective for a community. 

Tell me how important that is. 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. I think that is very important. First of all, we 

are leveraging the expertise of two great institutions, but it is 

going to create a tool, an online tool where communities can assess 

where they can be most successful. They are going to be able to utilize that data to understand which strategies will address the 

needs that are in their local communities. So they are really going 

to tailor this program to their specific neighborhood and community. 

Ms. FUDGE. I hope to see more of that across the country. I think 

it is especially important, especially in districts like mine. 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. Yes. 

Ms. FUDGE. I am just going to throw this out. In the Healthy 

Hunger-Free Kids Act, it expanded the whole purpose of SNAP-Ed, 

right, to include public health-based approaches. Talk to me about 

the focus of this whole concept. Just anybody, whoever wants to address it, please feel free. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Thank you for that opportunity. The Healthy 

Hunger-Free Kids Act really came out of the expressed experience 

of states as they provided nutrition education and social marketing, 

and kind of went up the trail as to what else was needed and 

where were the gaps in the program. We knew we needed to do 

more about physical activity before, that is the flipside of obesity. 

Ms. FUDGE. Sure. 

Ms. FOERSTER. So we got involved in that. More on obesity prevention. And so when you do that, you go upstream to the environment that we have been talking about and realizing that all of 

those factors that people live in and experience, and it is all of us, 

it is not solely low-income people, but the resource is so much lower 

in low-income communities, and some of the adverse environments 

are so much harder, that we really needed to focus in a way that 

the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act outlines. We are focusing now 

on organizational change, whether it is schools, churches, worksites, and so forth, and we are focusing on community-wide change, 

and on state-level change, so that Departments of Education are 

working with Departments of Health, are working with extension, 

working with Indian Tribal organizations and so forth, we are all 

794

really trying to pull together. And when you look at that, you see 

these 51 indicators that we have been talking about that represent 

what we think SNAP-Ed can stimulate. We are not going to do it 

ourselves, we are going to do it with others. But we are going to 

provide a kind of a backbone for this kind of work. We are here 

permanently. We are not going to be a 3 year grant or a 5 year 

grant, we are going to be there to keep the ball rolling, because this 

is long-term work. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. My time is about to expire. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Dan Benishek, 5 minutes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I am late. I was 

at another hearing. 

Dr. Wisdom, I am from Michigan too, and actually, I trained a 

little bit at Henry Ford, probably before you were born, but tell me 

more about Henry Ford’s partnerships with community and faithbased organizations, and how far does this network extend through 

the state? I represent the northern half of Michigan, so I don’t get 

down to the Detroit area too often myself. Can you tell me about 

that a little bit? 

Dr. WISDOM. Sure. I would be delighted to talk about that. Henry 

Ford Health System’s effort is located primarily in Detroit, in 

Macomb County, and it addresses the individuals primary in the 

area. However, if we look at the entire state, and that is the Michigan Fitness Foundation that leads all 49 programs that are occurring across the state, including in the Upper Peninsula, what that 

network or consortium of sorts does is we learn from each other. 

So the efforts that are occurring at Henry Ford, we use the Cooking Matters model, we are in many, many schools, we are in faithbased organizations, we are in neighborhood service organizations, 

we are in homeless shelters we are in a lot of settings. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Let me ask you a question, and this maybe somebody else would like to comment too on this issue, is that the level 

of knowledge amongst the people that you reach do you have any 

assessment of that? I mean as far as nutritional content of meals, 

sometimes it seems to me that people don’t have enough information, or they don’t know enough about how to make a nutritious 

meal and they end up—not that I disparage fried food so much, 

foods that aren’t maybe consistent with the protein and nutritional 

requirements. Is there any way that you assess that knowledge as 

you do these educational endeavors? 

Dr. WISDOM. Yes. Through some of our assessments, we use that 

pre-post design where we assess them before the intervention, and 

then we have six sessions; four of which are cooking classes, where 

we bring a student and a parent or a caregiver together and they 

learn how to cook a meal together, including cutting onions. We 

keep the classes to about 20. And then we give them, through the 

leveraging the dollars of Henry Ford Health System, we give them 

a $10 bag of groceries to replicate that same recipe at home with 

their family. 

So we do see that and we have those sessions, and then a grocery 

store tour as well in order to help the families understand and that 

pre-post design we find an improvement in the outcome. 

795

Mr. BENISHEK. Dr. Sharma, you seem like you are interested in 

giving a comment there. I am kind of interested in what is the preeducational level of understanding amongst the people that you 

see? 

Dr. SHARMA. Yes, we did a nonrandomized control trial in 760 

low-income families that——

Mr. BENISHEK. A nonrandomized trial? 

Dr. SHARMA. Yes, a nonrandomized trial. It was a cluster randomized. It wasn’t randomized at the individual level. And we 

found that at baseline, these were first-grade children, and they 

were eating less than one serving of fruit and 1⁄2 a serving of vegetable a day, and less than 1⁄2 a serving of whole grains. And the 

frequency of cooking at home was less than 2 days a week. The frequency of cooking, and their understanding of using nutrition facts 

labels to make a purchasing decision, and using it in their shopping behaviors was also very low. So it was translating the knowledge part and the behavioral part were both starting at low levels. 

Mr. BENISHEK. What were they eating then if they weren’t making food at home? 

Dr. SHARMA. A majority of their calories, in our sample, a majority of their calories—we excluded french-fries when we computed 

the vegetables, french-fries actually constituted a majority of the 

vegetable intake, and added sugars. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Purchased french-fries, not even homemade 

french-fries. 

Dr. SHARMA. We weren’t able to distinguish that part. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Duck fat french-fries. 

Dr. SHARMA. But, we asked them about fried potatoes and 

french-fries, and that was a majority of the vegetable intake. And 

there was also a high intake of foods that had added sugars, and 

processed food. 

Mr. BENISHEK. All right. It seems as though I am just a little out 

of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to ask the 

question. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Graham, 5 minutes. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all so 

much for being here today. 

I represent the north part of Florida, it is very rural. I don’t 

know, but I guess it is both a food desert and a food swamp in different areas. My background: I worked in a school district in Tallahassee, and we served about 30,000 students, and I was always 

frustrated with having students come in, pre-K or kindergarten, 

and I kept saying to folks we really, really need to get to these kids 

earlier. We need to get books in their hands earlier, we need to be 

working with families younger, recommended having a program 

where we worked with the hospitals. And as I am listening to this 

discussion, that same concern that I have, and, Dr. Sharma, you 

just actually gave me a great segue, that by the time kids get to 

school, their eating habits have already been established. And the 

birth of a child is such a new opportunity for families, and they 

would be open to wanting their children to eat as healthy as possible. 

796

Are there any programs that are getting to families at the earliest ages in the hospitals or when children are born? Thank you. 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. I would not say when they are born and in 

the hospital, but we have worked extensively across the country in 

extension, working with trying to get childcare providers, preschool, childcare providers to offer healthier options, to involve the 

children, to provide education. Many of our programs also use reading programs. So as you are reading books to children and they are 

beginning to read, many of those books are on healthy eating practices. And we follow that up then with education with their parents. I do believe that research will show you that most of our eating patterns are established by the age of 7. Addressing the preschool age is also important. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Yes, I would like to mention a program that Arizona SNAP-Ed created, and that was in working with their Social 

Services Department, which was upgrading the licensing standards 

for daycare facilities. There was an increased fee that was associated with it, but the state forgave that increased fee if the licensee 

would agree to certain standards related to nutrition and physical 

activity. 

We, in California, developed a self-assessment tool for daycare 

providers to use to see what they were doing, starting with 

breastfeeding, could they handle a breastfed child, all the way to 

gardens, to having water, engaging activities for the children, and 

so forth. So there are some proven effective models that are in our 

toolkit. 

North Carolina has done some things too. One of the factors that 

we have in our framework is the degree to which daycare programs 

are adopting these kinds of self-imposed standards. They are not 

regulatory, but they are sort of going over and above whatever the 

licensing requirements are. 

Dr. SHARMA. Brighter Bites, the program that I am representing, 

the organization, we actually do operate in Head Start centers, so 

starting with early childhood, and we are partnering with University of Texas physicians actually to pilot Brighter Bites with pregnant women and women with infants, because you start with pregnancy and establish those healthy patterns in the mom, it is going 

to affect the unborn child and their trajectory later in life. 

Dr. WISDOM. And at Henry Ford, we have done the same thing. 

We are working at daycare centers, but also we have just most recently implemented a centering pregnancy model, incorporating 

community health workers where women come in for prenatal care 

as a group, and that is a perfect opportunity for now for us to layer 

in among those under-served women the SNAP-Ed education program. 

Ms. GRAHAM. Well, that is terrific. I have heard, Dr. Sharma, you 

have a program that you are working with. I would love to follow 

up with you and get some more information, and as well as you, 

Dr. Wisdom. And it is good that we are doing this. We are missing 

an opportunity to work with prenatal care, as well as at the earliest stages in the hospital when women are there, and families 

and parents, and husbands and partners, to have them want to get 

their children off on the best eating path for the rest of their life. 

So maybe that is something we could consider, is finding hospitals 

797

that would be willing to pilot some sort of a program across our 

country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Ms. Kuster, 5 minutes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you so much to all of you for this conversation. It is vitally important to the well-being of our future and our children. 

I am curious, in this whole discussion, our society has changed 

so much and we are oftentimes dealing with families, particularly 

low-income families, that may be working multiple jobs, that may 

have difficulties with transportation. I come from a rural district, 

so sadly, there are places where you have to travel a long way to 

get healthy food. The sad part is that these are areas where we 

used to grow the food in the backyard, but people literally just 

don’t have the time or the inclination, or the education. 

I am wondering if you have found ways to help families cope 

when time is the resource that is missing in their life. We can talk 

about teaching them to make recipes, but I am a working mom, 

and when I was raising my two kids and taking care of my mother 

with Alzheimer’s, and my husband and I were trying to get back 

and forth to work, and the doctor and the dentist and the baseball 

game, and get the homework done. It is hard to have time, it is 

hard to buy fresh ingredients and have them still fresh by the time 

you get around to a day when you do have time. So this is a sort 

of open-ended question, but for any of you. I will just add, I feel 

as though the grocery industry is responding with vegetables that 

are precut, salads that are mixed in a bag, because if you are limited in funds, you don’t want to waste money on half the vegetables 

that you won’t get to. 

So if you can just respond, how can we be helpful in encouraging 

the industry, agriculture generally, to get to the place where consumers’ lives are really at? 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. I will jump in. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you. 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. I would agree with you. I think that is one of 

the strengths that we see across the land-grant system of having 

faculty in almost every county in the state, across the country. And 

meeting people where they are if you are working two and three 

jobs, you may not be up to coming home and fixing a full dinner. 

One of the things that we have addressed is we also see pantries 

that say we don’t have fresh. Is there a way people can eat healthy 

even if it is frozen or canned. And so it is providing the information: one of the earlier questions mentioned technology. Can we incorporate technology. So we are educating, when people are at the 

point that they are ready to learn, and how do we address that at 

all levels. It is very important to think about, we don’t want people 

to feel that they are failing if they are not at home. 

Ms. KUSTER. Right. I think that is what I am saying is let’s not 

layer on the guilt to the working mom because she is not making 

the sliced potatoes au gratin from scratch, or whatever. 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. Yes. 

Ms. KUSTER. And by the way, when you mentioned that about 

the fresh, we have done a number of events that are very well reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
798

ceived during the season when fruits and vegetables are available 

in our farmers’ markets and the two-for-one SNAP benefits is really great, and gives the farmers some reliability too. It improves 

their marketing. 

Dr. BRITT-RANKIN. Yes. 

Ms. KUSTER. Yes, anyone else want to add? Dr. Sharma? 

Dr. SHARMA. Thank you for this important question. And just to 

add to what Dr. Britt-Rankin said, with Brighter Bites we really 

want to elevate the environment that the family and the child lives 

in with the school and the home. We work with the schools so the 

families and the children are exposed to a healthier environment 

while they are there. But we actually send the produce home, so 

the kids get 30 pounds of fresh produce every week. So the families 

then get to try this risk-free. And then working with the families 

to develop skills; how do you cut mushrooms. One of the moms, actually, this is a true story, a couple of years ago there was a mushroom, we sent mushrooms and the parents didn’t know, what do I 

do with it. 

Ms. KUSTER. Sure. 

Dr. SHARMA. Right. 

Ms. KUSTER. Sure. 

Dr. SHARMA. So we worked with them on how do you cut it, store 

it, and effectively use it in a one-pot recipe that can last you a few 

days in your refrigerator, and that canned, frozen are equally nutritious as fresh. When you are going shopping and using your 

SNAP dollars, that you can make those substitutions that works 

for your family. We have to empower our family so they can make 

the healthier choice. And we have to make the healthier choice, the 

easier choice. 

Ms. KUSTER. Well, the trick for me as a working mom was the 

crock pot. So maybe if we just give every family a crock pot. And 

I used to call her Ms. Crocker, when I would come home with the 

kids and the house smelled great, and I would pretend that I had 

a housekeeper named Ms. Crocker. So thank you very much. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. Thank you. 

Well, witnesses, thank you very much. It is clear from the testimony that you have touched on almost every jurisdiction of our 

Committee. From farmers selling more fruits and vegetables, or the 

food waste issue we had a hearing on in May, where you have 

Sysco gathering up perfectly fine nutritious vegetables that just 

aren’t pretty enough to be sold at the local H–E–B. As well as the 

work that they are doing with SNAP recipients. Your work is really 

impressive. It also illustrates there is no one-size-fits-all program, 

no solution that can be developed here in Washington, D.C., that 

we can cram down the throats of everybody out there; that we really need this opportunity for you to be innovative and to work with 

what works with your particular populations, your particular circumstances. 

We didn’t talk much about rural America, which I represent, 

most of District 11 is rural. They have their own particular challenges. I am aware of one program where they, at least once a 

month, set up a common distribution point in the rural countryside 

where they will bring in fresh produce and vegetables that families 

799

can take home. Again, trying to tailor programs according to the 

circumstances their community members find themselves in. 

I would also like to include in today’s record a hearing testimony 

from the Land-Grant University SNAP-Ed Program Development 

Team, PDT, which includes family and consumer science program 

leaders and other university administrators, SNAP-Ed coordinators, an office manager, NFIA representative, who are committed 

to improving the consistency and effectiveness of SNAP-Ed programming through cooperative extension, and addressing national 

health and nutritional-related programs facing low-income populations. Apparently, a paid commercial for the extension program. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 803.] 

The CHAIRMAN. David Scott talked about what is probably the 

most important thing, and that is how do we measure success and 

how do we define success. We track all kinds of metrics that are 

important. I am not convinced that the number of folks served or 

the pounds served, while important, give us a sense of the scope 

of the issue. I am not convinced that those necessarily are metrics 

for success. We do need to define those metrics, and track them. 

We also have to put in expectations for how long something should 

take before we see an impact. No program will cure obesity overnight. They didn’t become obese overnight, and they are not going 

to get to a healthy weight overnight either. It is important to understand that point because, as Mr. McGovern and others have 

said, ‘‘We will face limited resources in 2018 when we begin to authorize the farm bill.’’ Having your testimony today and the successes that you have been able to share with us, particularly the 

young woman who was directly affected by the program where she 

spent a summer doing the right things for her, not because anybody instructed her to, but because she was motivated by the interactions she had, and the peer pressure to better herself more than 

she was, and then that next fall she was a part of the activity programs that are going on. And that, at least in that anecdote, you 

can describe that. 

My colleague from New Mexico has joined us just in the nick of 

time. So, Ms. Lujan Grisham, if you have questions for 5 minutes, 

you are recognized. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. And I will be brief. And I really appreciate 

your recognition, Mr. Chairman. And we tease each other. It is 

more productive for a Member like me to be here for the whole 

hearing, I have a couple of other hearings today, but this is an 

issue that is really important not only to me personally as a Member, but certainly to my state. And the Chairman is very gracious 

to give me every opportunity to engage. 

And as we are talking about what we can do to make sure, and, 

of course, I offered an amendment to stop the elimination of SNAPEd funding, and I know that we have issues in Congress to deal 

with, our priorities and how we adequately fund them, but from my 

perspective, and certainly from my state’s, where we have persistent poverty and some of the hungriest populations, including 

the hungriest children in the country, it is an issue we have to address. 

And I have two things I want to say quickly, and then just ask 

about the evaluation of health outcomes through investments in 

800

SNAP education. First, Mr. Chairman, I visited a school in my district and I participated in a SNAP education program that was also 

a cooking program, and I met a young student, probably a firstgrader, maybe a second-grader, and they were using fresh tomatoes 

that had been either grown right at the school or donated by one 

of the connecting farm projects. And this child had never seen a 

fresh tomato. Had no idea what it was. And I take that for granted 

every single day. I knew what tomatoes were, I can guarantee you, 

as a toddler, and I have an 11 month old grandchild, and while 

some of the more acidic fruits and vegetables are not all that recommended, she has access to every kind of fresh fruit and vegetable. And so it is not something that occurred to me, and it really 

hit home about how valuable it is, if we want to encourage healthy 

outcomes and change behaviors, and give people the tools that they 

need, with the benefits that we are providing. There is a program 

called CHILE (Child Health Initiative for Lifelong Eating and Exercise) in New Mexico, which is a SNAP education program, that 

really is showing that we have better health outcomes. 

The second issue, and I don’t know that you can tie both of these 

together quickly, but, I do the SNAP challenge as a Member of 

Congress, and I can tell you—I tell this story all the time, there 

is no way for $1.50 a meal I can get the kinds of things that are 

nutritious. So if we don’t do something about that, then we can do 

lots of education, we can partner up with grocery stores, but in the 

end if you don’t have the resources to afford that, even with farmers programs that are involved, you aren’t going to have a healthy, 

nutritious meal as a result. And that is our bad, in my opinion. 

So talk to me about health outcomes, evaluations, and how we 

can drive those benefits up. 

Ms. FOERSTER. So that is the area that we are working on across 

the country with the land-grants and with all of the SNAP-Ed implementing agencies. And there is no one solution that is going to 

create those health outcomes. That is why we are trying to take a 

holistic approach with a socio-ecological, as well as direct education 

approach. And it is going to take a while. So what we are trying 

to do is create, or we have created, short, medium, and long-term 

outcomes so that states themselves can track how they are doing. 

We can compare notes, we can figure out what we are doing together. 

Partnerships with foundations, with hospitals, with all kinds of 

other stakeholders, that is something that we hold ourselves accountable because we cannot do it on $400 million. And so we are 

trying to give those kinds of data that will lead to the population 

changes. 

My own belief is that some of the more positive results that are 

starting to accrue for young children, very young children, are 

probably a combined effect of the programs that we see. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Like CHILE in my state, which has really 

partnered with Head Start, so it starts early. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Exactly. And then the other kinds of daycare programs, the WIC Program, and so forth. I think that we are going 

to be seeing some changes, it is way easier to deal with obesity before it happens, so we are going to be seeing changes in school-age 

kids before we are going to be seeing changes in adults. And we 

801

just have to be realistic that once somebody gains weight, it is very 

hard to get rid of it. The expectations that were mentioned earlier, 

we really have to put that together, and to recognize that this is 

a very big problem. It is something that only the collective impact 

of all of us pulling together at the food assistance programs, but 

also the foundations, the CDC programs, the nonprofits, all of us 

are going to have to be pulling together toward the same important 

things. And that is really what we have been trying to do with the 

framework is identify what are the most important things for lowincome communities, low-income people, that we can all pull together, because there is so much that needs to be done. We have 

narrowed it down to 51 things. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. 

Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will be open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and 

supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any question posed by a Member, or to any additional information you 

would like to provide us with respect to our subject matter. 

This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

803

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM TEXAS; ON BEHALF OF PAT BEBO, M.S., R.D.N., OHIO STATE

UNIVERSITY EXTENSION; ON BEHALF OF SNAP-ED PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT TEAM, LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee, it is 

an honor to be invited to submit this written testimony for the record on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed). I submit this testimony 

as a representative of the Land-grant University Cooperative Extension SNAP-Ed 

Program Development Team (PDT). The SNAP-Ed PDT serves as an ongoing advisory board for national Land-grant University Cooperative Extension Service (CES) 

Leadership. Team members use their experience, communication, analytical and 

critical thinking skills to strengthen Land-grant University (LGU) based SNAP-Ed 

programs and other nutrition networks at the state, regional, and national levels. 

They also identify linkages that can be forged to support the land-grant university 

system’s broader outreach and engagement, education, and research mission. 

I currently serve as a member of PDT, and am the Ohio State University Extension Interim Assistant Director for the Family and Consumers Sciences Program, 

which includes SNAP-Ed and Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program 

(EFNEP). I hold a Bachelor’s Degree in Exercise Science from UMASS Boston, a 

Master’s Degree in Nutrition from Framingham State University and I am a Registered Dietitian/Nutritionist. Previously I served as Regional SNAP-Ed/EFNEP 

Program Leader with the University of Massachusetts Extension, serving the lower 

southeast region of Massachusetts. 

SNAP-Ed Past 

SNAP-Ed as a program has a long history beginning with the 1977 Food Stamp 

Act in response to bipartisan calls for reform.

• 1977 Act’s language was a requirement for nutrition education based upon the 

EFNEP model.

» ‘‘USDA to extend the EFNEP to the greatest extent possible to reach FSP 

participants.’’ ‘‘USDA to develop printed materials specifically designed for 

persons with low reading comprehension levels on how to buy and prepare 

more nutritious and economic meals and on the relationship between food and 

good health.’’

• 1981 Food Stamp and Commodity Distribution Amendments of 1981.

» ‘‘To encourage the purchase of nutritious foods, the Secretary is authorized 

to extend food and nutrition education to reach food stamp program participants . . .’’.

• 1988 Hunger Prevention Act.

» Authorized Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program (FSNEP) as an optional administrative expense funded through state/local match that would 

qualify for Federal Financial Participation.

» Pilot FSNEP begun through University of Wisconsin Extension.

• 1990 Mickey Leland Domestic Hunger Relief Act.

» Authorized the Secretary to assign nutrition education of eligible households 

to the Cooperative Extension Service.

• 1992 Seven LGUs, via Extension, delivered FSNEP programming.

• From 1995 to present FSNEP was expanded to all 50 states and D.C., implementers are from a variety of public and private organizations based on state 

agency decisions; today 33% of all SNAP-Ed programs are implemented by 

LGUs, the largest single implementer; clearer missions and goals for the program were established; state plans with specific programming and evaluation 

outlines required; FSNEP was renamed SNAP-Ed after the name of the food 

stamp program was changed to SNAP. Other programmatic, evaluation and 

funding changes have been noted in other submitted testimony.

Clearly CES has a long, productive relationship with SNAP-Ed, from the program 

pilot to its current structure. Since 1914, the core mission of CES has been to improve the lives of people of all ages and from all walks of life through education—

taking the university to the people, in rural, urban and suburban communities 

throughout each state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. America’s 

land-grant universities have the knowledge, expertise and infrastructure needed to 

help address health and nutrition issues. Through county Extension offices, univerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
804

sities have the community presence and local credibility needed to influence the social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. Evidence-based interventions, deployed in ways that are respectful of community individual and family 

norms, beliefs, and current practice have been shown to keep people healthy, and 

delay or prevent the need for medical care, (Cooperative Extension’s National 

Framework for Health and Wellness, 2014). 

Cooperative Extension works with public, specifically the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and private sector partners and the LGU system to integrate research, education, and Extension perspectives to address critical 

issues. Families at risk, and individuals with limited financial resources, are a key 

target audience. 

SNAP-Ed differs from EFNEP. The EFNEP model, developed in 1969, is a strict 

direct education model. Trained paraprofessionals deliver a prescribed series of nutrition education lessons to a prescribed audience—low-income families with young 

children and youth. EFNEP over the years has developed standard outcome measures that have allowed the program to show change across the country with a national online reporting system. 

The SNAP-Ed audience first and foremost includes SNAP recipients through the 

lifespan from birth to seniors. This includes adult individuals and those with families and youth from preschool to high school. SNAP-Ed is a program that works cooperatively in states with oversight from state SNAP agencies and USDA Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS). FNS, starting in 1995, began to layer in multi-level activities understanding from research that direct education on its own cannot bring 

about long-term change. This was evidenced by the development of grants to establish social marketing nutrition networks. 

In 2010, the Healthy, Hunger[-]Free Kids Act (HHFKA) redirected SNAP-Ed to 

create a new grant program with a focus on interventions that not only included 

direct nutrition education, but also physical activity, obesity prevention, and community and public health approaches to the SNAP-Ed framework. The act also removed the match component of the program which expanded opportunities for implementing agencies to collaborate with agencies and programs that were prohibited 

in the past, including state SNAP agencies. In 2007, the cost of the program with 

match was $1⁄2 billion. The HHFKA capped the program at $400 million and redistributed funds to states based on a formula that includes state SNAP participation. 

Currently SNAP-Ed reporting consists primarily of short term and some medium 

term outcomes, but strong research evidence, as noted in the Academy of Nutrition 

Evidence Analysis Library, indicates that effective intervention strategies have been 

identified to assist food-insecure individuals in meeting their nutritional needs that 

includes multi-level interventions with nutrition education. In addition research 

shows that direct nutrition education interventions, such as those provided by 

SNAP-Ed, have been shown to increase food security among low-resource audiences. 

SNAP-Ed Present 

Starting in 2002, the PDT has periodically published a report on the progress on 

the provision of nutrition education, evaluation and outcomes as they relate to LGU 

implementation of the SNAP-Ed program. (https://nifa.usda.gov/snap-ed-lgu-reports) A 2015 report is in final approval phase. Since the first LGU SNAP-Ed national report was completed, FNS has developed an annual data collection system 

for SNAP-Ed providers called the Education and Administrative Reporting System 

(EARS). To simplify data collection by states, the second LGU SNAP-Ed national 

report incorporated selected elements of EARS where feasible for the Community 

Nutrition Education (CNE) Logic Model framework that was used to collect the 

data. 

While not the only SNAP-Ed implementers, LGU’s bring unique strengths and 

contributions to SNAP-Ed. LGU SNAP-Ed provides direct access to researchers 

studying childhood obesity, healthy lifestyles, nutrition education programming and 

curriculum, and public health approaches to policy, system and environmental 

(PSE) change. In addition, LGUs, as part of their mission, are experts at translating 

current research into educational messages and programs targeted to specific audiences. 

The rich history of needs assessment and community engagement, being rooted 

in communities throughout each state, and engaging community stakeholders and 

participants through advisory groups, makes LGUs and Extension a unique and 

impactful partner. The research based education in collaboration with other Extension program areas (Family and Consumer Sciences, 4–H Youth Development, Ag 

and Natural Resources, and Community Development) and state and community 

stakeholders creates a synergistic multiplier effect in urban as well as rural environments.

805

SNAP-Ed is community-based programming that follows the socio-ecological 

approach of change considering the impact of programming in the context of individuals and families, their communities, and the policies, systems and structures that affect their lives. Julie S. Sexton (2013) ‘‘Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education through Land-Grant University System for FY 

2010: A Retrospective Review.’’ Page 7.

LGU SNAP-Ed is rooted in four primary domains as shown in Figure 1 that form 

the basis for all program plans. 

Figure 1. SNAP-Ed Program Domains

The 2015 LGU direct education interventions reached 1.8 million people with 94% 

of clients participating in SNAP. Direct education is community focused, based on 

needs assessments and is learner centered and behavior focused for the most impact. SNAP-Ed Federal guidance ensures that the direct education model, based on 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, includes hands-on skill building lessons on 

basic cooking as well as nutrition.

Massachusetts direct education focused on youth:

• UMASS Extension SNAP-Ed’s major focus for Direct Education is providing lesson series to youth in schools with community eligibility or >50% eligible for 

school meals. This focus helps to:

» reach the greatest number of SNAP families in a cost efficient manner.

» inspire classroom teachers to continue to focus on good nutrition and physical 

activity with their students.

» create collaborations with schools that foster PSE activities/changes that directly affect SNAP families and amplifies the direct education.

• 35,439 school age youth were reached in FY 2014 and 52,879 were reached in 

FY 2015 with workshop series. Parents of the youth were reached through 

newsletters that follow up each lesson and engage the entire family. Curricula 

used included CATCH, Show Me Nutrition, and Team Nutrition.

• Evaluation results show that this SNAP-Ed programming resulted in the following statistically significant changes with youth, for both years:

» Eating vegetables more often.

» Eating fruits more often.


11403133.eps
806

» Being physically active more often.

» Drinking sugar-sweetened beverages less often.

» Choosing whole grains more often.

Youth-focused nutrition education has been shown to have positive outcomes and 

increase the possibility for PSE changes as evidenced by the following University 

of Massachusetts outcomes.

• A sampling of school based PSE Changes include:

» 96% of classroom teachers where SNAP-Ed is taught have reinforced the nutrition information with their students during other class time.

» 82% of classroom teachers where SNAP-Ed is taught have made behavior 

changes such as healthier meal and/or snack choices and become more physically active themselves. 

Indirect Education 

Indirect education is also an important component of communicating with SNAPEd target audiences. In 2015, 18,542 indirect activities were carried out by LGU 

SNAP-Ed programs reaching over 103 million participants.

Michigan: Michigan Fresh:

Michigan Fresh, a Michigan State University Extension (MSUE) website, offers 

a range of educational resources to help people experience the state’s locally grown 

fruits and vegetables, meats, and other locally produced products that can be bought 

at local farmer’s markets. The website offers fact sheets that cover topics such as 

preservation techniques and safe storage for different types of vegetables and fruits, 

gardening tips and recipes. This information is offered in English, as well as Spanish and Arabic. Along with MSUE, Michigan Fresh works to educate minority 

groups, including tribal communities, the cognitively impaired and the hard of hearing, on the benefits of good nutrition. The program also provides tours of farmer’s 

markets to help acquaint SNAP eligible individuals with the local, nutritional foods 

found at the market. 

Social marketing through indirect education has been shown to have positive effects when combined with direct education. A study looking at the Iowa Nutrition 

Network’s social marketing campaign, BASICS Plus, showed that gaining parents’ 

attention and engaging them in healthy eating practices for their children can be 

a useful way to increase the effectiveness of school based education programs. 

(Blitstein, et al. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2016)

Louisiana: Let’s Eat for the Health of It:

‘‘Let’s Eat for the Health of It’’ is a social marketing campaign that was run by 

the Louisiana State University AgCenter Extension that focuses on increasing the 

public’s awareness of the many benefits of diet that includes more fruits and vegetables, setting aside time for family meals, and increasing physical activity. Information was disseminated through billboards, posters, outdoor banners, brochures and 

other handouts. Overall, the goal was that increased exposure to this kind of information would help people select healthier foods and make other healthy behavior 

choices. A telephone survey of 600 individuals, post campaign, found that 1⁄2 of all 

survey respondents had been exposed to the campaign materials and that a majority 

of them expressed a readiness to adopt healthier behavior patterns. 

Community Partnerships 

As noted earlier LGU SNAP-Ed uses strong community relationships to develop 

impactful programming and create a forceful multiplier effect.

Washington: Mobile Food Bank Partnership with Second Harvest Food 

Bank:

Second Harvest Food Bank approached Washington State University (WSU) Extension SNAP-Ed in Spokane with a problem: they had too many fresh fruits and 

vegetables to distribute, and wondered if WSU could help them get the produce to 

SNAP-eligible individuals. WSU SNAP Ed partnered with Second Harvest and together they helped to increase access to fresh and healthy foods through Family 

Night events held at local schools, Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) feeding 

sites and outreach to low-income neighborhoods. Second Harvest was able to distribute fresh produce during the Family Night events via its mobile food bank. In 

2015 these efforts culminated in reaching 3,000 families through 34 school sites and 

500 families through the summer feeding sites. The mobile food bank was able to 

distribute over 1.3 million pounds of food through school visits, and 2,500 pounds 

at the summer feeding sites. The partnership with Second Harvest was so successful 

that Second Harvest dedicated a delivery van to be used exclusively as a mobile food 

807

bank by WSU SNAP Ed. The success of this partnership also led to the expansion 

of the WSU SNAP Ed program to include produce tastings at local libraries, senior 

low-income housing, and the Police Athletic League Summer Basketball Camps. 

Teaching children where their food comes from and multiplies the impact of Extension program areas by combining nutrition education with agriculture and youth development. Community garden projects are especially 

strong around the country and research has shown they can increase fruit and vegetable consumption among children. (Heim, et al. JADA, 2009)

Ohio: How Does Your Garden Grow?

A unique multi-organizational partnership has come together in southern Ohio 

using gardening to provide a valuable learning opportunity for under-served children in a 10 week summer program. The collaboration, involving Ohio State University Extension Ag and Natural Resources, 4–H Youth Development, SNAP, Scioto 

County Soil and Water Conservation District, Findlay Manor retirement center and 

the 14th Street Community Center, has established a community garden where 

youth learn about community service, gardening, and nutrition in an intergenerational program. Professionals met with the children at the garden three times per 

week where the children planted, weeded, watered, raked, and tended to their garden every Monday. On these ‘‘Measuring Mondays,’’ each child would measure the 

height, number of leaves, blooms, and fruit of their own plant. 

Not only did the children learn how to plant a garden but they also learned the 

importance of growing their own food, the cost effectiveness of planting a garden, 

working together, team building, nutrition, responsibility, confidence, the benefits of 

physical activity and following directions. Among several goals of the program was 

to teach children about nutrition and eating healthy. Children love to try new foods, 

when they have grown the food themselves and this can have a positive impact on 

lifelong eating habits. 

Food Resource Management 

Managing a food budget is especially important for SNAP recipients to make the 

most of their food dollars.

Texas: Better Living for Texans:

‘‘Better Living for Texans’’ (BLT) is a statewide program serving 217 out of 254 

counties in Texas, and is aimed at helping educate both children and adults on how 

to eat healthier while saving money on their grocery bills. BLT offers educational 

classes, newsletters and other services at no cost to the participants in order to provide up-to-date nutritional advice, particularly to SNAP recipients, so that consumers can make healthier food choices. The program has documented positive behavioral changes in its participants in many areas, including better food shopping 

and food budgeting practices, better food safety and the ability to prepare nutritious 

family meals. 

Physical Activity 

In addition to creating better eating behaviors, SNAP-Ed also focuses on physical 

education whether it is incorporated into nutrition education classes, part of a larger 

collaborative effort or a stand-alone program.

Alabama: Body Quest:

The child obesity program ‘‘Body Quest’’ was first implemented in 1999, and since 

then has become a 15 week, multi-level program aimed at reducing childhood obesity in third-graders. In FY 2015, the initiative was implemented with a treatment 

and control group of students and their parents. The treatment or intervention included social marketing, community coalitions, and parent and child engagement, 

among other things. The curriculum included materials and iPad applications with 

anime-style cartoon characters representing different healthy habits to help make 

the curriculum relatable to children. By the end of the 15 week period, treatment 

students reported eating more fruits and vegetables offered through the School 

Lunch Program compared to the control group. Parents of treatment group children 

were given easy to make, inexpensive recipes that incorporated more vegetables, 

and were given information and tips through a texting initiative. A post-survey 

texting poll found that 100% of parents who received the texts enjoyed them, and 

as a result treatment parents found that their third-graders ate an increased 

amount of vegetables per day compared to the control group. 

SNAP-Ed is an accountable program. SNAP-Ed implementing agencies have regularly scheduled state management evaluations and audits and federally scheduled 

management evaluations and audits every 2 years. LGU SNAP-Ed distribution of 

funds for programming is focused in the community with 84% of all funding going 

to educational delivery staff, 7% devoted to administration and budget, 6% to proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00267 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
808

gram leadership and accountability and 3% curriculum development and support 

staff. 

In 2010, SNAP-Ed that was delivered through LGU Extension used fewer Federal 

dollars per participant than that delivered through other providers. This was an average, and was not necessarily the case for specific providers. There are often important aspects of SNAP-Ed delivery that underlie these figures, such as the challenging nature, and associated higher costs, of reaching particular constituencies 

with nutrition education. The table below shows SNAP-Ed delivery metrics for LGU 

Extension providers and the overall national average cost per participant. Since 

2010 was the last year this number was officially calculated, the SNAP-Ed focus has 

expanded from mainly direct education to direct education plus multi-level interventions. Therefore a new analysis will have to be undertaken to update the calculation 

based on these changes.

SNAP-Ed cost and reach—

Extension and other providers 

nationally, 2010 

LGU Extension Overall 

No. of participants 4.5 million (74%) 6.0 million 

Federal funding level $161 million (43%) $375 million 

Federal cost per participant $36 per person $63 per person 

Source: Sexton, J. FY 2010: A retrospective review (Note: The data in this table are from 2010. 

The funding formula for SNAP-Ed was modified immediately after 2010 data were gathered, 

and a current analysis may produce different figures.) 

Through sound government accounting practices of the LGUs, SNAP-ED is a wellmanaged, reviewed, audited and impactful program. 

Partnerships With Other Federal Nutrition Programs 

Working with other Federal nutrition programs SNAP-Ed reinforces and enhances 

opportunities for success.

Florida: Alachua County Food Hub:

The Alachua County Food Hub, also known locally as the ‘‘Farm to School to 

Work Hub,’’ has become a teaching facility for students, a meeting space for school 

garden champions wanting to connect their gardens to the lunchroom, a place for 

kitchen managers learning to use farm fresh produce, and a learning opportunity 

for districts around the state desiring to incorporate more fresh produce into school 

menus for children most in need. The hub is a true representation of collective impact, which includes a partnership between the Family Nutrition Program (Florida 

SNAP-Ed), the Alachua County School Board, the Growing Educational Training 

program, and numerous community organizations. Students were instrumental in 

helping to develop the food hub where they received and aggregated produce from 

local farmers and learned to weigh, measure, package and distribute to district 

schools. Nineteen SNAP-Ed-eligible schools received produce from local farms as 

well as from onsite gardens and greenhouses through the food hub. Nearly 13,000 

pounds of produce from local farms and the hub gardens were processed through 

the food hub. Additional outcomes and impacts of the program include student participation in gardening classes; training in food packing, food safety procedures; 

more than 150 heads of lettuce produced for the school lunch program; students 

cared for over 3,000 plants for school gardens; five local farms provided more than 

9,000 pounds of produce for 15 SNAP-Ed eligible schools; and students assisted in 

developing standard operating procedures for the food hub based on industry standards.

Oregon: Food Hero and Smarter Lunchrooms:

Oregon State University SNAP-Ed program has a partnership with the Oregon 

State Department of Education—ODE (Child Nutrition Programs, School Food Service, and the broader school environment) includes three training efforts that include 

Oregon SNAP-Ed faculty and staff.

• Five regional culinary workshops designed for Food Service managers and food 

preparation cooks in schools are scheduled for fall of 2016. SNAP-Ed Food Hero 

recipes will be highlighted, and Oregon SNAP-Ed faculty/staff can attend.

• Smarter Lunchroom: There will be ten regional trainings over 18 months, starting in the Fall. Four will focus on the National School Lunch Program; four on 

the Child and Adult Care Food Program; and two on SFSP sites. These are 

train the trainer workshops for Oregon SNAP-Ed faculty/staff members and 

Food Service staff.

809

• Cycle menu training. There will be four locations for these regional trainings 

for school food service employees, and SNAP-Ed faculty can attend.

Incorporation of SNAP-Ed Food Hero recipes into Child Nutrition Programs: ODE 

Child Nutrition Program is continuing to test, quantify, and credit SNAP-Ed Food 

Hero recipes for use in school lunch programs, CACFP sites, and summer feeding 

sites. These recipes are quantified at approximately 12, 24, 50 and 100 serving 

sizes. By the end of 2017, 72 recipes will be completed and listed on the SNAP-Ed 

Food Hero website. These recipes are part of a larger effort that includes ODE, 

DHS, Oregon Department of Agriculture, and Oregon SNAP-Ed. Large posters of 

showcased fruits and vegetables align with the quantity recipes as part of Food 

Hero and Oregon Harvest for Schools. 

SNAP-Ed Future 

The FY 2017 SNAP-Ed Federal Guidance requires states to adopt a new National 

SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework which includes short, medium and long term outcomes and indicators. This Evaluation Framework is accompanied by an interpretive guide to help implementing agencies understand how to best utilize and report 

on outcomes and indicators. This will move the nationwide program into an even 

higher level of standardized outcomes and accountability and help stakeholders see 

the impact of ongoing activities. In addition, implementing agencies are guided by 

a national toolkit of best practices. Development of these new evidence based tools 

guides practitioners to select an intervention with the greatest chance of success for 

their community and provides researchers with tools to document evidenced based 

outcomes for multi-level community based interventions. The goal is to impact 

SNAP recipients where they live, learn, work, play and pray. As we collaborate, cooperate and network with partners the force multiplier will create much needed 

change to our future health outcomes with SNAP-Ed as one of the most innovative 

programs implemented at a community level. 

Thanks to Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and all of the Committee Members for your acceptance and careful review of this testimony. 

Bibliography 

Cooperative Extension’s National Framework for Health and Wellness, March 

2014. Accessed June 28, 2016 from http://www.aplu.org/members/commissions/

food-environment-and-renewable-resources/. Landers, P. The Food Stamp Program: History, Nutrition Education and Impact. 

J. AM. DIET. ASSOC. 2007: 107: 1945–1951. 

Sexton, J. (2013) ‘‘Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education through 

Land-Grant University System for FY 2010: A Retrospective Review.’’ 

Blitstein, J., Cates, S., Hersey, J., Montgomery, D. Adding Social Marketing Campaign to a School-Based Nutrition Education Program Improves Children’s Dietary 

Intake: A Quasi Experimental Study. J. AM. DIET. ASSOC. 2016; 1: 1–10. 

Heim, S., Stang, J., Ireland, M., A Garden Pilot Project Enhances Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in Children. J. AM. DIET. ASSOC. 2009; 109: 1220–1226. 

Robinson-O’Brien, R. Story, M., Heim, S. Impact of Garden-Based Youth Nutrition 

Intervention Programs: A Review. J. AM. DIET. ASSOC. 2009; 109: 273–280. 

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Evidence Analysis Library. Health Disparities, Food Security (2011). Accessed June 26, 2016 at http://www.andeal.org/

topic.cfm?menu=3956&cat=4571. 

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY SUSAN B. FOERSTER, M.P.H., EMERITUS

AND FOUNDING MEMBER, ASSOCIATION OF SNAP NUTRITION EDUCATION

ADMINISTRATORS

Thank you for the opportunity to follow-up on questions from the June 22 hearing, Evaluating the Outcomes and Effectiveness of SNAP Nutrition Education 

(SNAP-Ed). We appreciate the opportunity to suggest how SNAP-Ed could help realize our common vision of more people, living in healthier low-income communities, 

with stronger food and agriculture systems.

How has SNAP nutrition education evolved into what we see today?

Today’s SNAP-Ed results from 3 decades of experience and innovation. Congress 

established the ‘first generation’ that focused on direct nutrition education in 1981; 

ultimately, seven states participated. In the mid-1990’s USDA reviewed progress 

and awarded planning grants for 22 social marketing nutrition networks to use larger-scale approaches, work in partnerships, and qualify for Federal Financial Participation (FFP) funds. In that ‘second generation’, participation grew to all 50 states 

and the District of Columbia (1997–2010). Passage of the 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free 

810

Kids Act (HHFKA) created a ‘third generation’ that added the social determinants 

of health and policy, systems and environmental change (PSEs).

Significant changes in the mission and funding structure of SNAP-Ed 

started several years ago. What services have changed since passage of the 

2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act?

The new Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program in the 2010 

HHFKA expanded the scope of SNAP-Ed to add physical activity and obesity prevention, evidence-based comprehensive community and public health approaches, 

and coordination with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It replaced the FFP incentive funding with state grants that required no match and 

were administered by SNAP state agencies. Passed mid-recession, SNAP-Ed was 

flat funded at ∼$400M through 2018, and a reallocation formula redistributed funds 

among the states. The flat funding and reallocation took effect in FFY 2012 and 

2014, respectively, and the expanded scope of community and public health approaches with policy, systems and environmental supports was fully implemented 

starting in FFY 2015. 

SNAP-Ed today is a responsive program of nutrition education and promotion 

whose practitioners collectively use a wide variety of intervention approaches with 

the different age-, race/ethnic and linguistic population groups their programs serve. 

Similar to commercial marketing, SNAP-Ed tries to reach people as many times, in 

as many ways, and in as many places as possible where they make food and activity 

decisions. SNAP-Ed tailors its efforts to people in the low-resource locations where 

food and activity decisions are made. Evaluation and revision of materials and interventions is routine. SNAP-Ed has strong connections with community groups and 

institutions in low-resource settings and works flexibly with stakeholders as new opportunities arise. 

Even without counting its reach through PSE changes, SNAP-Ed continues to 

touch by far the most low-income people in the most places and formats of all the 

USDA nutrition education programs. As shown below, the number of people 

reached by direct education and social marketing has held steady, though 

the number of repeat educational contacts has dropped.

Reported Reach and Contacts of SNAP-Ed Through Education and Social 

Marketing by 144 State Implementing Agencies in FFY 2015

(Reach of Policy, Systems and Environmental Change Are Not Yet Available) 

Reach or Contacts Numbers Reported, 

2015 Trend since 2010

Individuals (B) 5,924,937 ‰

Direct Education Contacts (H) 145,364,559 ↓

Individuals via Social Marketing Campaigns (J) 19,106,290 ‰

Number of SIAs reporting social marketing activity 128 „

Source: USDA EARS, 2015 Public Use Tables. Letters in parentheses denote the column header 

in the EARS tables. 

Demand for SNAP-Ed has resulted in its being offered in virtually any community 

setting where face-to- face education can be conducted. Each year, direct education is delivered in nearly 50,000 low-resource community sites.

Sites in 23 Community Channels Where Direct Education Was Delivered 

Through SNAP-Ed by 144 State Implementing Agencies, FFY 2015

(Sites of Policy, Systems and Environmental Change Are Not Yet Available) 

Channel Sites

Reported 

Trend 

since 

2010

Channel Sites

Reported 

Trend 

Since 

2010

Schools 16,826 Ê Indian Tribal Organizations (AB) 1,063 „

Day Care/Head Start 3,319 „ Libraries 978 „

Community Centers 2,992 „ Food Stores 962 „

Emergency Food 2,947 ↑ Rehabilitation Centers 943 Ê

Elderly Sites 2,947 Ê Shelters 699 ‰

Community Youth Organizations 2,389 ‰ Extension Sites 668 Ê

Public Housing 2,347 ↑ SNAP Offices 593 ↓

Churches/Faith Organizations 2,167 „ Community Gardens (AD) 571 „

Health Centers 1,160 „ Worksites 474 „

Farmers’ Markets 1,058 ↑ Other Community-Based Organizations 

(AF) 

464 Ê

Adult Ed 1,136 ‰ Other (specify) (AH) 319 „

811

Sites in 23 Community Channels Where Direct Education Was Delivered 

Through SNAP-Ed by 144 State Implementing Agencies, FFY 2015—Continued

(Sites of Policy, Systems and Environmental Change Are Not Yet Available) 

Channel Sites

Reported 

Trend 

since 

2010

Channel Sites

Reported 

Trend 

Since 

2010

WIC 1,081 Ê Total Sites 48,553 ‰

Source: USDA EARS, 2015 Public Use Tables. Letters in parentheses denote the column header in the EARS tables. 

Has the change in funding affected where nutrition education and promotion are offered?

There is a clear trend toward offering direct education in community settings 

other than schools and in trying to reach young children, children outside of school 

and adults. While schools are still the dominant site for SNAP-Ed, the change from 

match-generated funding to a grant has resulted in direct education being offered 

in other community sites: day care, community centers, emergency food systems, 

public housing, farmers’ markets, faith-based organizations, community health centers, food stores, and worksites. In a very natural way, SNAP-Ed staff are able to 

extend the relationships they’ve built through direct education and social marketing 

to assist partners by adding changes in PSEs that will support positive change on 

a larger-scale and with longer-lasting impact. Policies are written organizational decisions, systems changes mean shift in services, and environmental supports involve 

changes in the visual, ‘built’, social, economic, communications, and normative environments. PSEs are designed to make healthy behaviors easier with a larger-scale 

and longer-lasting impact.

How does SNAP-Ed typically coordinate to avoid duplication of efforts?

At the state level, each State Implementing Agency (SIA) must provide an annual 

plan and budget. In the 21 states that have two or more SIAs, one composite plan 

with clear role delineation, outcomes and budget for each SIA must be reviewed and 

approved prior to work commencing. Some states have moved to a competitive RFP 

process to select SIAs. While SIAs collaborate in planning and implementation, it 

is the decision of the SNAP State Agency to fund complementary rather than duplicative programs. 

SNAP-Ed depends on partnerships. In the social marketing ‘generation’ of SNAPEd, statewide networks of organizational leaders from the public, nonprofit, foundation and business sectors were formed. Today, State Nutrition Action Councils composed of the major USDA categorical programs—SNAP, Child Nutrition, EFNEP 

and WIC—are being re-established. They are asked to plan ways to join efforts that 

gain synergies to make the most of their respective efforts. SNAP-Ed has strict 

guidelines to prevent its supplanting the mandates of sister programs.

Eliminating disparities in food access, healthy eating, active living, and obesity 

is a national concern. SNAP-Ed works with partners who have similar aims. These 

include programs of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, such as 

CDC and Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health; USDA, such as the Food Insecurity and Nutrition Incentive (FINI) awardees, farmers’ market initiatives, Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA), and Farm to Anywhere efforts; service organizations; foundations; health plans; and state/local governments. 

All organizations have limited resources. Increasingly, stakeholders try to take a 

collective impact approach. SNAP-Ed is recognized as consistent and long-term, with 

a solid infrastructure, so it often is instrumental behind the scenes in setting a common agenda, establishing outcomes, keeping up communications, and helping to coordinate activities. The goal is to leverage dollars for impact beyond what any 

stakeholder could accomplish alone.

To what extent does SNAP-Ed work with industry? To what degree is industry involved with education? What more could be done?

SNAP is a food shopping assistance program. Of 22 SNAP-Ed states that replied 

to a quick poll, all but one are now working with retail partners or plan to do so 

in the coming year. These include chain and independent supermarkets, corner, 

small, rural, and C-stores, farmers’ markets, and CSAs. Among national and regional chains, states reported working with SNAP-Ed eligible stores in companies 

such as Bashas, Festival Foods, Fred Meyer, Food 4 Less, Giant, Grocery Outlet, 

HyVee, Kroger, Kwik Trip, Meijers, Price Chopper, Safeway, Save-A-Lot, Shop n 

Save, Spartan Nash, Stop and Shop, and Weis Markets. The number of SNAP-EdVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
812

eligible independent, small and C-stores is too numerous to count, as is the 

number of farmers’ markets.

SNAP-Ed activities include direct education, food demonstrations, store tours; instore support, like signage, print recipes and educational information; and largerscale community collaborations with grocer and grower associations, nonprofits like 

Cooking MattersTM, Double-Up Food Bucks, The Food Trust, and Wholesome Wave. 

Several states are planning to work with the Partnership for a Healthier America’s 

FNVTM campaign that encourages millennials to eat more fruits and vegetables, and 

one is joining efforts with Eat Brighter!TM a partnership of the Produce Marketing 

Association, fruit and veggie companies, and Sesame Street. 

Some states work with the separately funded FINI (Food Insecurity and Nutrition 

Incentive) projects in their state, and others intend to respond to future competitions. Some states partner with grocer, grower, and farmers’ market manager associations, especially around increasing EBT redemption. Two states are partnering 

to create a food hub that can help aggregate gleaned food that would otherwise be 

discarded. Several several mentioned working to improve supply chains for school 

food programs. 

SNAP-Ed works easily with eligible smaller food stores and independent chains. 

However, over 80 percent of SNAP dollars are spent in supermarkets, and there are 

barriers to working with national and regional chains that could help shift SNAP 

buying practices on a larger scale: SNAP-Ed targeting rules allow partnerships only 

with stores in eligible low-income Census tracts, usually with few supermarkets, or 

with supermarkets that redeem more than $50,000 in SNAP benefits monthly, 

which is confidential information. From a chain stores’ perspective, corporate approval is usually required to allow partnerships with any local initiatives, and some 

companies are reluctant to target low-income shoppers. It would be helpful if currently-proprietary information about SNAP redemptions and sales of 

healthy foods were made available to states. This information would allow 

SNAP-Ed to approach chains and make the business case for cooperative 

campaigns benefitting SNAP, WIC and other low-income customers.

With all the positive changes that the food industry has made, such as 

recipe-ready fruits and vegetables, healthier fast foods, whole grain breads, 

and healthier lines of processed foods, what more could industry do to help 

low-income customers?

Healthy convenience foods are boon to busy families, but they tend to be too expensive for families who have so little income that they need SNAP. Manufacturers 

and grocers could be given the opportunity to offer these and other healthy foods, 

such as fruits and vegetables in season, at a discounted price to SNAP shoppers. 

Similarly, without a waiver, retailers may not voluntarily offer ‘double up’ or ‘bonus 

value’ for fruits and vegetables purchased with SNAP dollars. As research programs 

like HIP (Healthy Incentive Program) and FINI are showing, incentive pricing helps 

narrow the affordability gap for low-income shoppers and raise dietary quality. The 

Federal non-discrimination policy that prevents retailers from voluntarily 

offering price incentives for healthy foods like targeted fruits and vegetables 

to their SNAP customers could be updated.

There is nothing to prevent a company from shifting prices so that low-nutrient 

foods are priced higher to offset the cost of healthier foods. This has been done successfully in commercial food service venues, like worksite cafeterias and vending 

machines. Price shifts are likely to be especially effective with price-sensitive 

groups such as youth and low-wage workers and when accompanied by nutrition education and promotion.

Although final rules are in place, menu labeling and the improved Nutrition Facts 

labels that show calories and portion sizes more clearly will not become effective 

until late 2017 and 2018 respectively. It would be effective, especially low-income consumers, if companies were to introduce the new labels well before 

the Federal deadline.

While many food companies have developed healthier foods, there has been little 

or no increase in advertising and promotion of the healthy items compared to the 

very high levels of advertising for and promotion of less healthy, high-margin foods 

and beverages. Some studies show that marketing and promotions targeted to nonEnglish speakers, to minority groups and to children are high and disproportionately for less healthy foods and beverages. Changes toward health in advertising, promotion and other business practices would help reduce negative 

influences and—especially for children and adults with limited education—

go far in shaping healthier food norms.

In addition to problems of access to healthy foods, one of the greatest 

challenges that families using SNAP face is that benefits run out before the 

813

end of the month. Is nutrition education the only solution, or is there more 

we need to do to improve benefit adequacy?

EFNEP and SNAP-Ed have proven that education in food resource management 

helps families avoid running out of food money, but there at least four other ways 

that could help. 

First, many families shop once or twice a month for food but still run out of food 

money within 2 or 3 weeks. For families living in food deserts and food swamps 

that, by definition, have limited access to supermarkets where food costs are generally lowest, higher stocking standards for healthy foods in small stores could increase the availability of healthy choices, especially for perishables, between trips 

to the supermarket. SNAP-Ed could be mobilized to help small retailers generate 

consumer demand, introduce in-store changes, and—where needed—help develop 

supply chains for healthier foods. Requiring all stores certified by SNAP to 

stock more and healthier food, bolstered by SNAP-Ed assistance when needed, could make a big difference in rural and under-served neighborhoods all 

year long.

Second, there are many USDA initiatives to help local agriculture and small farmers bring healthier food into under-served communities through farmers’ markets, 

mobile markets, CSAs (Community-Supported Agriculture), FINI projects, farm-toschool/farm-to-fork efforts, the Specialty Crop Block grant, and community gardens. 

These initiatives could be expanded.

Third, the USDA Child Nutrition Programs and SNAP are designed to work together as a holistic safety net for children, yet in many areas participation in essential programs like school breakfast, summer meals and high school lunch programs 

lags far below the number of children whose households need that extra support. 

Due to concerns about supplantation, SNAP-Ed may only provide referral information, not actively encourage participation in the nutrition assistance programs. 

USDA could offer performance incentive awards to state agencies for working together to reduce their state’s food insecurity rates, especially among 

children.

Last, the SNAP eligibility and benefit levels do not vary with cost of living differences among the 48 contiguous states or with regions within each state, and the 

SNAP benefit is based on the household income. In a high cost area, a typical family 

using SNAP is relatively poorer and receives a relatively lower amount of SNAP 

benefit than in a low-cost area. SNAP eligibility and benefit levels could be adjusted for cost-of-living differences.

How do SNAP-Ed programs measure success?

Current reporting focuses on accountability. All state plans must include SMART 

objectives (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound) aligned with 

the state’s needs assessments, strategies and priorities. State program and local 

grantees may follow business-type processes to measure an intervention’s success at 

each step: formative research and intervention design, pilot testing and revision, 

program roll-out, and periodic upgrades in line with ongoing evaluations. All states 

report their formative, process and outcome evaluations, including any publications, 

annually. States report their success in delivering educational and social marketing 

activities to USDA in a national system, EARS (Education and Administrative Reporting System) each year. 

However, the true outcomes sought by SNAP-Ed—better informed people, more 

supportive organizations, stronger community infrastructures and healthier low-income populations—are very difficult to measure, they change very slowly, and most 

successes will be attributable to SNAP-Ed in partnership with others. Change is not 

linear, and outcomes are measured in multi-year increments. It is believed that once 

a ‘tipping point’ is reached, the pace accelerates, but ‘tipping points’ will be different 

among states. There were no reporting systems or data sets anywhere that could 

quantify the wide range of outcomes that lead to healthy eating, active living, food 

security and obesity prevention, much less compile annual statistics across state 

lines. The new SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework is trying to overcome these 

realities and, in so doing, break important new ground in measuring program success.

Can you explain what new reporting mechanisms are being put in place 

to track success in SNAP-Ed as a whole?

The new policy direction from the 2010 HHFKA led to states and USDA working 

together and with other experts on a comprehensive SNAP-Ed Evaluation Framework. It zeros in on outcomes in three spheres of influence that work together to 

support permanent healthy behavior. The Framework has been operationalized into 

an Interpretive Guide (IG) that was released in early June. The IG lays out metrics 

that will become the foundation for reporting SNAP-Ed outcomes comprehensively 

814

and compiling them for many local, state and national uses. The metrics include accomplishments collected as part of program evaluations as well as those drawn from 

national data bases such as those maintained by USDA and CDC. 

In the Framework, measures of success are organized into three spheres of influence: For individuals receiving direct education, selected behavior changes sustained over at least 6 months is considered long-term success. For organizations

that partner with SNAP-Ed to serve low-income people, the implementation of specific policy, systems and environmental changes, with the number of people expected 

to benefit, are counted as long-term success. For multi-sector activities that can 

make a difference on a very large scale, a set of policy and practice changes recommended by authoritative sources and specific to healthy eating and physical activity in low-resource settings has been identified. When low-income specific, multisector changes occurred due at least in part to SNAP-Ed assistance, that is considered a SNAP-Ed success. 

For the 51 Indicators in the Interpretive Guide, there are metrics for eight

short-, 13 medium- and 19 long-term outcomes that together contribute to 11 different Population Outcomes. Each Indicator has standardized metrics that will 

allow compilation and aggregation for the program as a whole. The next step is 

to test and fine-tune metrics, then develop an automated, interactive reporting system that is practical for local, state and national purposes.

What is being done to assure that SNAP-Ed is based on the best practices 

and science?

SNAP-Ed has compiled the first-ever repository containing interventions focused 

on low-resource populations and settings. In the 1990s, SNAP-Ed programs had to 

develop, test, roll-out and continually improve low-income tailored interventions 

from scratch. While many were designed with replication in mind, mechanisms to 

help disseminate best practices were lacking. 

USDA, the National Consortium of Childhood Obesity Research, and ASNNA 

have worked together to produce a single, peer-reviewed public-use repository. 

SNAP-Ed Strategies & Interventions: An Obesity Prevention Toolkit for States (2016) 

will grow as more evidence-based interventions become available. Of the nearly 100 

entries, 2⁄3 were developed by SNAP-Ed states.

Number of Evidence-Based Interventions Cited In the SNAP-Ed Strategies 

& Interventions: An Obesity Prevention Toolkit for States, 2016 *

Target Behavior: 

Breast-feeding ........................................................................................................................ 11

Food ........................................................................................................................................ 76

Physical Activity .................................................................................................................... 39

Intervention Type: 

Direct Education ................................................................................................................... 47

Social Marketing ................................................................................................................... 28

PSE ......................................................................................................................................... 50

Low-Resource Setting/Channel: 

Child Care .............................................................................................................................. 22

School ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Community ............................................................................................................................ 35

Worksite ................................................................................................................................. 10

Retail ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Health Care ........................................................................................................................... 7

* Editor’s note: the formatting of this table has been altered for publishing. The data contained therein has 

not been altered. 

The Toolkit is intended to help states find or adapt on proven-effective interventions that they can mix and match to build comprehensive programs tailored to 

their state’s priorities. It links electronically with websites maintained by the originating programs so users can learn from each other. The Toolkit is will soon be 

available in an interactive format. It is expected that new interventions tailored to 

different SNAP-Ed population segments, dietary and physical activity behaviors, 

types of PSE changes, and community channels will be added each year. The Toolkit is expected to help states meet HHFKA requirements more efficiently, 

avoid duplication when developing new interventions, increase results, and 

standardize program outcomes to be more easily reported across state lines.

Are there specific results that you can point to?

In addition to the peer-reviewed interventions in the Toolkit, SNAP-Ed practitioners participate in scientific meetings to present their work to peers and obtain 

critical feedback. These not only share success, but they serve to continually imVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00274 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
815

prove the practice of nutrition education and promotion. There is as yet no single 

repository for peer-reviewed papers showing the results of SNAP-Ed interventions, 

but it is believed that several hundred are in print. Published results tend to be 

positive for food resource management, fruit and vegetable consumption, 

and physical activity. Lowering obesity rates in population groups requires 

preventing obesity before it happens, and early results with children are 

positive. The challenge will be to take local and state successes to-scale with 

entire populations and in larger geographic areas.

Are there any other approaches to measuring success that could be considered?

Attention is beginning to shift toward examining the cost-effectiveness of comprehensive strategies to reduce obesity. In 2014 a microsimulation found that afterschool physical activity programs would reduce childhood obesity more than the 

other two interventions it analyzed (Kristensen, et al.). All three of the policies in 

that simulation would have greater impact on black and Latino children than on 

whites. In 2015 a cost-effectiveness projection concluded that three of the seven policies would each prevent between 129,000–576,000 cases of childhood obesity, saving 

more in health care costs than the cost to implement (Gortmaker, et al.). Also in 

2015, a systematic review of economic analyses found that, of 27 different interventions, the vast majority reported beneficial economic outcomes (McKinnon, et al.). 

The studies focused on the community and the built environment, nutrition-related 

changes, the school environment, and social marketing and media interventions. 

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation just reported signs of progress reducing childhood obesity in 20 states; it showcased stories and photos from 13 more localities 

that took comprehensive approaches that led to significant declines in childhood obesity.

Since SNAP-Ed uses comprehensive, multi-sector approaches and conducts 

similar programs to those in the four major studies above, it is logical to 

assume that more in-depth evaluation will document similar positive 

changes on a large scale.

Rates of obesity vary across the country. Are SNAP-Ed grants targeted to 

states with higher rates of obesity?

No. The new reallocation formula is based in part on SNAP rates, not obesity. 

However, to the degree that SNAP participation tracks with poverty and food insecurity which are drivers of obesity, the HHFKA formula will help. In the chart 

below, of the 16 states and District of Columbia that fall in any of the four 

‘top 10’ categories for obesity, SNAP-Ed funding through the reallocation 

process will increase for 11. For five states, it will more than double.

It is important to know that, except in the food insecurity and PedNSS (Pediatric 

Nutrition Surveillance Survey) columns, the data below are for the general population since rates for low-income groups are not readily available. With the prevalence of risks greater in low-income population segments, state rates of obesity and type 2 diabetes are no doubt significantly higher for SNAP-Ed 

groups than those shown below.

How does the reallocation process work? How will SNAP-Ed grants be 

impacted?

By 2018, SNAP-Ed will fund states 50% based on their 2009 funding and 50% 

based on the state’s most recent percentage of the national SNAP participation. The 

Congressional reallocation formula uses each state’s FFY 2009 SNAP-Ed Federal Financial Participation as the base, then annually from 2014–2018 adjusts by 10% increments using each state’s prior-year proportion of the national SNAP population. 

As shown below, for the 11 states and District of Columbia with a ‘top 10’ rank 

but where grants are projected to increase by 10% or less, funding will not keep 

pace with the projected cost of living. Not shown are the ten other states without 

a ‘top 10’ designation but with ≤10% growth expected. These include: ME, MI, MN, 

NE, NM, NH, NM, PA, WA and WI. By 2018, grants for 20 states and the District of Columbia be either less than in 2009 or fail to keep up with the Consumer Price Index.

816

Top 10 States for Prevalence of Food Insecurity, Physical Inactivity, Obesity and Diabetes With Estimated Change in SNAP-Ed 

Funding Due to HHFKA Reallocation, 2014–2018

State with Any Top 10 Rank 

Food

Insecurity 

Rank,A 2012–

2014

Physical

Inactivity 

Rank,B

2014 (%) 

Adult Obesity 

Rank,B

2014 (%) 

Obesity in 

High School 

Students 

Rank,C

2015 (%) 

Child Obesity 

Rank, 10–17 

years,D

2011 (%) 

Obese LowIncome 2–4 

Year Olds, 

Rank,E

2011 (%) 

Type 2

Diabetes, 

Adults, 

Rank,B

2014 (%) 

Change in 

SNAP-Ed 

Funding,F

FFY14–18 

(est.) 

Mississippi 1 (22.0) 1 (22.0) 1 (31.6) 3 (35.5) 1 (18.9) 1 (21.7) 3 (13.0) 34%Arkansas 2 (19.9) 2 (19.9) 2 (30.7) 1 (35.9) 4 (18.0) 6 (20.0) 5 (12.7) 56%Louisiana 3 (17.6) 3 (17.6) 3 (29.5) 4 (34.9) N/A 4 (21.1) N/A 87%Kentucky 4 (17.5) 4 (17.5) 6 (28.2) 3 (18.5) 8 (19.7) 6 (15.5) 6 (12.5) ¥5%Texas 5 (17.2) 5 (17.2) 7 (27.6) N/A 10 (19.1) 10 (19.1) N/A 141%Ohio 6 (16.9) 6 (16.9) 8 (32.6) N/A 9 (11.7) 119%Alabama 7 (16.8) 7 (16.8) 5 (33.5) 4 (12.9) 28%Missouri 7 (16.8) 7 (16.8) ¥5%North Carolina 9 (16.7) 7 (15.4) 222%Oklahoma 10 (16.5) 10 (16.5) 5 (28.3) 6 (33.0) 6 (17.3) N/A 7 (12.0) 3%Tennessee 9 (26.8) 9 (26.8) 2 (18.6) 5 (20.5) 2 (13.0) 140%West Virginia 4 (28.7) 2 (35.7) 5 (18.0) 1 (14.1) 6%Indiana 10 (26.1) 10 (26.1) 7 (32.7) 18%North Dakota 9 (32.2) 1%South Carolina 10 (32.2) 8 (16.3) 2 (21.5) N/A 7 (12.0) 419%D.C. N/A 3 (21.4) 3 (21.4) ¥9%Arizona 7 (20.0) ¥13%Illinois 9 (19.3) 32%Georgia N/A 10 (11.6) 10 (11.6) 222%California 1 (16.8) 1 (16.8) 21 (10.3) 21 (10.3) ¥23%New Jersey N/A 2 (16.6) 2 (16.6) 10%Rhode Island 2 (16.6) 2%Massachusetts 4 (16.4) 50%Connecticut 5 (15.8) 1%Maryland 8 (15.3) 59%South Dakota 9 (15.2) 33%Oregon N/A 10 (14.8) 10 (14.8) 5%Delaware 10 (15.8) N/A 61%Lowest Rate DE (8.4) CO (16.4) CO (21.3) MT (10.3) OR (9.9) HI (9.2) UT (7.1) N/A 

A—USDA, ERS 

B—CDC, BRFSS 

C—CDC, Youth Risk Behavior Survey (n=37 states). Other state-specific surveys may be available. 

D—CDC, NHANES for 10 to 

17 year old children. 

E—CDC, Pediatric Nutrition Surveillance Survey (n=41 states). System has been discontinued. 

F—USDA, FNS. This percent reflects the expected 5 year shift in SNAP-Ed grants due to the 10 year cap of ∼$400M (2009). 

817

What can the improvements that SNAP-Ed focuses on mean for health 

care costs? 

Lowering health care costs is complicated because so many factors are in play. 

However, being healthy, by definition, will help reduce or delay the need for expensive services. Poor diet, physical inactivity and obesity have long been known as the 

leading preventable causes of death (JAMA, 1993). Experts urge a collective change 

from an ‘obesogenic environment’ toward ‘a culture of health’ and, for less-advantaged groups, eliminating disparities by focusing on social determinants of health. 

That said, there is little progress toward healthy eating practices, obesity rates are 

up in most groups, and health care costs continue to rise. 

The health care cost trajectory could be changed through prevention. The California Department of Public Health conducted an analysis that estimated the state’s 

10 year cost of physical inactivity, obesity and overweight at nearly $220B in medical care, workers’ compensation and lost productivity (Year 2000 dollars). The 

analysis projected that a ten percent increase in the number of adults who 

were leaner and more active could avoid about $13B in health care costs—

nearly six percent less than the expected 10 year growth.

Nationally, the economic costs of food insecurity, physical inactivity, obesity and 

diet-related diseases are high, as shown below, and many are rising. Among lowincome populations where disease onset occurs at younger ages and rates of 

risk factors are higher, the economic benefits of prevention may be greater 

and occur sooner than in the general population.

Cost of Diet-Related-Diseases and Problems that SNAP and SNAP-Ed Help 

Reduce With Dollars Allocated to SNAP and SNAP-Ed, 2016

Cost Center Cost per Year 

(rounded) Source, Comments 

Food Insecurity $160,000,000,000 Bread for the World Institute, 2016

Obesity $256,000,000,000 Chenoweth & Leutzinger, 2006

Physical Inactivity $251,000,000,000 Chenoweth & Leutzinger, 2006

Type 2 Diabetes $245,000,000,000 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014

Cancer $216,000,000,000 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015

Coronary Heart Disease $204,000,000,000 American Heart Association, 2015

High Blood Pressure $46,000,000,000 American Heart Association, 2015

Stroke $36,000,000,000 American Heart Association, 2015

Osteoporosis $19,000,000,000 National Osteoporosis Foundation, 2014

Total N/A Differences in methods and timeframes preclude totaling these 

costs.

SNAP-Related Investment in Prevention 

SNAP Food Benefits $69,000,000,000 USDA, 2016

SNAP-Ed $408,000,000 USDA, 2016

Total $69,408,000,000 Does not include other economic benefits to individuals and 

communities.1

Conclusion 

SNAP, the centerpiece program in the nation’s nutrition safety net, already provides well documented, significant economic returns and health benefits.1 SNAPEd, its nutrition arm, is increasingly well positioned to multiply those benefits and go further toward achieving the larger mission—food security, good 

nutrition and better health—for low-income Americans, less-resourced communities, and the nation’s food and agriculture systems.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important process. Please plan 

to visit SNAP-Ed projects back home to see the results for yourself. 

[Endnote] 1SNAP generates significant increases in economic activity, jobs and self-employment, and agricultural production throughout the entire food system, from farm to 

table (ERS, 2015). Each SNAP dollar nearly doubles its value in local economic activity (ERS, 2015). Moody’s concluded that the fastest way to infuse an ailing economy is through SNAP because it is quickly spent to generate consumer demand and 

contribute to wages at every point in the food chain (FRAC, 2015). 

SNAP alone has health benefits. SNAP participation early in life is associated 

with lower rates of obesity and metabolic syndrome years later, and it improves educational attainment and economic self-sufficiency, both of which are positively associated with better health (Council of Economic Advisors). SNAP participation resulted in decreased growth of inpatient costs for Medicaid patients in Boston (Sonik, 

et al., 2015). 

818

1Position of the American Dietetic Association: Food Insecurity in the United States. JOURNAL

OF THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOC. 2010; 110: 1368–1377.

Changes in benefits could help. A small increase in benefits was projected to boost 

spending on food and improve dietary quality (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 2016). A 30% incentive boosted fruit and vegetable intake to achieve an unprecedented 5 point increase in the Healthy Eating Index and closed 20% of the gap 

compared to national recommendations (Olsho, et al, 2016). 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND DIETETICS

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Supports SNAP Nutrition Education 

American diets fall short of recommendations for good health and contribute to 

excess rates of preventable chronic diseases (USDA & U.S. DHHS, 2015). Obesity 

rates are high and occur at younger ages in low-income and some minority groups, 

as do other serious problems like Type 2 diabetes, heart disease and hypertension 

(USDA & U.S. DHHS, 2015). 

Nutrition education is critical to good health and the development of lifelong 

healthy behaviors. Effective and targeted nutrition education across the life cycle 

can have an empowering and positive impact on the health and well-being of Americans. To address food insecurity in low-resource populations the Academy recommends:

‘‘. . . interventions, including adequate funding for and increased utilization 

of food and nutrition assistance programs, inclusion of food and nutrition education in such programs and innovative programs to promote and support individual and household economic self-sufficiency.’’ 1

SNAP Nutrition Education, or SNAP-Ed, is an innovative nutrition education program that is meeting the unique needs of low-income communities nationwide. 

SNAP-Ed provides targeted effective nutrition education that empowers families to 

make lasting behavior change and builds skills to manage limited resources towards 

economic self-sufficiency. 

History of SNAP-Ed 

As early as 1981 and building over time, Congress and the USDA have recognized 

the critical role of government supported nutrition education to helping the most nutritionally vulnerable populations make healthy food choices. 

In the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981, the House and Senate Agriculture Committees initiated efforts to expand the reach of nutrition education to food stamp 

recipients (SEC. 1322). Specifically, ‘‘to encourage the purchase of nutritious foods, 

the Secretary is authorized to extend food and nutrition education to reach food 

stamp program participants, using the methods and techniques developed in the expanded food and nutrition education and other programs.’’ Over the next few years 

and up to the rewrite of the farm bill, USDA began to employ more innovative approaches to reach broader low low-income audiences beyond the ‘‘one-on-one’’ approach used in the successful Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program. 

In the Food Security Act of 1985, Title XVII, Subtitle A, Congress authorized 

USDA to make funds available to State Cooperative Extension Services to expand 

their food, nutrition and consumer services for low-income households. The House 

Agriculture Committee ‘‘wishes to ensure, to the extent possible, that low-income 

households have access to programs enabling them to maximize their food dollars 

and improve their diets,’’ according to report language for this 1985 Act. ‘‘The primary purposes of the program are to (1) increase the ability of low-income persons 

to manage their food budgets, (2) advance the ability of these persons to buy food 

that satisfies nutritional needs and promotes good health and (3) improve the food 

preparation, storage, safety, preservation and sanitation practices of low-income 

people.’’ The Committee urges program funding to be spent on education activities 

and services rather than development of teaching materials and thus to be coordinated with the Food and Nutrition Service nutrition education efforts. The Committee report stated that ‘‘the targeting of this nutrition education program on the 

low-income population is not based on the belief that these persons are poorer shoppers or know less about good nutrition than other Americans. This program is targeted on low-income persons because of their special needs to stretch limited food 

dollars and to assure that the public’s tax dollars devoted to food assistance programs are spent in the most efficient way possible.’’

Over the past 30 years, the food stamp nutrition education program, now titled 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education has achieved the goals 

819

of the program initiators in the House Agriculture Committee. From a plethora of 

innovative education methods, millions of more low-income individuals have gained 

competence in managing their food budgets, shopping for and preparing healthful 

food and improving their overall health. 

Innovative Nutrition Education Programming 

Nutrition education is not is merely handing out brochures, lectures or memorizing nutrients. 

Nutrition education is engaging, fun and experiential. It is about food: tasty, delicious food that is also healthful. 

Effective education strategies in combination and coordination with nutrition assistance programs will help ensure the Federal investment in these programs is optimized. Nutrition education ensures that families have knowledge and skills and 

are empowered to make healthy choices, whether purchasing food in the grocery 

store, corner store or restaurants or preparing food at home. For example a 2013 

Deloitte study found that smart grocery shopping and healthful cooking can save 

a family approximately $46,000 per adult family member in lifetime health care 

costs and wages lost to sick days. Nutrition education can help build those types 

of food skills. 

SNAP-Ed Evolves 

State SNAP-Ed programs were designed to operate at all levels: neighborhoods, 

cities, counties, regions and statewide. SNAP-Ed promotes healthy behaviors and 

helps create conditions in which the healthy choice is the easy choice. Empowering 

families with the skills and promoting healthy surroundings through systems supports foster lifelong healthy food and physical activity choices. Early adoption of 

healthy habits, resource management skills, coupled with systems approaches that 

support those habits are key to reducing health care costs related to chronic diseases like obesity, diabetes and heart disease. SNAP-Ed evaluated programs show:

• Increases in fruit and vegetable consumption and physical activity by participating low-income children and adults (Johnson, et al., 2013; Sexton & 

Chipman, 2013).

• Increases in dietary intake of fiber, calcium, iron and other key nutrients needed for a healthier diet (Johnson, et al., 2013; Sexton & Chipman).

• Unprecedented gains in statewide fruit and vegetable consumption by low-income residents using social marketing nutrition networks (Foerster & Gregson, 

2011).

• Decreases in new cases of overweight among elementary children in a large 

urban school district (Foster, et al., 2008).

• Increases in food resource management skills and decreased incidence of food 

shortage before the end of the month (Kaiser, et al., 2015).

• Stronger methods and best practices for nutrition education (Lovett, Sherman, 

& Barno).

While much is happening now, more can be done to ensure that nutrition assistance programs are leveraged more to help improve the health and well-being of 

Americans—ultimately resulting in health care savings. 

Evidenced-Based Evaluation of Nutrition Education Programing 

Over its history, SNAP-Ed has embraced the mission of helping achieve the nation’s goals for food security, healthful eating, physical activity and obesity prevention. States designed and tested many new approaches, shared what was learned 

and saw were significant results. From the start, we knew we needed to capture 

all those results to characterize the scale of SNAP-Ed progress among states and 

across the country. Many states have developed and conducted evaluation of the 

program for many years. 

The recently released report from the National Commission on Hunger noted the 

importance of SNAP-Ed and highlighted the ‘‘opportunity to standardize data collection and evaluation across programs to assess the effectiveness of SNAP-Ed on improving health and hunger outcomes.’’ In June 2016, building on the 30 year history 

of innovative state evaluations, a team with representation from the USDA, CDC 

and the National Collaborative on Child Obesity Research released the SNAP-Ed 

Evaluation Framework and Interpretative Guide. 

This evaluation framework is designed as a science-driven roadmap to show how 

collective efforts across the country could lead to population results. It is designed 

to help SNAP-Ed implementing agencies capture the more distal and permanent 

820

benefits to society that expert bodies say are needed and that this kind of work can 

generate. 

The Interpretative Guide provides the ‘‘how’’ to drive toward big results without 

losing the targeting of SNAP-Ed programming tailor to a community’s needs. It 

operationalizes the Framework’s 51 Indicators, each of which has specific metrics, 

to help programs quantify and then aggregate SNAP-Ed outcomes over time. Those 

metrics will allow us to capture specific, important benefits to individuals, to systems, organizations and businesses and to entire low-resource communities at the 

local, regional and statewide levels. The synergy of this work—especially in partnerships with other committed stakeholders—is how we believe population-wide results 

are being achieved and can be quantified. 

Conclusions 

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics supports and emphasizes the necessity 

of pairing nutrition assistance programs with strong and comprehensive nutrition 

education programs. SNAP-Ed continues to provide innovative and effective nutrition education that empower families to make lasting healthy choices. The SNAPEd Evaluation Framework will help aggregate data that will help policy makers better understand the collective impact of SNAP-Ed interventions. 

SUBMITTED STATEMENT BY LAURIE M. TISCH CENTER FOR FOOD, EDUCATION & 

POLICY

Statement in Support of SNAP Education 

The Laurie M. Tisch Center for Food, Education & Policy in the Program in Nutrition, Teachers College Columbia University (the Tisch Food Center) is pleased to 

comment on the critical importance of the Federal SNAP Education program. The 

Tisch Food Center cultivates research about connections between a just, sustainable 

food system and healthy eating, and translates it into recommendations and resources for educators, policy makers, and community advocates. The Program in Nutrition at Teachers College is the oldest university based nutrition program in the 

country, and founded the field of nutrition education. 

The need for high-quality nutrition education is more critical than ever. Even 

when we know what to eat, it’s hard, and most American diets are falling short of 

national nutrition recommendations.2 This has resulted in high rates of obesity and 

other preventable chronic diseases, including type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension.2

The Federal Government makes a significant investment in access to healthy food 

for all Americans through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 

This investment can be maximized when healthy food access is paired with nutrition 

education, through SNAP Education (SNAP-Ed). This offers the best opportunity for 

children and families to be responsible and informed about their food—synonymous 

with providing a fishing rod along with guidance and hands-on learning experiences 

to catch lots of fish. 

Nutrition education is a cost-effective obesity prevention strategy,3 yet the current 

Federal investment in SNAP-Ed is much less than the cost of obesity, $408 million 

vs. $147 billion.4 SNAP-Ed is an effective program, making significant improvements in the diets of participants. Evidence shows that SNAP-Ed participants ate 

more fruits and vegetables, were more physically active,5 and were better able to 

manage their food resources.6

SNAP-Ed in NYC: Stellar Farmers’ Market Program 

• With a SNAP-Ed grant, the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and the 

New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance collaborated to provide 

free nutrition and cooking workshops to SNAP eligible participants at farmers’ markets 

in low-income neighborhoods. 

• This program, called Stellar Farmers’ Market, leverages local dollars for SNAP incentives called Health Bucks, allowing participants to learn about and purchase local 

produce. 

• Program participants increased fruit and vegetable consumption, and reported higher 

self-efficacy to prepare and consume produce.1

References: 

1. Dannefer R., Abrami A., Rapoport R., Sriphanlop P., Sacks R., Johns M. A 

Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a SNAP-Ed Farmers’ Market-Based Nutrition EduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00280 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
821

cation Program. JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR. 2015; 47: 516–

525. 

2. U.S. Department of Agriculture & U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2015–2020 Eighth Edition. 2015. 

3. McKinsey Global Institute. Overcoming Obesity: An Initial Economic Analysis.

November 2014. 

4. IOM (Institute of Medicine). The current state of obesity solutions in the United 

States: Workshop Summary. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 

2014. 

5. Sexton J.S., Chipman H. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education 

through the Land-Grant University System for FY 2010: A Retrospective Review.

2013. 

6. Kaiser L., Chaidez V., Ginsburg D.C., et al. Food Resource Management Education with SNAP Participation Improves Food Security. JOURNAL OF NUTRITION

EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR. 2015; 47(4): 374–378.

For more information about this brief or the Laurie M. Tisch Center for 

Food, Education & Policy please contact Claire Uno, Assistant Executive 

Director at [Redacted] or [Redacted] • www.tc.edu/tisch. 

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Response from Kimberlydawn Wisdom, M.D., M.S., Senior Vice President, 

Community Health & Equity and Chief Wellness and Diversity Officer, 

Henry Ford Health System 

Question Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress from 

North Carolina 

Question. Dr. Wisdom, can you elaborate on your recommendation to modify the 

Thrifty Food Plan and why it currently does not adequately capture the higher costs 

of healthy foods and the regional variability in the cost of living for SNAP participants? 

Answer. The Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) serves as a national standard for a nutritious diet at a minimal cost and is used as the basis for maximum food stamp allotments. The purchasing power of the TFP has yet to be increased by USDA, even 

though the opportunity presented itself in 1983, 1999, and 2006 during market basket revisions. The 2006 revision of the TFP market baskets reflected changes in dietary guidance and incorporated updated information on food composition, consumption patterns, and food prices at the same inflation-adjusted cost of the previous 

TFP. TFP requires tradeoffs between the nutrition quality and costs of foods available in the United States. 

Critics of the TFP plan cite its impractical lists of food, lack of variety, unrealistic 

assumptions of food availability and affordability, underestimation of food waste, 

and the cost of the time needed to prepare foods. The program’s most significant 

weakness is that benefits are not adequate to get most families through the entire 

month, let alone to allow them to buy the foods needed for a high, quality diet.1

Families need to plan ahead and select the most common fresh fruits and vegetables 

such as apples and bananas, iceberg lettuce and processed fruits and vegetables 

(canned, frozen, dried, and juiced products) such as canned tomatoes to stay within 

the TFP budget restraints.2 No cultural or regional variations are considered. 

The costs of foods greatly vary based on where you live, where you shop and what 

is available in your area. The TFP is based on a national average of food prices, 

but food prices vary widely across the nation, as concluded in several USDA reports. 

As a result, higher food prices in many communities—especially urban areas—make 

it difficult to meet TFP guidelines and afford a healthful diet, because SNAP consumers have less purchasing power with their program benefits.1 To meet the 2005 

Dietary Guidelines market basket would require a low-income family to devote 43% 

to 70% of their food budget to fruits and vegetables depending on where they lived 

and shopped for these items.4 This would also require families to allocate a much 

larger share of their overall food budget to fruits and vegetables and carefully budget to meet these requirements and eliminate the purchase of other processed foods. 

Low-income consumers that shop in non-chain stores pay a significant premium 

due to poor access to chain stores in their neighborhoods, this is especially true in 

rural areas. One study revealed that the biggest factor contributing to higher grocery costs in poor neighborhoods is that large chain stores, where prices tend to be 

lower, are not located in these neighborhoods.3

In reaching the TFP target most products are in there raw form, for example dry 

beans vs. canned beans, required significantly more planning and preparation time 

822

for meals. One study suggested that time is more constraining than money and that 

solely focusing on money could severely underestimate the gap between actual expenditures and those required to reach the TFP target.5

The USDA’s Low-Cost Food Plan—not the Thrifty Food Plan—is a much more appropriate basis for SNAP allotments. Such a change would improve the health and 

well-being of millions of low-income Americans and is more aligned with how much 

money is needed to maintain a more food-secure household for the month. The LowCost Food Plan allows for greater food variety and choices to support regional and 

cultural variations and preferences and allows for the purchase of more nutritionally adequate diets than those households spending at the TFP level. This is consistent with a study conducted in 2010, which found that increases in food spending 

positively impacted the dietary quality of SNAP participants.6 Other strategies 

could include incentivizing or subsidizing fruit and vegetables purchases for SNAP 

recipients, allowing states to adjust benefit costs based on cost of living standards 

for food, or allowing SNAP recipients to purchase certain products from online or 

delivery services for convenient access to fruits and vegetables and other healthy 

foods. 

Citations 

1. Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). ‘‘Replacing the Thrifty Food Plan in 

Order to Provide Adequate Allotments for SNAP Beneficiaries’’ HTTP://FRAC.ORG/PDF/

THRIFTY_food_plan_2012.pdf. 

2. Stewart, Hayden, and Noel Blisard. ‘‘The Thrifty Food Plan and low-income 

households in the United States: What food groups are being neglected?.’’ Food Policy 31.5 (2006): 469–482. 

3. Cassady, Diana, Karen M. Jetter, and Jennifer Culp. ‘‘Is price a barrier to eating more fruits and vegetables for low-income families?’’ Journal of the American Dietetic Association 107.11 (2007): 1909–1915. 

4. Chung, Chanjin, and Samuel L. Myers. ‘‘Do the poor pay more for food? An 

analysis of grocery store availability and food price disparities.’’ Journal of Consumer Affairs 33.2 (1999): 276–296. 

5. Davis, George C., and Wen You. ‘‘Not enough money or not enough time to satisfy the Thrifty Food Plan? A cost difference approach for estimating a money-time 

threshold.’’ Food Policy 36.2 (2011): 101–107. 

6. Mabli, James, et al. Food expenditures and diet quality among low-income 

households and individuals. Mathematica Policy Research, 2010. 

Response from Shreela V. Sharma, Ph.D., R.D., L.D., Associate Professor, Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, 

University of Texas; Co-Founder, Brighter Bites 

Question Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress from 

North Carolina 

Question. Dr. Sharma, the families that participate in your program Brighter 

Bites in Texas are using produce that is donated by food distributors rather than 

having to purchase fruits and vegetables on their own. 

Do you have an estimate of how much a family would have to increase their 

monthly grocery bill in order to buy produce if it was not donated to them through 

this program? 

Answer. Thank you for this important question. On average Brighter Bites families receive 30–35 lbs of a variety of seasonal produce each week through the program. We have estimated the retail cost of this amount of produce to be, on average, 

$32.37 (Ò$7.41) for the produce provided per week in the 2015–2016 school year. 

Additionally, we collect data from the families by asking our families ‘‘on average, 

how much money did participating in Brighter Bites help you save on your monthly 

grocery bill?’’ Of the 4,415 Brighter Bites families across Houston, Austin and Dallas 

who responded to this question in the 2015–2016 school year, families reported saving on average $34.30 per week on their grocery bill. 

Response from Jo Britt-Rankin, Ph.D., Associate Dean/Program Director, 

Human Environmental Sciences Extension, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO; on behalf of Extension Committee on Organization and 

Policy 

Question Submitted by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress from 

North Carolina 

Question. Dr. Britt-Rankin, you mention in your testimony that land-grant universities offer multiple nutrition education programs at each institution that are complimentary and are not duplicative. 

823

Can you elaborate on how extension programs through the Expanded Food and 

Nutrition Education Program complement the outreach that is funded through 

SNAP education grants in the State of Missouri? 

Answer. Thank you Representative Adams for allowing me to provide further explanation . . .

I have created the table to help describe the two programs nationally. You will 

then see the more specific Missouri example below the table.

EFNEP SNAP-Ed 

Funding Smith-Lever [(3)(d)]/Capacity to LGU’s Grant program to state SNAP agency 

Target Audience Families w/children in the home and 

youth groups 

SNAP recipients & eligibles 

Program Delivery Ave. of eight lessons for adults/six for 

youth. Enrollment, graduation and 

national reporting forms. 

Multiple methods—single and multi-session. 

Policy, System & Environment interventions 

to complement direct education 

No. of Participants *500,000 direct 

340,000 indirect education 

41,489,783 direct 

146,515,970 indirect Ed 

374,888,292 social marketing 

* EFNEP is people. SNAP-Ed is contacts. 

First, the guidance for SNAP-Ed specifically states that implementing agencies 

must develop a coordination plan and indicate what steps they will take to prevent 

duplication of services. Each year we work with USDA food assistance programs, 

state agencies, the hunger community and other health providers in Missouri to determine how we will provide education and services in concert with each other. 

Many of these partners are members of our nutrition network, MOCAN—Missouri 

Council on Activity and Nutrition. We determine who is providing services in specific locations and if Extension can provide complementary educational programs. 

We also survey to determine where gaps in services and education may exist. 

Internally, we evaluate these programs extensively each year. About 10 years ago, 

we began to see our EFNEP enrollments begin to decline. At that time, our EFNEP 

paraprofessionals were primarily located in the more rural parts of the state. In 

these areas, the populations were sparse and it was difficult to locate adequate 

numbers of new participants. At that time, we determined that there was a greater 

unmet need in the urban/metropolitan areas of Kansas City and St. Louis. Given 

that each metropolitan area has over two million residents, we determined it best 

to centralize our efforts into the two largest population centers of the state. 

Although this move to the urban/metropolitan areas has concentrated our geographic reach, it has increased our participant numbers greatly. We also wanted to 

ensure that EFNEP and SNAP-Ed staff would not duplicate efforts or provide education in the same locations. Local program coordinators work with each program’s 

educators to determine what organizations or sites will receive programming each 

given year. For example, EFNEP staff in St. Louis collaborates with the International Institute and provides nutrition education to new immigrant families. 

EFNEP staff also work with youth/community garden programs. SNAP-Ed in these 

same geographic locations focus their efforts on school-based, classroom education 

as well as seniors and adults without children in the homes. 

In Missouri, we have found this to be effective in increasing participation rates 

as well as preventing duplication of efforts. In 2016, EFNEP reached more individuals than ever before. Having a very defined audience also allows the educators to 

become more focused on teaching and evaluating their respective program rather 

than searching for new audiences. 

I do want to be clear, in Missouri, we have not left the rural areas. SNAP-Ed in 

Missouri is a statewide program. We have educators in all 114 counties and the city 

of St. Louis. We utilize a combination of direct education, indirect education, social 

marketing, and PSE interventions to reach across the state. 

(825)

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM 

(THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: EVALUATING 

ERROR RATES AND ANTI-FRAUD MEASURES TO ENHANCE 

PROGRAM INTEGRITY) 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 6, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael 

Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Conaway, Lucas, Gibbs, 

Crawford, Gibson, Benishek, Denham, LaMalfa, Davis, Walorski, 

Allen, Abraham, Moolenaar, Newhouse, Kelly, Peterson, David 

Scott of Georgia, Costa, Walz, Fudge, McGovern, DelBene, Vela, 

Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, Bustos, Aguilar, Adams, Graham, 

and Ashford. 

Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Callie McAdams, Jadi Chapman, Mary Nowak, Mollie Wilken, Stephanie Addison, Lisa 

Shelton, Liz Friedlander, Matthew MacKenzie, Nicole Scott, and 

Carly Reedholm. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, good morning. This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture entitled, Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: 

Evaluating Error Rates and Anti-Fraud Measures to Enhance Program Integrity, will come to order. I have asked Trent Kelly to open 

us with a brief prayer. Trent. 

Mr. KELLY. Bow your heads. Dear Lord, we just ask that you 

bless our farmers in this great nation. We ask that you bless those 

who are needy and who are less fortunate than us. We ask that all 

we do in this nation honor, and we ask that you guide us in all 

our decisions. In Jesus’ name, I pray. Amen. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Trent. 

I want to welcome our witnesses to today’s hearing and thank 

them for taking the time to share their insight on how we can enhance program integrity within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This hearing, builds upon the Committee’s top-tobottom review of SNAP and I hope it will provide a greater understanding of efforts being made to ensure SNAP is run at the highest caliber. 

826

Americans generally support welfare programs to help those who 

have fallen on hard times, the elderly, children, and disabled individuals who cannot care for themselves. In order to maintain support from American taxpayers, we as legislators and program administrators must ensure that these programs are accountable and 

transparent. 

One way we hold these programs accountable is by tracking the 

annual error rate. Error rates stem primarily from overpayments 

or underpayments to SNAP recipients by the states. Compared to 

other means-tested programs, SNAP has a relatively low error rate 

of 3.2 percent for Fiscal Year 2015. But, what does this number tell 

us? What are the factors used in determining the error rate? And 

when comparing error rates across programs, are we really comparing the same criteria? 

In addition to error rates, we will also be discussing fraud, and 

more specifically, trafficking, which occurs when SNAP benefits are 

exchanged for cash. USDA’s most recent report for trafficking was 

1.3 percent, but again, what does that rate really tell us and what 

additional improvements can be made? 

Finally, whether we are talking about errors or outright fraud, 

another key question is who should bear the financial and oversight responsibility for reducing misused dollars. The states or the 

Federal Government? 

While the error rate for SNAP is low, it translates to more than 

$2 billion per year in payments that are issued incorrectly. Programs can always improve, and as the Committee responsible for 

oversight of SNAP, we should always be pushing to ensure that 

SNAP is working well, both for the 45 million recipients that rely 

on food assistance, and for the taxpayers that fund that program. 

I think that is something we should all be able to agree on today. 

And I look forward to hearing from our panel. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

I want to welcome our witnesses to today’s hearing and thank them for taking 

the time to share their insight on how we can enhance program integrity within the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. This hearing, builds upon the Committee’s top-to-bottom review of SNAP and I hope it will provide a greater understanding of efforts being made to ensure SNAP is run at the highest caliber. 

Americans generally support welfare programs to help those who have fallen on 

hard times, the elderly, children, and disabled individuals who cannot care for themselves. In order to maintain support from American taxpayers, we as legislators and 

program administrators must ensure that these programs are accountable and 

transparent. 

One way we hold these programs accountable is by tracking the annual error rate. 

Error rates stem primarily from overpayments or underpayments to SNAP recipients by the states. Compared to other means-tested programs, SNAP has a relatively low error rate of 3.2 percent for FY 2015. But, what does this number tell 

us? What factors are used in determining the error rate? When comparing error 

rates across programs, are we really comparing the same criteria? 

In addition to error rates, we will also be discussing fraud, and more specifically, 

trafficking—which occurs when SNAP benefits are exchanged for cash. USDA’s most 

recent report for trafficking was 1.3 percent, but again, what does that rate really 

tell us and what additional improvements can be made? Finally, whether we are 

talking about errors or outright fraud, another key question is who should bear the 

financial and oversight responsibility for reducing misused dollars. The states or the 

Federal Government? 

827

While the error rate for SNAP is relatively low, it translates to more than $2 billion per year in payments that are issued incorrectly. Programs can always be improved and as the Committee responsible for oversight of SNAP, we should always 

be pushing to ensure that SNAP is working well. Both for the 45 million recipients 

that rely on food assistance, and for the taxpayers that fund the program. I think 

that is something we can all agree on here today, and with that said I look forward 

to hearing from our panel.

The CHAIRMAN. With that, I ask the Ranking Member for any 

comments he might have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to 

thank today’s witnesses for joining the Agriculture Committee’s ongoing and thorough review of SNAP. 

States have a lot of flexibility when it comes to administering 

SNAP, and it is important that, especially as we continue our review and look ahead to possible policy changes, that we keep this 

in mind, and we keep a close eye on their work. 

We have made significant progress, I believe, in eliminating 

waste, fraud, and abuse in the SNAP Program, and with EBT 

cards it has made it very difficult for the recipients to cheat the 

system. But what still doesn’t make sense to me is that we have 

created a system where states set the rules in some cases, and then 

we are left paying the bill. Categorical eligibility has allowed for 

different states to provide different benefits. The way programs like 

LIHEAP are also connected to SNAP, and they have only expanded 

these discrepancies. 

Giving states more power while the Federal Government is still 

footing the bill, like block grants, just, to me, doesn’t make a lot 

of sense. 

If you had a business where somebody decided how to spend your 

money and then sent you the bill, I don’t think you would survive 

very long. I question that whole direction. 

With that said, I am looking forward to today’s testimony, and 

learning more about the efforts being undertaken here in Washington to address some of these issues and ensure a thorough oversight. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Ranking Member. 

The chair requests that other Members submit their opening 

statements for the record so that our witnesses may begin their 

testimony, and ensure there is ample time for questions. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses to the witness table today. 

First, we will have Ms. Jessica Shahin, who is the SNAP Associate 

Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, Washington, 

D.C. We also have Ms. Kay Brown, Director, Education, Workforce, 

and Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

Washington, D.C. And I have asked our college, Bob Gibbs, to introduce our third witness. Bob. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a privilege to welcome our Auditor of the State of Ohio, the Honorable Dave Yost. 

He is in his second term. He has done a remarkable job working 

in the State of Ohio, auditing from the Board of Education, some 

local municipalities, state government, and he has really brought 

828

accountability and transparency, and is protecting taxpayers’ dollars. 

And before he was an auditor for the State of Ohio, he was an 

auditor in Delaware County, and then he was also the county prosecutor, and has a law degree and a law background. So that really 

makes a good mix. 

And just on a personal note, he is quite a singer. He is a musician, I can’t say it, and plays the guitar and been quite an entertainer. But he has done a great job, and his report here, Auditing 

the SNAP Program in the State of Ohio, is a good benefit to the 

Committee. Welcome. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. 

Jessica, I butchered your last name. 

Ms. SHAHIN. It is Shahin. It is Shahin. Rhymes with machine. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Ms. Shahin, the floor is yours for 5 

minutes, thank you. And I apologize for butchering your last name 

earlier. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Not at all. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized for 5 minutes, ma’am. 

STATEMENT OF JESSICA SHAHIN, ASSOCIATE

ADMINISTRATOR FOR SNAP, FOOD AND NUTRITION

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Peterson. I am pleased to join you today to discuss the integrity of 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. 

I have dedicated most of my career to making SNAP work for individuals and families in need of nutrition assistance. It has been 

a central principle for me, working at the state level and in Federal 

Administrations of both parties, that SNAP cannot succeed and 

continue without strong public confidence. All of us, Federal, state, 

and local, are rightly accountable for good stewardship of tax dollars. Strong efforts to use every dollar wisely and eliminate error 

and fraud are critical to preserving benefits for the vast majority 

of participants who play by the rules, and need help to ensure access to adequate and nutritious food. 

Integrity encompasses many aspects of SNAP operations. It includes administrative errors and other kinds of mistakes, as well 

as deliberate efforts to defraud the program. We must ensure that 

benefits go to eligible people in the proper amount. We must prevent fraud, and when it occurs, must hold bad actors accountable. 

And as a Federal oversight agency, we must ensure that states administer SNAP according to laws and regulations. 

FNS works on its own and with states to meet these responsibilities. The agency works closely with states to prevent and reduce 

errors at certification, through business process reengineering, IT 

improvements, and sharing best practices. While most such errors 

are just that; unintentional, clients who deliberately violate SNAP 

rules are disqualified and must repay the funds. 

FNS continues to investigate problems with the state-administered quality control system identified in 2015. We reached agreement with the USDA’s Inspector General, and we are proceeding 

829

to implement all recommendations from its quality control audit, 

and completed reviews of 33 state agencies. When all reviews are 

complete by December 2016, USDA will release a Fiscal Year 2015 

error rate. 

We are also updating guidance documents and preparing extensive training efforts for states and for FNS staff. 

Let me underscore that the QC system problems reflect actions 

by states, not by low-income households who receive SNAP. 

We are relentless in the fight against trafficking; the illegal sale 

or purchase of benefits. FNS restructured our retailer management 

functions into a single centralized business structure to better target resources to the greatest risks. We use data analytics, and have 

updated our ALERT system in-line with state-of-the-art technology 

to better detect suspicious SNAP redemptions. We have implemented policies that combat abuse and misuse of benefits, and imposed stronger penalties and sanctions against violating retailers. 

And finally, we have provided resources to retailers and the general public about ways to fight and report program abuse. 

But both stores and participants have a role in trafficking, and 

we support states in fighting recipient trafficking through predictive analytics, which can be paired with data on retailer disqualification, and excessive card replacements to target those most 

likely to traffic. These are just a few examples of actions and strategies now underway. 

As a civil servant, I am happy to do my work outside of the spotlight. Congressional testimony is certainly a change of pace for me. 

But I am truly pleased to have the chance to talk with you today 

about the initiatives we have underway, to highlight the work of 

the hundreds of people at FNS and in the states around the country committed to, and involved in, strengthening of SNAP integrity. 

We focus on this work because it reflects the government that 

Americans expect and deserve, and because it is essential to meeting the program’s mission, now and into the future. 

I look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shahin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JESSICA SHAHIN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SNAP, 

FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. 

Thank you, Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson for this opportunity to appear before you today. I am pleased to share what we are doing at the 

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to protect and ensure the integrity of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). I am the Associate Administrator for 

SNAP, and have been the Program’s career Senior Executive since 2004. 

SNAP is the cornerstone of our nation’s nutrition assistance safety net—providing 

access to food and lifting millions of Americans out of poverty as they participate. 

The program currently provides food assistance, nutrition education and work support services to 44.3 million low-income individuals according to the most recent 

month of data. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, 64 percent of SNAP participants were children, seniors, and those with disabilities and 42 percent of SNAP participants lived 

in a household with a currently working adult. Census-based estimates show that 

among SNAP households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more 

than 80 percent work in the year before or after receiving SNAP benefits (Rosenbaum, 2013), an important reflection of who participates in this important nutrition 

safety net program. 

SNAP provides critical nutrition assistance to low-income households. Ensuring 

the integrity of the program is imperative to make sure that this assistance remains 

available to the households who need it, and so is paramount to me personally, as 

830

well as to the Agency. We define integrity broadly, to include ensuring the proper 

amount of benefits go to those who are eligible; ensuring that fraud and trafficking 

does not take place, and, when it does, that bad actors are held accountable; and, 

ensuring that states administer the Program in accordance with rules and regulations. That is our responsibility as the Federal oversight agency. 

Today I will largely limit my remarks to the importance and activities associated 

with integrity and accountability. But before I do, I would like to make note of the 

core program attributes and the people served by this important nutrition assistance program. 

Studies have shown that participating in SNAP is associated with a significant 

decrease in food insecurity and, in turn, helps to address a range of negative health 

outcomes that are associated with food insecurity. SNAP lifts millions of people out 

of poverty. Recent Census data indicate that 4.7 million people, including 2.1 million 

children, were lifted out of poverty due to SNAP benefits in 2014. The impact is 

greatest for the most poor, moving 13 percent of participating households from 

below to above 50 percent of the poverty line as it improves their well-being with 

better access to food resources. The Supplemental Poverty Measure shows that 

SNAP reduced child poverty by almost three percentage points in 2014—the largest 

child poverty impact of any safety net program other than refundable tax credits. 

Evidence is clear that SNAP benefits increase household expenditures on food and 

reduce food insecurity. But SNAP does not just help relieve short-term hardship. A 

growing body of high-quality research shows that the impact of SNAP’s benefits are 

especially evident and wide-ranging for those who receive food assistance as children. This impact extends beyond the immediate goal of alleviating hunger and includes improvements in short-run health and academic performance as well as in 

long-run health, educational attainment, and economic self-sufficiency among disadvantaged women. 

SNAP also benefits local businesses and economies through its countercyclical de- sign. During economic downturns, every $1 issued in SNAP benefits generates up 

to $1.80 in economic activity. Every time a family or individual uses SNAP benefits 

to put food on the table, it benefits the store and the employees where the purchase 

was made, the truck driver who delivered the food, the warehouses that stored it, 

the plant that processed it, and the farmer who produced the food. In short, SNAP 

strengthens low-income individuals, their families, and their communities. 

SNAP operates with efficiency. Almost 95 percent of Federal SNAP spending goes 

directly to families to buy food. Most of the rest goes toward the Federal share of 

state administrative costs. Only a small portion goes to Federal administration, including oversight of state operations and monitoring of retailers that accept SNAP. 

Relative to other Federal means-tested programs, SNAP spends far less on program 

administration. 

FNS and our state partners share in the administration of SNAP, including ensuring integrity in the program. At USDA, we establish rules and regulations, provide monitoring and oversight of state administration of the program, pay the full 

cost of SNAP benefits and pay half of the expenses incurred by the states to administer the program. We also provide technical assistance to states, including information and guidance about the many policy options and flexibilities available to states 

through regulations and statute. Overall, SNAP is a program that offers a great 

deal of state flexibility through options and waivers. 

USDA takes the lead on the authorization, monitoring and oversight of retailers 

that redeem SNAP benefits—over 260,000 retailers around the country. On behalf 

of American taxpayers, we work in concert with the Department’s Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) and in close coordination with the states that operate the program 

and others to protect the Federal investment in SNAP. We work together to make 

sure benefits are used as intended—for eligible food items. The biggest threat to this 

aspect of integrity is trafficking—the illegal sale or purchase of SNAP benefits for 

cash. FNS has focused resources at the doorstep of fraud and modernized our efforts 

using data analytics to root out and fight new tactics used by those who want to 

commit fraud. Retailers found trafficking are taken out of the program—permanently; other violations can result in monetary fines or temporary disqualification. 

Our state agency partners are responsible for investigating participant fraud and 

punishing those found to be trafficking. Punishments can include permanent disqualification and even prosecution. According to the latest data available, in FY 

2015, states conducted approximately 723,000 investigations resulting in over 

46,500 disqualifications for recipient fraud and collected almost $86 million in fraud 

claims from households. The statute authorizes state agencies to retain 35 percent 

of the amount they collect on fraud claims. Currently, most of these claims are for 

fraud regarding efforts to collect benefits for which an individual or household is not 

eligible; however, we would like to see states focus more on the trafficking side as 

831

well and have developed predictive analytic models that states can use and are requiring stepped up reporting on anti-fraud activities to encourage more activity in 

this area. 

As vital as the program is to so many, and as well as it operates, we can all agree 

that it can do even better, and it is up to all of us, the Federal Government, the 

states, and the local providers to work together to improve it by holding ourselves 

accountable. FNS is committed to continually improving the integrity of SNAP. FNS 

has long recognized that SNAP cannot succeed without strong public confidence, so 

good stewardship of tax dollars is one of our most important objectives. That is why 

we continually strive to improve program oversight and to identify, penalize, and 

exclude those who seek to defraud the program. This is critical to preserving benefits for the vast majority of participants who play by the rules and need help to ensure their families have access to adequate and nutritious food. 

With that background on our program, let me now talk about what we have accomplished. FNS has succeeded in reducing trafficking from about four percent to 

1.3 percent over the last 20 years. While the trafficking rate is low, and 98.7 percent 

of the benefits are used properly, we continue to focus on this vital area because, 

when almost $70 billion (in FY 2015) in taxpayer supported benefits are involved, 

continuous attention, energy and diligence is required. The following list describes 

actions taken by FNS to improve integrity related to retailer trafficking.

• We have restructured our retailer management functions into a single cohesive, 

centralized business structure that allows us to better target resources to particular high-risk areas;

• We have used data analytics to examine EBT transactions at stores as well as 

other retailer information, to focus on the stores most likely to traffic;

• We have upgraded our Anti-fraud Locator Using Electronic Benefit Transfer Retailer Transactions (ALERT) system to stay in step with state of the art technology to better detect suspicious SNAP redemption activity across the country;

• FNS implemented policies that combat abuse and the misuse of benefits and 

imposes stronger penalties and sanctions against retailers who violate program 

rules; and

• We have provided resources to retailers and the public about ways to fight 

fraud and how to report abuses to help stop trafficking.

I am happy to report that our efforts, particularly those aimed at removing or preventing fraudulent retailers or those with other business integrity issues from participating in the Program, are working. In FY 2015, we issued sanctions against 

nearly 2,700 retailers who committed violations, reflecting an overall increase of 21 

percent as compared to FY 2014. 

More than 1,900 stores were permanently disqualified, let me say again, permanently disqualified for life, one of the toughest sanctions in the Federal Government, 

for trafficking or falsifying an application, and over 700 stores were sanctioned for 

other violations such as the sale of ineligible items using SNAP. Our strengthened 

vetting policies and procedures have increased our ability to prevent the authorization of firms that attempt to circumvent SNAP’s business integrity rules. In 2015, 

there was a 254 percent increase in stores denied SNAP participation because of 

problems with business integrity of store ownership as compared to 2010. 

Nevertheless, we continue to focus on improvement, particularly in the area of recipient trafficking. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report 

a couple of years ago titled ‘‘Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Enhanced 

Detection Tools and Reporting Could Improve Efforts to Combat Recipient Fraud.’’ 

As noted in their report, FNS was already working to improve tools and technical 

assistance to states in this area; however, GAO also noted more could be done and 

recommended that FNS reassess current detection tools, reassess current financial 

incentives and issue guidance to assist states further in their efforts to detect fraud 

and report on their efforts. FNS agreed. Indeed, we had already begun the process. 

FNS issued almost $15 million in grants to states to improve detection, investigation and prosecution of recipient trafficking. These projects focused on the use of 

technology and data analytics to improve and better track outcomes.

• We contracted with one of the nation’s premier data analytics consulting firms 

to improve business processes in this area and use cutting edge technology to 

build a model using predictive analytics to help states more effectively identify 

SNAP recipient trafficking. The models use a variety of eligibility and transaction data, including card replacement data.

832

• FNS has completed studies in seven SNAP state agencies: New York (Onondaga 

County), Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Wisconsin (Milwaukee County), California (Sacramento County), and Texas.

• The preliminary results demonstrated success so this year we added four additional states Arizona, District of Columbia, Utah, and Washington to share this 

proven data analytics model.

Predictive data analytics, when paired with relevant information such as retailer 

disqualifications and excessive requests for card replacements, can be most effective 

in targeting the most likely trafficking participants. Let me highlight a couple of examples of how working with states, FNS has helped to reduce trafficking. Texas, 

my home state, is a state with strong controls to prevent and investigate recipient 

fraud—the state operates an in-house data analytics program to identify and root 

out potential recipient trafficking. They also have strong business processes around 

their anti-fraud activities and have had significant success in this area. The State 

of South Carolina is also performing strongly, with over 83 percent of its investigations of potential trafficking now converted into successful disqualifications. This 

represents an increase of 22 percentage points from the state’s investigation success 

rate prior to using FNS’s model. Between March 2015, when FNS implemented the 

model, and December 2015, South Carolina disqualified 185 recipients for trafficking, representing a cost avoidance of just over $1 million. While these are examples of strong state efforts in the recipient trafficking arena, there is still much more 

than can be done. 

We are revising our state reporting form to provide FNS with more thorough and 

complete information on state anti-fraud activities and results. With this change, we 

will soon be in a better position to have more accurate information on what states 

are doing to combat trafficking and other forms of fraud, and be able to better analyze trends and returns on investment in state anti-fraud activities. 

FNS has also focused on enhancing tools to help combat recipient trafficking. In 

2015, FNS conducted a pilot in Washington State to test innovative strategies for 

investigating and preventing trafficking attempts of SNAP benefits through social 

media websites. We are using lessons learned from these pilots to update our guidance to states for effectively combating such attempts, which we expect to release 

later this year. 

We are also enhancing our work with our state partners on combating recipient 

fraud. USDA continues to establish State Law Enforcement Bureau (SLEB) agreements with states, harnessing their additional law enforcement resources. The 2014 

Farm Bill strengthened our ability to use these relationships to maintain focus on 

and expand recipient investigations in states as well. USDA continues to refer clients with suspicious transaction patterns at disqualified retailers to states for further investigation and encourages states to use that information to investigate and 

take action against clients believed to have trafficked. 

There have been recent discussions on allowing states to do more in the retailer 

trafficking arena, including the possibility of states taking over all retailer investigative and prosecution activities. We are always willing to avail ourselves of state 

assistance with retailer fraud in a coordinated manner and do so through SLEB 

agreements. However, consistent with provisions of the 2014 Farm Bill, we expect 

states to focus on the recipient trafficking side before engaging in a significant way 

with retailers. As such, USDA encourages states to take advantage of tools USDA 

has made available that can assist in the detection, investigation and prosecution 

of recipient fraud. We will continue to improve the tools available to states, provide 

technical assistance on how to use these tools, and share promising practices. States 

must pay close attention to recipients who request multiple EBT replacement cards. 

Though there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation, this is an indicator of 

fraud in certain circumstances. In fact, our data analytics project found that excessive card replacement requests is one of the leading indicators of potential trafficking. By SNAP regulation, states have the option to call clients into the local office after the fourth request for a replacement card before issuing a new one; yet, 

to date, very few states have taken that option. States need to recognize the predictive value of these data and take full advantage of a proven successful option 

that is available to them. 

Another key component to effective state strategies for combating fraud is client 

education. FNS recently released an education package to help state agencies communicate the rules and the responsibilities involved with the program to participating recipients. Education such as this encourages voluntary compliance and prevents SNAP trafficking up front. In this area, as with others, states vary in their 

focus and level of effort. There is room for states to do more education about SNAP 

rules with participating households. 

833

Other Integrity Efforts 

While cases of duplicate participation (i.e., households simultaneously certified for 

benefits in two states) are low, it is another issue that USDA takes very seriously. 

USDA supported a pilot project in conjunction with OMB’s Partnership for Program 

Integrity and Innovation and a five state consortium to develop the National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC). The NAC established a database pilot to test a shared 

data clearinghouse that allows the pilot states to check in real, or near-real, time 

whether a SNAP applicant is already receiving SNAP benefits in another pilot state. 

The final report indicates that the NAC reduced duplicate participation in all five 

pilot states, though effectiveness varied by the level of automation each state was 

able to implement. Although duplicate participation is already low, states saw significant reductions in duplicate participation from pre-pilot levels. FNS has urged 

states for a number of years to consider data-matching agreements with border 

states that have mobile populations and the pilot reinforces this type of data sharing. Massachusetts and New York are examples of states that are already doing this 

type of match via a low tech data batching approach. Other states could do the 

same. 

USDA and states have worked together for many years to reduce payment errors 

in SNAP—indeed, improper payments in SNAP are among the lowest in the Federal 

Government. Improper payments are different from fraud—the vast majority of improper payments, including both over-payments and under-payments, are the result 

of mistakes on the part of states administering the program and households applying for or participating in the program. 

Our efforts to improve SNAP program integrity while ensuring access to benefits 

for people in need of food assistance rely on a strong partnership between FNS and 

our State Agency partners. We have worked together to strengthen the ability of 

states to correctly determine eligibility and benefit amounts through policy simplification, improved use of technology, and business process reengineering. 

The primary way we work with states to identify and reduce payment errors is 

through the SNAP Quality Control (QC) system. QC is the process by which states 

review a sample of SNAP cases and determine the states’ rates of improper payments—both over- and under-payments—on an annual basis. These rates are then 

aggregated into the national error rate for SNAP and used to determine state bonuses and liabilities for payment accuracy. FNS also reviews a sample of the state 

files to provide oversight of states’ QC processes. 

To be clear, when we are talking about error rates, we are talking about measuring proper administration of the program, including whether the program’s administrative processes correctly determine eligibility and compute benefits for those 

households found eligible. Most errors stem from unintentional mistakes on the part 

of the state agency or the household, not fraud. The majority of the errors (62 percent) are State Agency errors, while 38 percent are client errors. If an improper payment is determined to be an intentional program violation on the part of the client, 

they are disqualified from the program and must pay the funds back to the government. 

In FY 2015, USDA began a process to assess and implement a thorough review 

of the SNAP QC system in all 53 states to ensure state administration of SNAP was 

in line with Federal rules and regulations. We have completed reviews of 33 state 

agencies and will complete all reviews by December 2016, at which time USDA will 

release an updated SNAP error rate for FY 2015. In states where problems with 

the QC system are found, USDA requires states to take immediate corrective action 

and USDA will provide close oversight to ensure these actions are taken. 

The ongoing review is part of an effort to ensure state compliance with Federal 

rules and regulations related to the reporting of improper payments and to ensure 

accountability to the taxpayers who support this important nutrition program. The 

ongoing reviews look at both intentional and unintentional state non-compliance in 

the QC process, such as states misinterpreting FNS QC requirements or providing 

inadequate oversight of the state QC review process or a lack of cooperation with 

FNS QC monitoring efforts. Let me be clear, the quality control issues we have 

found in some states reflect actions by states, not by low-income households participating in SNAP. 

We take our oversight responsibility seriously and, while the reviews continue, 

USDA is working internally and with states to ensure all processes are fully up to 

date and consistent with Federal guidelines as well as recommendations from the 

USDA Office of Inspector General audit published September 30, 2015, which raised 

a number of issues with state administration of the quality control system. I am 

pleased to report that we now have reached agreement on all 19 audit recommendations from the OIG report. 

834

USDA has a responsibility in the QC process and FNS will implement additional 

activities within the next 90 days to both improve state QC operations and to ensure 

that FNS’s oversight of QC systems is robust. This includes establishing a new national QC training curriculum which we will use to train QC staff over the next 6 

months, revising FNS’ QC policy guidance to clarify rules and procedures, and developing a new QC integrity management evaluation guide that FNS oversight staff 

will use to regularly re-assess state operations. USDA will also strengthen the current training of Federal QC reviewers through development of a policy-focused curriculum that will be completed by the end of the fiscal year. 

Conclusion 

Proper stewardship of Federal funds is intrinsically linked to constant and vigilant attention to program integrity and proper implementation of our role in oversight and monitoring of state program operations. And although the vast majority 

of those involved with SNAP, recipients as well as retailers, are honest and abide 

by the rules, we cannot accept or tolerate any fraud or abuse. The nation entrusts 

us—USDA and our partner states—to administer SNAP, a program funded by the 

American taxpayer with accountability and integrity. Americans expect and deserve 

a government that ensures their tax dollars are managed efficiently and with integrity. To sustain public confidence in these programs, we must meet this expectation. 

FNS will continue to pay close attention to these issues and to act to reduce fraud 

and improper payments. We will continue to work with states, to ensure they take 

the actions necessary to protect the integrity of this critical program. We are stepping up our Federal efforts to combat retailer fraud and to ensure that state procedures are in line with all Federal requirements. I speak for all of my colleagues at 

FNS when I say that ensuring that SNAP meets the highest standards of integrity 

is a top priority and central to our efforts to ensure that those who need help affording food get the help they need. I appreciate the Committee’s interest in promoting 

and improving SNAP integrity, and I look forward to working with this Committee 

and Congress to keep public confidence in this vital program. I would be happy to 

answer any questions you may have at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Brown, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KAY E. BROWN, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 

WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. BROWN. Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and 

Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on error rates and fraud in SNAP. My remarks are 

based on our recently completed work on program policies that can 

affect the error rate, and our 2014 report on fraud by SNAP recipients. 

First, on how SNAP policies can affect program error rates. Since 

1977, USDA’s quality control system has provided an estimate of 

SNAP benefits that were paid either in the wrong amounts, or to 

persons not eligible to receive them. This error rate also serves as 

the program’s improper payment rate, which is reported to OMB 

annually. In recent years, this SNAP error rate has been on a 

mostly downward trend, and has reached all-time lows. However, 

OMB still considers SNAP a high error program. Because it is so 

large, even a 3.7 percent error rate in 2014 resulted in $2.6 billion 

in improper payments. 

These improper payments can be caused by either the applicant 

or the caseworker. Many factors must be considered when determining eligibility, creating multiple opportunities for error. And the 

most common source of error is determining the applicant’s income. 

We found that when states adopted options or waivers that simplified program requirements, such as when to report income 

changes, these actions likely contributed to a decline in payment 

835

errors. Most, but not all, of the options and waivers we reviewed 

had this likely effect. 

On the other hand, a few program changes likely led to an increase in the error rate; notably the threshold tolerance level 

changed from $50 to $37 in 2014. This is the dollar amount below 

which errors are not included in the error rate calculation. What 

this means is that when the threshold was $50, a monthly benefit 

error of $40 would not have been counted in the error rate calculation, but when the threshold was changed to $37, that same $40 

error would have been counted in the calculation because it exceeded the threshold. USDA reported that this threshold change increased the error rate for 2014. 

In our review, we also compared the methodology for calculating 

the SNAP error rate with that of three other programs for low-income families; SSI, Medicaid, and EITC. We found some similarities and some differences in how reviews of cases were conducted, 

and which cases were factored into the error rate calculation. And, 

for example again, SNAP was the only program that had an error 

tolerance threshold. 

I should mention that we just recently learned that USDA would 

not be releasing its 2015 error rate on time, and is in the process 

of reviewing all state quality control systems, stemming from a review by USDA’s Office of the Inspector General. This raises some 

concerns about the integrity of how the quality control process is 

implemented, and we look forward to learning more about the results of the state reviews and the effect on the national error rate. 

Turning now to recipient fraud. This can occur when applicants 

provide false or misleading information to obtain benefits, or when 

recipients misuse benefits by exchanging them for cash or nonfood 

goods or services, known as trafficking. We studied the efforts of 

11 selected states to address recipient fraud, and found that most 

of the states had difficulties conducting fraud investigations, particularly in light of the growth in the number of participants at 

that time. Also, the resources states dedicated to their investigative 

units varied widely. We recommended that USDA reassess its financial incentives for state anti-fraud efforts. 

We also found that the tools USDA recommended states use to 

detect online trafficking were of limited use. USDA’s guidance on 

recipients who requested multiple EBT cards did not necessarily 

help states detect whether this involved fraud, and states were not 

submitting reliable data on their anti-fraud activities due to unclear reporting guidance. We made recommendations in each of 

these areas and USDA is taking steps to address them, but has yet 

to finalize action on any of them. 

In conclusion, SNAP provides important benefits to millions. 

Given the significant size of the program and the reality of constrained public resources, it is vital that USDA make every effort 

to make sure SNAP benefits are paid accurately, and the funds are 

used for their intended purpose. 

This concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brown follows:]

836

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAY E. BROWN, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND

INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—Policy Changes and Calculation Methods Likely Affect Improper Payment Rates, and USDA Is Taking Steps to Help Address Recipient Fraud 

GAO Highlights 

Why GAO Did This Study 

In Fiscal Year 2015, SNAP, the nation’s largest nutrition assistance program, provided about 46 million low-income people with $70 billion in benefits. USDA and 

the states partner to operate the program and address issues that affect program 

integrity, including improper payments and fraud. 

This testimony summarizes GAO’s recently completed work on SNAP improper 

payment rates and GAO’s 2014 report on recipient fraud. It addresses: (1) the effects 

of SNAP policies on the rates; (2) how the SNAP improper payment rate calculation 

methodology compares to those of other Federal programs for low-income individuals; and (3) GAO’s 2014 findings on efforts to combat SNAP recipient fraud. GAO 

reviewed relevant Federal laws, regulations, guidance, documents, and program 

data; interviewed relevant Federal officials; and gathered information from states. 

For the 2014 report, GAO also interviewed officials from 11 states that served about 

1⁄3 of all SNAP recipient households, though GAO’s results are not generalizable to 

all states. This testimony also includes USDA’s actions to date on GAO’s 2014 recommendations. 

What GAO Recommends 

In 2014, GAO recommended that USDA take several steps to improve state financial incentives, fraud detection tools, and reporting methods. USDA agreed with 

these recommendations and has taken some steps to address them. GAO is not making new recommendations at this time. 

View GAO–16–708T (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-708T). For more information, contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512–7215 or brownke@gao.gov. 

What GAO Found 

Over the last 10 years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported 

that improper payment rates for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) have ranged from an estimated 5.8 percent to 3.2 percent of all payments, 

likely reflecting, in part, certain policy changes and calculation methods. Many factors affect low-income households’ eligibility for SNAP and the amount of benefits 

they receive, creating multiple opportunities for errors in the eligibility determination process conducted by states. However, GAO found that certain state or Federal 

program changes can affect the likelihood of these errors. For example, when states 

adopted available policy flexibilities that simplified or lessened participant reporting 

requirements, these changes reduced the opportunity for error and led to a decline 

in the improper payment rate, according to a USDA study. Conversely, other 

changes may have led to an increase in the improper payment rate. USDA cited the 

change from only counting errors over $50 in the rate to counting all errors over 

$37 as a key factor in an increase in the rate in Fiscal Year 2014. 

SNAP’s improper payment rate calculation methodology is generally similar to 

that used by other large Federal programs for low-income individuals, including 

Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 

though some differences may affect the resulting program improper payment rates. 

To generate improper payment rates, all four programs draw representative samples 

of their recipients and report their improper payment rates at high levels of precision. Yet, some methodological differences among the programs likely affect the resulting rates. For example, when there is insufficient information to review eligibility and benefit determination for a selected case under review, Medicaid counts 

the full benefit amount as an error, SNAP makes an adjustment in the improper 

payment rate calculation but does not include the full benefit amount as an error, 

and SSI removes such cases entirely from the sample. 

Fraud is also a key indicator of program integrity, and in 2014, GAO found that 

selected states employed a range of tools to detect potential SNAP recipient fraud, 

though they faced some challenges. Recipient fraud can occur when applicants make 

false or misleading statements to obtain benefits or when recipients misuse benefits 

by exchanging them for cash or non-food goods or services. All 11 selected states 

that GAO reviewed matched information provided by SNAP applicants and recipients against various data sources to check for accuracy, but efforts varied widely 

among these states. Some states suggested changing the financial incentive strucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00296 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
837

1 USDA, Agency Financial Report: Creating a USDA for the 21st Century, Fiscal Year 2015. 2We reviewed SNAP policy guidance issued to states from Fiscal Year 2006 through Fiscal 

Year 2015. 3State policy options are flexibilities set forth in Federal law or regulation that permit states 

to use alternative procedures when administering their SNAP program. We reviewed USDA’s 

SNAP Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March 2016) and state options identified in USDA’s SNAP State Options Report for September 2013 (a state options report with information as of October 2015 was subsequently released, after we had completed our review). 

See Appendix I for more information on state flexibilities. 4To assess change over time, we also analyzed states’ adoption of certain options from May 

2003 to September 2013, that have the potential to affect a large portion of the eligible population, for example, by affecting reporting requirements or income eligibility guidelines. Such opContinued

ture to promote fraud investigations. Some states also reported limitations of 

USDA’s required approach to monitoring benefit card replacements, and GAO developed a more targeted approach by combining data sources to identify households potentially engaged in trafficking. In addition, although USDA had increased its oversight of state anti-fraud activities since Fiscal Year 2011, GAO found that USDA 

did not have consistent and reliable data on states’ activities because its reporting 

guidance lacked specificity. This limited USDA’s ability to monitor states and find 

more effective ways to combat recipient fraud.

Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our work on improper payments and 

fraud in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), previously known as the Food Stamp Program. During 

Fiscal Year 2015, SNAP provided food and nutrition assistance to almost 46 million 

individuals for a total of approximately $70 billion in benefits for the year. SNAP 

benefits are provided to low-income households; state agencies administer the program to assess applicants’ eligibility and determine benefit amounts. Because many 

factors affect eligibility and benefit determination, there are multiple opportunities 

for errors to occur in this process that may result in improper payments. Improper 

payments are payments to individuals that were made in an incorrect amount or 

should not have been made at all, including both overpayments and underpayments. 

Improper payments may be caused by caseworker or participant errors. The Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated SNAP as a high-error program 

due to the estimated dollar amount in improper payments. Specifically, for SNAP 

payments made in Fiscal Year 2014, USDA reported in its Fiscal Year 2015 agency 

financial report that $2.6 billion, or 3.66 percent of all payments were improper.1

Other large Federal programs for low-income individuals, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Medicaid, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), currently report improper payment rates greater than SNAP’s rate. 

In addition, while some SNAP participants make unintentional errors that result 

in improper payments, others make intentional errors or misuse their benefits, practices which are considered fraud. USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), in partnership with state agencies, is tasked with establishing the proper agency controls 

that help ensure SNAP program funds are used for their intended purpose. However, FNS program officials have had long-standing concerns that some recipients 

can falsify information to receive benefits, or misuse their benefits to solicit or obtain non-food goods, services, and cash—a practice known as trafficking. 

SNAP fraud is also committed by retailers approved to accept SNAP benefits who 

engage in trafficking. State agencies are directly responsible for detecting, investigating, and prosecuting recipient fraud, and FNS is responsible for pursuing retailer fraud. SNAP fraud committed by recipients and retailers undermines the integrity of the program and the public’s confidence in the program. 

My testimony today summarizes the results of our recently completed work on 

SNAP improper payment rates and our 2014 report on recipient fraud. Specifically, 

I will discuss: (1) the effects of SNAP policies on the improper payment rates; (2) 

how the SNAP improper payment rate calculation methodology compares to those 

of other Federal programs for low-income individuals; and (3) our 2014 findings on 

efforts to combat SNAP recipient fraud. 

For our recently completed work on SNAP improper payment rates, we reviewed 

relevant Federal laws and regulations, as well as USDA policy memos that provided 

SNAP policy guidance to states.2 We also reviewed state SNAP waivers approved 

by USDA and state policy options.3 To assess change over time, we analyzed states’ 

adoption of certain options since 2003 that have the potential to affect a large portion of the eligible population.4 To assess the expected effect of policy changes on 

838

tions include simplified reporting, broad-based categorical eligibility, and the simplified standard 

utility allowance. 5We also reviewed our prior work and USDA reports issued since 2004 that analyzed the effect of certain state flexibilities on improper payment rates. 6 Also, as part of our survey development, we pre-tested the questionnaire with four states 

and had internal and external experts review it, and incorporated comments as appropriate. 7The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) measures and reports Medicaid improper payments in three component areas: fee-for-service claims, managed care, and eligibility. 

For the purposes of this report, we reviewed the eligibility component’s improper payment rate 

methodology. HHS’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recently proposed 

changes to the calculation of Medicaid improper payments rates. Medicaid/CHIP Program; Medicaid Program and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Changes to the Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control and Payment Error Rate Measurement Programs in Response to the Affordable Care Act., 81 FED. REG. 40596 (proposed June 22, 2016). These proposed changes were 

outside the scope of our review. 8We have also included these programs in our prior work that identifies high improper payment programs. See, GAO, Fiscal Outlook: Addressing Improper Payments and the Tax Gap 

Would Improve the Government’s Fiscal Position, GAO16–92T, (Washington, D.C.: October 1, 

2015). 9See GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Enhanced Detection Tools and Reporting Could Improve Efforts to Combat Recipient Fraud, GAO–14–641 (http://www.gao.gov/

products/GAO-14-641) (Washington, D.C.: August 21, 2014). 10The 11 states in our review were: Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New 

Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. The states served about 1⁄3 of 

all SNAP recipient households, though our results are not generalizable to all states. We chose 

these states to achieve variation in geographic location, and a mix of high, medium and low 

SNAP improper payment rates, percent of the total number of SNAP households nationwide, 

and proportion of recipients whom state officials reported as disqualified from the program due 

to non-compliance. 11See GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Enhanced Detection Tools and Reporting to Combat Recipient Fraud Are in Development, GAO–16–719T (http://www.gao.gov/

products/GAO-16-719) (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2016.) 

the SNAP improper payment rate, we reviewed prior GAO work, and FNS and 

USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) documents, that describe the characteristics 

of policies that may affect the improper payment rate.5

We analyzed which Federal and state policy changes had these characteristics, 

and then we assessed the likely cumulative expected directional effect of each policy 

on the improper payment rate. To obtain information on states’ opinions regarding 

SNAP changes and other factors that may have affected SNAP improper payment 

rates, we administered a questionnaire by e-mail to state SNAP directors of all 50 

states and the District of Columbia from February through May 2016. Where necessary, we followed up with states to clarify their responses and obtained a 100 percent response rate. While we did not validate specific information administrators reported through our survey, we reviewed their responses and conducted follow-up, as 

necessary, to determine that their responses were complete, reasonable, and sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this statement.6 To compare SNAP’s improper 

rate calculation methodology to other means-tested programs, we selected three Federal programs for low-income individuals: EITC, Medicaid,7 and SSI. These programs, together with SNAP, comprise almost 2⁄3 of Federal low-income obligations, 

and together encompass both state and federally administered programs. Like 

SNAP, these programs are also included in the Federal Government’s Payment Accuracy website’s high improper payment programs list.8 For each of the programs, 

we reviewed the relevant agency financial reports, program data, and program documents, as well as relevant OIG reports and GAO reports, and we interviewed program officials involved with improper payment rate calculation. 

For our 2014 report, we focused on Federal and state efforts to combat SNAP recipient fraud for Fiscal Years 2009 to 2014.9 We reviewed relevant Federal laws, 

regulations, program guidance and reports, and we interviewed FNS officials in 

headquarters and all seven regional offices. We also interviewed knowledgeable 

state and local officials about their recipient anti-fraud work and obtained related 

documentation in 11 states.10 Further, we took steps to assess the use of monthly 

benefit data and website monitoring tools to detect potential SNAP fraud. More detailed information about our objectives, scope, and methodology can be found in our 

issued report. This testimony also includes updates on the status of our recommendations from the 2014 report, as of June 2016, which were obtained by contacting agency officials and reviewing relevant documents.11 We shared a draft of 

this statement with the relevant agencies and incorporated technical comments as 

appropriate. 

The work upon which this statement is based was in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

839

12For purposes of SNAP, states include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, the 

U.S. Virgin Islands, and reservations of Indian Tribes who meet the requirements for participating as a state agency. 13FNS sets the SNAP maximum monthly benefit by household size. The maximum monthly 

benefit in Fiscal Year 2016 for a household of three is $511 for the 48 contiguous states and 

the District of Columbia. Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Alaska and Hawaii have higher maximum monthly benefit levels. 14The TANF block grant, which is administered by HHS, provides Federal funding to states, 

which they are required to supplement with their own funds, to provide cash assistance and 

a variety of other benefits and services to meet the needs of low-income families with children. 

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. 

Background 

SNAP, formerly known as the Federal Food Stamp Program, is intended to help 

low-income individuals and families obtain a better diet by supplementing their income with benefits to purchase food. The Federal Government pays the full cost of 

SNAP benefits and shares the costs of administering the program with the states.12

FNS is responsible for promulgating program regulations, ensuring that state officials administer the program in compliance with program rules, and authorizing 

and monitoring retailers who accept SNAP benefits in exchange for food. The states 

administer the program by determining whether households meet the program’s eligibility requirements, calculating the amount of their monthly benefits, and issuing 

benefits on Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, as well as investigating possible 

program violations by benefit recipients. 

Determination of Eligibility and Benefits 

A household’s eligibility for participation in SNAP is determined based on basic, 

non-financial, program requirements and the income and resources of its members. 

Non-financial program requirements include such things as residency and citizenship status. To determine financial eligibility, the caseworker first calculates the 

household’s gross income, which generally cannot exceed 130 percent of the Federal 

poverty guidelines (100 percent of the poverty guidelines in certain circumstances). 

Then the caseworker determines the household’s net income, which generally cannot 

exceed 100 percent of the poverty guidelines. Net income is determined by deducting 

certain expenses from gross income, such as dependent care costs, medical expenses, 

utilities costs, and shelter expenses. Information on the household’s resources (such 

as bank accounts and certain vehicles) may also be collected to assess whether these 

exceed defined limits. The net monthly income amount is then used in determining 

the household’s benefit amount, subject to maximum benefit limits.13 After eligibility is established, households are certified to receive benefits for periods ranging 

from 1 to 24 months depending upon household circumstances. Once the certification period ends, there is a recertification process whereby households reapply for 

benefits, at which time eligibility and benefit levels are redetermined. 

State Options and Waivers 

While many of the rules governing SNAP are set at the Federal level and apply 

uniformly in all states, states are also allowed flexibility in establishing some statespecific policy modifications through the use of options and waivers. SNAP’s statutes 

and regulations provide state agencies with various policy options. In contrast, waivers require states to obtain FNS’s permission before they are implemented. According to USDA, states adopt these flexibilities to better target benefits to those most 

in need, streamline program administration and operations, and coordinate SNAP 

with other programs. For example, one state option pertaining to reporting requirements, called simplified reporting, only requires households to report changes when 

their income rises above a certain level. In contrast, households for which this option does not apply are required to report changes more frequently. Another state 

option, broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), allows states to make households 

that receive non-cash services funded by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF), such as a toll-free number to obtain program information or an informational brochure, automatically eligible for SNAP.14 Through this option, the TANF 

non-cash service income and asset requirements become those relevant for SNAP, 

which we previously reported, resulted in some states effectively removing or inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00299 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
840

15GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Improved Oversight of State Eligibility 

Expansions Needed, GAO–12–670 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-670) (Washington, 

D.C.: July 26, 2012). 16Fiscal year 2013 is the latest year for which this information is available. Income variances 

accounted for 57 percent of improper payment cases, while deduction variances accounted for 

27 percent, non-financial variances for 14 percent, and income and other variances each at one 

percent. 

creasing SNAP asset limits, raising the SNAP gross income limit, and removing the 

SNAP net income limit.15

SNAP Improper Payment Rates 

According to USDA, for the most recent 10 years for which there are SNAP improper payment rate estimates available (for benefits paid in Fiscal Years 2005–

2014), the national SNAP improper payment rate, combining both overpayments 

and underpayments, has declined or stayed the same in all but Fiscal Year 2014, 

as shown in Figure 1. For benefits paid in Fiscal Year 2014—the most recent year 

for which data are available—the rate increased to 3.66 percent from a low of 3.20 

percent in Fiscal Year 2013. State-specific improper payment rates varied among 

states; for example, in Fiscal Year 2014, states’ improper payment rates ranged 

from 0.42 percent to 7.61 percent. 

Figure 1: SNAP U.S. Estimated Improper Payment Rate for Benefits Paid 

in Fiscal Years 2005–2014

Percentage of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data.≥GAO–16–708T. 

Note: Improper payment rate estimates shown in this figure for Fiscal 

Years 2007–2014 have a margin of error no greater than plus or minus 0.33 

percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence. Confidence level and 

margin of error information were not available from USDA’s Performance 

and Accountability Reports for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006. 

For purposes of government-wide reporting, such as at the Federal Government’s Payment Accuracy website, SNAP’s improper payment rates may 

be reflected as the fiscal year in which they are reported in the USDA agency financial report, not the year in which benefits were paid.

According to USDA, SNAP improper payments are caused by variances in any of 

the key factors involved in determining SNAP eligibility and benefit amounts, and 

household income was the most common primary cause of dollar errors; accounting 

for more than half of the variances for improper payments in Fiscal Year 2013.16

A variance occurs when a quality control reviewer finds the incorrect application of 

policy, the basis of issuance is incorrect, or there is a difference between the information that was used and the information that should have been used to determine 


11403134.eps
841

17 Closed cases for which benefits were denied, suspended, or terminated are also sampled and 

reviewed and an error rate is determined for such cases. This error rate is termed the Case 

and Procedural Error Rate (CAPER). This statement focuses on active case errors, and not 

CAPER. 18 However, in an OIG report published in September 2015, the OIG noted that the application of the methodology for estimating FNS’ SNAP improper payment rate needed improvement. 

The OIG found that states weakened the quality control process by using third-party consultants and error review committees to mitigate individual quality control-identified errors, rather 

than improve eligibility determinations; and quality control staff also treated error cases nonuniformly. The OIG concluded that FNS’ quality control process may have understated SNAP’s 

improper payment rate. USDA, Office of Inspector General, FNS Quality Control Process for 

SNAP Error Rate, September 2015. 19 In addition to payment accuracy measures, bonuses are given for states’ rates of improper 

denials, suspensions, and terminations; states’ level of program access; and states’ application 

processing timeliness. 

a household’s monthly SNAP benefit amount. Cases may have multiple variances 

that result in benefit errors. Further, SNAP errors result from administrative as 

well as recipient errors. In Fiscal Year 2013, USDA reported that 62.44 percent of 

errors were because of administrative errors by the state agencies, and 37.27 percent of errors were because of recipient errors. Some of the errors may be attributable to recipient fraud; however, the magnitude of such program abuse is unknown. 

Quality Control System 

In response to a requirement in Federal law, FNS developed its original quality 

control process for SNAP in 1977 to track and measure errors in both eligibility and 

benefit determinations for the program. According to FNS officials, each month, a 

state’s SNAP quality control staff selects for review a representative sample of 

households that received SNAP benefits.17 The quality control staff review each 

sample case, both by reviewing the recipient household’s file and contacting the recipient, to verify whether the recipient’s eligibility and benefit amount were determined correctly. If the reviewer finds that someone was incorrectly deemed eligible, 

the entire amount of the benefit is counted as an error. If the reviewer finds that 

the benefit amount provided to the recipient differs from the correct benefit amount 

by more than a specified dollar amount, $37 in Fiscal Year 2014, the difference between the amount disbursed and the correct amount is counted as an error. Cases 

that are identified as ‘‘not subject to review’’ or that the reviewer cannot complete, 

such as those for which the reviewer is unable to establish contact with the recipient or verify income information, are removed from the sample. The statewide sample is designed to produce a valid statewide improper payment rate, which is the 

sum of the overpayments and underpayments divided by the value of all payments.18 Some of these erroneous payments may be due to fraud, but others may 

be due to unintentional caseworker or participant error. 

FNS regional offices are to approve the states’ sampling plans, validate the states’ 

samples, and review a subsample of the states’ reviews to ensure accuracy. They 

also are to handle informal resolution discussions with states regarding disputes resulting from differences between the state and FNS reviews. Disputes that are not 

resolved informally can be appealed to FNS for arbitration. According to FNS officials, upon the completion of this process, the improper payment rates are adjusted 

to reflect the final results. FNS makes a further adjustment of a state’s error rate 

if more than two percent of the state’s cases selected for review could not be completed. FNS then combines the adjusted states’ improper payment rates, weighting 

each state’s improper payment rate by its actual caseload, to determine a national 

improper payment rate. 

Once the Federal adjustments are made to states’ error rates, FNS imposes penalties or provides bonuses to certain states based on various measures related to 

states’ payment accuracy and other measures.19

In 2015, USDA began a review of state quality control systems in all states in 

response to a report from its OIG that identified concerns in the application of the 

quality control process. On June 24, 2016, USDA notified the states that it had completed reviews in 33 states and expected to complete the remaining reviews no later 

than December 31, 2016, at which time it would release a national error rate for 

payments made in Fiscal Year 2015. In its letter to state officials, USDA explained 

that the ongoing review is looking at both intentional and unintentional non-compliance in the quality control process by states, such as misinterpreting FNS requirements or providing inadequate oversight of the quality control review process itself. 

States will receive a written report documenting any violations and outlining required corrective action steps, according to USDA. The effect of these ongoing reviews on the SNAP error rates is unknown at this time. 

842

20 USDA OIG, Analysis of FNS’ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Fraud Prevention 

and Detection Efforts. Audit Report 27002–0011–13 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2012). 21See GAO, Federal Low-Income Programs: Multiple Programs Target Diverse Populations 

and Needs, GAO–15–516 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-516) (Washington, D.C.: July 

30, 2015). 22 CMS recently proposed changes to the calculation of Medicaid improper payment rates. 

Medicaid/CHIP Program; Medicaid Program and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); 

Changes to the Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control and Payment Error Rate Measurement Programs in Response to the Affordable Care Act., 81 FED. REG. 40596 (proposed June 22, 2016). 

These proposed changes were outside the scope of our review. 23To assess the expected effect of policy changes on the SNAP improper payment rate, we 

reviewed prior GAO work and FNS and OIG documents that describe the characteristics of policies that may affect the improper payment rate. We analyzed which Federal and state policy 

changes had these characteristics, and then we assessed the likely cumulative expected directional effect of each policy on the improper payment. We did not analyze Federal or state laws 

or regulations, and all descriptions and analysis of the various policy flexibilities are based on 

the documents and research we reviewed. See Appendix I for further information. 

SNAP Fraud 

FNS and state agencies are both responsible for addressing SNAP fraud. Acts of 

SNAP fraud include recipients making false or misleading statements in order to 

obtain benefits, as well as recipients and retailers engaging in SNAP trafficking—

using benefits in unallowable ways, such as by exchanging benefits for cash or nonfood goods and services, or attempting to do so. State agencies are directly responsible for detecting, investigating, and prosecuting recipient fraud, and FNS is responsible for providing guidance and monitoring these state activities. FNS also investigates and resolves cases of retailer fraud. 

According to a September 2012 USDA OIG report, the magnitude of program 

abuse due to recipient fraud is unknown because states do not have uniform ways 

of compiling the data that would provide such information.20 As a result, the USDA 

OIG recommended that FNS determine the feasibility of creating a uniform methodology for states to calculate their recipient fraud rate. FNS reported that it took action on this recommendation, but ultimately determined that it would be infeasible 

to implement as it would require legislative authority mandating significant state 

investment of time and resources in investigating, prosecuting and reporting fraud 

beyond current requirements. 

Other Federal Programs for Low-Income Individuals 

We have reported that Medicaid, SSI, and the EITC, together with SNAP, comprise almost 2⁄3 of Federal low-income obligations.21 These programs for low-income 

individuals, along with SNAP, are included in the Federal Government’s Payment 

Accuracy website list of programs with high improper payments reported to OMB. 

• Medicaid is administered by the Department of Health and Human Services’ 

(HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in partnership with the 

states, and it finances health insurance coverage for certain low-income individuals, children, and families. The Medicaid program also provides long-term care 

services and support to individuals who meet certain financial and functional 

criteria. HHS measures and reports Medicaid improper payments in three component areas: fee-for-service claims, managed care, and eligibility. For the purposes of this statement, we reviewed the eligibility component’s improper payment rate.22

• SSI, administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA), provides monthly cash assistance benefits to elderly individuals, as well as blind or disabled 

adults and children, who have limited income and resources.

• EITC, administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), provides a tax credit 

to low-income Americans who work and claim the EITC on their tax returns. 

Because the EITC is a refundable tax credit, the amount claimed by the taxpayer as a refund can exceed the taxpayer’s income tax liability. 

States’ Adoption of Program Flexibilities and Changes in Federal Policy 

Likely Affected Payment Errors 

States’ Adoption of Certain Program Flexibilities Likely Reduced Payment Errors, 

Due in Part to Simplified Program Requirements 

The majority of state SNAP policy flexibilities allowed under Federal statutes and 

regulations, likely reduced payment errors by simplifying program requirements or 

modifying procedures, based on our review of these policies.23 For example, flexibilities that simplified program requirements allowed states to require less information 

from applicants and participants for eligibility and benefit determination, resulting 

843

24For example, in our 2016 survey of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, several 

states mentioned that rising caseloads accompanied by decreased staffing increased payment 

error rates when asked what factors, aside from Federal or state policy changes, had affected 

their SNAP payment error rates in the last 5 years. 25These 22 options and 11 waivers come from USDA’s most recent state options report (current as of September 2013) and USDA’s SNAP Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated 

as of March 2016). We excluded options and waivers that had been adopted by fewer than five 

states at the time of our review; this meant that we excluded no options and 12 waivers. See 

Appendix I for more information on our analysis. 26See GAO, Food Stamp Program: Farm Bill Options Ease Administrative Burden, but Opportunities Exist to Streamline Participant Reporting Rules among Programs, GAO–04–916

(http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-916) (Washington, D.C.: September 16, 2004). 

in less processing for caseworkers and reduced opportunities for participants and 

caseworkers to make errors. State flexibilities that simplified program policies or 

procedures therefore may have contributed to decreases in the SNAP improper payment rate, though the rate was likely affected by additional factors as well, such 

as changes in the number of SNAP applicants and participants and state staffing 

levels.24 Further, the state flexibilities likely had other effects on the program, according to USDA officials, because states adopt flexibilities to better target benefits 

to those most in need, streamline program administration and operations, and coordinate SNAP with other programs. As shown in Figure 2, of the 33 state flexibilities we reviewed, 17 likely reduced the potential for error.25 We previously reported 

that the anticipated effect on the state SNAP improper payment rate was a key factor in states’ decisions to adopt certain policy options, such as those that simplified 

participant reporting requirements or eased the calculation of benefit amounts.26

Figure 2: The Potential Effect of 33 State Flexibilities on the Likelihood of 

SNAP Payment Errors

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data on 

state options and waivers.≥GAO–16–708T. 

Note: The 33 state flexibilities include 22 options in USDA’s state options 

report (11th edition) and 11 waivers in USDA’s waivers database (current 

as of March 2016) adopted by five or more states.

Of the 17 flexibilities that potentially reduced the likelihood of SNAP payment errors, 11 simplified program requirements and six modified procedures for receiving 

and processing information. 


11403135.eps
844

27Many SNAP participants receive benefits from other Federal programs, such as Medicaid 

or TANF. In many states, SNAP is administered out of a local assistance office that offers benefits from these other assistance programs as well. SNAP participants may provide necessary information to only one caseworker who determines eligibility and benefits for all of these programs, or they may work with several caseworkers that administer benefits for different programs. 28The FNS state option reports include state agencies for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Figure 3: Analysis of 17 Flexibilities that Potentially Reduced the Likelihood of SNAP Payment Errors

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data on 

state options and waivers.≥GAO–16–708T.

The 11 flexibilities that simplified program requirements generally resulted in reduced opportunities for participants and caseworkers to make errors, and the effect 

of these flexibilities on the improper payment rate likely increased over time as 

greater numbers of states adopted some of them. Two of the eleven options we reviewed simplified participant reporting requirements, and six flexibilities simplified 

or standardized calculations used to determine household eligibility and benefit 

amounts, including self-employment income, medical and utility costs, income of 

those transitioning off TANF, and hours worked by college students. In addition, 

two flexibilities eliminated program requirements and another increased the alignment of SNAP program rules with other programs administered by states that serve 

a similar population.27 Over time, we found that increasing numbers of states 

adopted two policy options that have the potential to affect a large portion of the 

eligible population, thus potentially increasing their effect on the improper payment 

rate. Specifically, as of February 2003, 25 states had adopted simplified reporting 

requirements for some or all eligible households and 16 states had adopted simplified utility calculations. However, by September of 2013, the numbers of states 

that had adopted these options increased to 53 and 47, respectively.28 See Table 1

for examples of flexibilities that simplified program requirements and our assessment of how they reduced the likelihood of error. 


11403136.eps
845

29Diminished face-to-face contact may increase the potential for recipient fraud, potentially 

increasing errors and negatively affecting program integrity. 30 In a recently finalized rule, FNS identified changes in operation that potentially increase 

the difficulty of households reporting required information (which could include implementation 

of a SNAP call center or online change reporting) as major changes in the operation of a SNAP 

program and has required that such changes be evaluated to assess the impact of the changes 

on the payment error rate, among other things. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Review of Major Changes in Program Design and Management Evaluation Systems, 81 FED. REG. 

2725 (Jan. 19, 2016). 

Table 1: Examples of the Flexibilities That Potentially Reduced the 

Likelihood of Errors by Simplifying SNAP Program Requirements 

Option/

Waiver Description GAO Assessment a

Simplified Reporting 

option 

Requires participants to report only if their income 

rises above 130 percent of 

the Federal poverty guidelines, instead of requiring 

a variety of changes to be 

reported, including household composition, income, 

and expenses. 

Results in participants reporting fewer changes and reduces the amount of paperwork that caseworkers must 

process.b In 2005, USDA estimated that simplified reporting reduced the improper payment rate by 1.2 to 

1.5 percentage points.c

Simplified Income 

and Resources option 

Excludes certain types of income and resources from 

SNAP eligibility and benefit determination requirements that are excluded 

under state TANF or Medicaid policy. 

Increases uniformity in requirements across several programs for low-income individuals, which SNAP recipients may simultaneously receive and which are administered by the same caseworkers in some states. Therefore, this reduces program complexity and the potential 

for confusion by participants and caseworkers. 

Standard Medical 

Deduction waiver 

Establishes a standard medical deduction in lieu of 

calculating actual medical 

expenses for individuals 

who are disabled or elderly. 

Eliminates the need for participants to provide proof of 

all medical expenses and streamlines eligibility and 

benefit determination procedures for caseworkers by reducing the amount of information to be verified and 

documented. 

Source: GAO analysis of information in USDA’s 2013 State Options report, USDA’s SNAP Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March 2016), and other FNS documents.≥GAO–

16–708T aFlexibilities may have had multiple characteristics that suggested opposite effects; in those instances we selected what we considered to be the over-riding or primary effect. bWhether the caseworker needs to process a change, which the caseworker comes to know 

about but that the participant was not required to report, depends on whether the state has a policy to act on all changes. c U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, The Effect of Simplified Reporting on Food Stamp Payment Accuracy, October 2005. 

Instead of simplifying program requirements, six state policy options and waivers 

we reviewed allowed for modified procedures for receiving and processing information that likely reduced SNAP payment errors. For example, an option that allowed 

states to use online SNAP applications likely made information easier to document, 

retrieve, and process, thereby reducing opportunities for caseworker error. Another 

option that enabled states to set up call centers likely helped participants report 

changes more easily, potentially contributing to fewer unreported changes. However, 

questions have been raised about the effect of these approaches.29–30 Further, two 

waivers provided states with procedural flexibilities intended to reduce the likelihood of participants having their case closed because of a delay in submitting paperwork and then having to re-apply. 

While our analysis suggests that the majority of state policy flexibilities potentially reduced the likelihood of errors, three of the 33 flexibilities we reviewed likely 

increased it, and the remaining 13 likely had a mixed or minimal to no effect.

• The three options that we assessed as having potentially increased the likelihood 

of payment errors increased the number of calculations caseworkers needed to 

do or added a step to the eligibility determination process. For example, two options increased the conditions for which a participant could be disqualified, such 

as for lack of cooperation with a child support enforcement agency. This added 

846

31 Note that cases that were incorrectly terminated would be considered in the rate for improper denials, suspensions, and terminations. The active case improper payment rate, which 

is the focus of this report, would have been affected by instances where the household should 

have been disqualified but was mistakenly allowed to remain on the program. 32GAO, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Improved Oversight of State Eligibility 

Expansions Needed, GAO 12–670, (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2012). 33For example, when the error tolerance threshold was $50 for part of Fiscal Year 2009 and 

from Fiscal Year 2012 to Fiscal Year 2013, a household that received a monthly benefit amount 

found to be $40 in error was not counted as an error when calculating the error rate. However, 

in Fiscal Year 2014, when the error tolerance threshold was $37, a $40 error was counted as 

an error when calculating the error rate. 34FNS has also previously linked these two factors. FNS estimated that the increase in the threshold from $25 to $50 for 6 months in Fiscal Year 2009, decreased the error rate for that 

year by 15 percent. However, error tolerance threshold changes do not always track with the 

overall error rate changes, likely because there are many factors affecting error rates simultaneously. 35For example, in 2009, legislation was enacted requiring that additional unemployment compensation payments should be excluded from consideration as income and resources for purposes 

of SNAP eligibility and benefit determination. However, because only the supplemental $25 unemployment compensation payment (and not the regular unemployment compensation payment) 

was excluded, this supplemental payment needed to be separated from other unemployment 

a step for staff to determine whether an applicant or participant met these conditions, thereby increasing the opportunity for error.31

• Four options had characteristics that we assessed as having the potential to both 

increase and decrease the likelihood of payment errors. For example, the BBCE 

state option may have decreased improper payment rates in states that adopted 

it and, in effect, eliminated SNAP asset limits, as determining household assets 

can be a cause of error. In these states, participants no longer needed to provide 

documentation of assets, and caseworkers no longer needed to verify these 

amounts. At the same time, as we previously reported, because BBCE allowed 

some states to, in effect, increase the SNAP gross income limit, the policy may 

have resulted in greater numbers of households with earned income participating in SNAP.32 According to USDA’s data on causes of error, determining 

household income is the most common cause of error when determining benefit 

amounts. Seven states had BBCE policies in Fiscal Year 2006, versus 42 states 

in Fiscal Year 2015. Thus the impact of this option on payment errors may have 

increased over the last 10 years, although the overall direction of this option’s 

effect on the improper payment rate is unclear. 

• The nine options and waivers that we assessed as not having affected the likelihood of payment errors changed SNAP eligibility or administrative procedures 

without introducing significant simplification or complexity. For example, one 

option allowed states to count child support payments as an income exclusion 

rather than a deduction when determining the payer’s eligibility and benefits. 

While this option changed the eligibility determination process, the applicant 

needed to provide the same information, and the caseworker needed to process 

it. Another example is a waiver that allowed states to issue electronic notices 

to clients who elect to receive notices via e-mail rather than paper mail. 

Federal Policy Changes That Likely Affected the Improper Payment Rate Changed 

Which Errors Are Counted as Improper Payments 

While there were many Federal SNAP policy changes in the last 10 years, we 

found that few likely affected improper payment rates, based on our analysis of FNS 

documents. Those that likely did (1) made changes to the dollar threshold below 

which an error is excluded from the improper payment rate calculation, (2) excluded 

certain income and resources for eligibility and benefit determination purposes, and 

(3) required certain types of data matching.

• Federal policy changes in the SNAP error tolerance threshold, or the dollar 

threshold below which an error is excluded from the SNAP error rate calculation, likely had a direct effect on the error rate.33 During the last 10 years, the 

threshold has been changed several times through Federal statute and regulations, and FNS attributed the 2014 increase in the SNAP error rate to a decrease in the error tolerance threshold from $50 to $37.34

• Some Federal policy changes that resulted in fewer sources of income and resources being considered during the eligibility and benefit determination process may have also affected the likelihood of errors. These changes reduced participant reporting requirements and caseworker verification requirements, but 

they also may have increased confusion regarding what sources of income and 

resources to report.35

847

compensation received when calculating income for SNAP, potentially increasing confusion and 

opportunities for error. 36For example, in 2012, FNS began requiring states to conduct a data match to check whether 

a person applying in one state was disqualified in another state, so that the receiving state could 

impose appropriate penalties. The required match would help ensure that clients who are supposed to be disqualified for a certain period or permanently are not granted benefits, reducing 

opportunities for improper payments. However, we reported in 2014 that the quality and timeliness of the data were impeding the effectiveness of this data match, thereby mitigating the effect of this policy change on the improper payment rate. See GAO–14–641 (http://www.gao.gov/

products/GAO-14-641). 37 Although we selected EITC, Medicaid, and SSI to compare to SNAP, other Federal programs that provide benefits to low-income individuals have still different approaches to estimating their improper payments. For example, other USDA programs, such as the National 

School Lunch program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children (WIC), rely on periodic nationally representative studies to produce improper payment rate estimates. 38We previously reviewed the methodology for estimating a national improper payment rate 

for Medicaid and found it to be statistically sound. See, GAO, Medicaid: Enhancements Needed 

for Improper Payments Reporting and Related Corrective Action Monitoring, GAO–13–229 

(http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-229) (Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2013). 

• A Federal policy change that increased requirements for data matching may 

have reduced the likelihood of errors by improving the accuracy of eligibility 

and benefit determination, but the quality and timeliness of the data may have 

mitigated that effect, according to our analysis and prior work.36

SNAP’s Improper Payment Rate Calculation Methodology Is Similar to 

Those of Medicaid, EITC, and SSI, Although Some Differences May Affect the Resulting Rates 

SNAP and other large Federal programs for low-income individuals, such as Medicaid, EITC, and SSI, report improper payment rates, as shown in Table 2. There 

are some similarities to how these improper payment rates are calculated by the 

agencies overseeing these programs, though there are also certain differences in 

these programs’ improper payment rate calculations that may affect the resulting 

rates.37 However, the extent of the effect of these differences on the programs’ rate 

is unknown, in part because, as previously noted, programs’ rates are likely affected 

by many additional factors, such as changes in numbers of applicants and participants, staffing, and program policy. 

Table 2: Estimated Improper Payment Rates Reported in Fiscal Year 2015 

Agency Financial Reports for SNAP, Medicaid, EITC, and SSI 

Program Improper Payment 

Rates 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 3.7%

Medicaid (eligibility component) a 3.1%

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) b 23.8%

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) 8.5%

Source: Relevant Federal agencies.≥GAO–16–708T. 

Note: SNAP and SSI rates are reported at a 95 percent confidence level and EITC and Medicaid 

rates are reported at 90 percent confidence levels and all estimates are reported within plus or 

minus 2.5 percentage points. Improper payment rates reported in the Fiscal Year 2015 agency financial reports may pertain to a different period in which benefits were paid, for example the 

SNAP improper payment rate is for benefits paid in Fiscal Year 2014. aThe overall Medicaid improper payment rate was 9.8 percent, which combines component improper payment rates for eligibility, fee-for-service, and managed care. bFor EITC, this accounts for improper payments net of erroneous payments recovered. 

SNAP’s Improper Payment Rate Calculation, Including How Cases are Chosen for 

Review, is Similar to Other Selected Programs 

The methodology that SNAP uses to calculate its improper payment rate is generally similar to the methodologies used for other large Federal programs for lowincome individuals, specifically Medicaid,38 EITC, and SSI. The Federal agencies 

overseeing each of these programs provide guidance on improper payment rate calculation to those administering the program—state officials for SNAP and Medicaid, 

and Federal officials for EITC and SSI. To calculate their improper payment rates, 

all four programs use similar sampling methods, draw samples generally representative of their recipients, and report their improper payment rates at similar levels 

of precision. (See Table 3.) For example, each program employs a probability sampling methodology, based on a form of random selection, to select which cases they 

848

39 In its improper payments guidance, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommends that agencies report improper payment rates at 90 percent confidence interval of plus 

or minus 2.5 percent or 95 percent confidence interval of plus or minus three percent.

will review to determine the improper payment rate. Further, the programs generally draw samples from all individuals receiving program benefits. We also found 

that all four programs estimate their improper payment rates with high levels of 

precision.39

Table 3: SNAP, Medicaid, EITC, and SSI Employ Similar Sampling Methodology Factors For Their Reviews to Determine Improper Payment Rates 

Sampling Methodology Factors Approach Employed 

Statistical Method Probability sampling 

Sample Selection Stratifies or allows for stratification 

Sample Representation All recipients in active cases generally represented 

Estimate Precision Reports estimates at high levels of precision 

Source: GAO analysis.≥GAO–16–708T 

Several Differences among the Selected Programs, Including How Cases Are Factored 

into the Improper Payment Rate Calculation, Likely Affect the Resulting Improper Payment Rates 

We found differences between SNAP and Medicaid, EITC, and SSI in how reviews 

are conducted to determine improper payments and how cases are factored into the 

improper payment rate calculation. Some of the procedural and methodological differences in the improper payment rate calculation among these programs likely affect the resulting improper payment rates. 

How Case Reviews Are Conducted 

There are some differences between how reviews are conducted to determine improper payments in SNAP and the three other Federal programs for low-income individuals we reviewed, such as the reporting time frame, Federal or state involvement in the review, and the extent of the review. (See Table 4.)

Table 4: Key Aspects of How Reviews Are Conducted to Determine Improper Payments in SNAP and Select Other Federal Programs for LowIncome Individuals (EITC, Medicaid, and SSI) 

Program 

Time frame of improper

payments reported in agency 

financial reports 

Review levels Extent of review 

Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program 

(SNAP) 

Benefits that were paid in the 

prior year. 

Two levels of review 

(state & Federal) 

Contact the recipient 

Medicaid Benefits paid in the prior 3 years; 

reviewing benefits paid in 1⁄3 of 

states each year. 

State review only Rely on case file, but 

permitted to contact 

the recipient 

Earned Income Tax 

Credit (EITC) 

Credits allowed in the tax year 4 

years prior.a

Federal review only Contact the recipient 

Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI) 

Benefits that were paid in the 

prior year. 

Federal review only b Contact the recipient 

Source: GAO analysis.≥GAO–16–708T. aThe EITC improper payment rate is determined from previously reviewed returns from the 

most recent year from which compliance information is available and that rate is used for the current year. For the improper payment dollar amount, the improper payment rate is multiplied by 

the amount of EITC claims in the current year, less the amount of revenue recovered or protected. b According to SSA officials, the initial Federal SSI case reviews are subject to a secondary SSI 

review to ensure consistency. For the second review, five percent of cases initially reviewed are 

randomly selected, as well as all cases with payment errors. 

SNAP, Medicaid, EITC, and SSI differ in the time frames relied on to determine 

improper payment rate estimates reported in the same year. Specifically, SNAP and 

SSI report each year’s improper payment rate based on reviews of benefits paid in 

the prior year, whereas Medicaid relies on multiple years of data and EITC uses 

older prior year data. For example, SNAP and SSI improper payment rates reported 

in their Fiscal Year 2015 agency financial reports were for reviews of benefits that 

were paid in Fiscal Year 2014. In contrast, Medicaid’s annual improper payment 

849

40 According to SSA officials, the SSI consistency reviews are done on five percent of reviewed 

cases, selected at random, as well as all cases with payment errors. 41 EITC reviewers check the accuracy of the taxpayer’s eligibility and the amount claimed on 

tax returns and not the accuracy of a determination made by a caseworker from a client’s application. Tax credit recipients self-certify their eligibility and claim and do not need to meet with 

caseworkers, nor submit up-front documentation as is required with other programs. 42 Another difference across the four programs relates to adjustments that are made to the 

improper payment rate to account for improper payments that are recovered from the recipient 

by the Federal agency. Unlike SNAP, Medicaid, and SSI, the EITC includes recovered overclaims in its rate calculation, according to Federal officials. If IRS reviews of EITC cases, for 

which the credit has already been paid, determine that IRS should reduce or deny the EITC 

claim, the IRS must recover the amount that was previously paid. The amount of such overclaims that are recovered is subtracted from the amount of the over-claims determined by a reviewer, reducing the amount of improper payment used in computing the error rate.

rate stems from a 3 year rolling rate of state estimates. Each year, 1⁄3 of the states 

produce an improper payment rate estimate for Medicaid; and thus, the nationwide 

fiscal year improper payment rate reported in the Fiscal Year 2015 agency financial 

report included reviews of benefit payments in Fiscal Years 2012, 2013, and 2014. 

EITC estimates the amount of improper payments in a current year, using an improper payment rate based on reviews done for tax returns filed 4 years prior. For 

example, the EITC improper payment rate of 23.8 percent, reported in the Department of Treasury Fiscal Year 2015 agency financial report is from the review of 

2011 tax returns. 

The programs we reviewed also differed in the levels of government involved in 

the case reviews, as well as whether a secondary review is conducted for 

verification. Although they are both state-administered, SNAP and Medicaid differ 

in that both state and Federal officials review cases for SNAP, but according to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials, states alone review cases 

for Medicaid. Specifically, for SNAP, Federal officials review a subsample of cases 

to verify the accuracy of state reviews, and if differences are found, the state’s improper payment rate is adjusted. According to Federal officials, states are not involved in SSI and EITC reviews because these programs are federally-administered. 

However, according to SSA, there is a secondary review of SSI cases for consistency 

at the Federal level,40 while according to IRS, for EITC there is no systematic secondary review. When the SSI consistency review finding differs from the initial review finding, the case payment amount is adjusted and included in the improper 

payment rate computation. 

The extent to which officials review information beyond what is in the recipient’s 

case file also differs between the programs we selected, such as with Medicaid, 

which may affect improper payment rates. For example, SNAP reviewers must contact recipients to obtain information to independently determine eligibility and benefit amounts, while according to HHS officials, Medicaid reviews can be conducted 

from information solely in the case file. While this can result in SNAP reviewers 

finding additional information not included in the case file that was necessary to 

determine whether the benefit amount was correct, it can also result in reviewers 

not being able to complete the review if they cannot make contact with the recipient. Like SNAP, the SSI and EITC reviewers also generally contact recipients.41

Cases Factored into the Improper Payment Rate Calculation 

Differences in how cases are factored into the improper payment rate calculation 

also exist among SNAP and the other Federal programs for low-income individuals 

we reviewed, which likely affect the resulting improper payment rates. These differences relate to how cases with insufficient information and those found to have 

certain kinds of errors are factored into the improper payment rate.42 (See Table 

5.) 

Table 5: Key Aspects of How Cases Are Factored into the Improper Payment Rate Calculation for SNAP and Select Other Federal Programs for 

Low-Income Individuals (Medicaid, EITC, and SSI) 

Program 

Treatment of cases for 

which review cannot be 

completed a

Errors excluded from the improper payment 

rate calculation 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) 

Dropped from sample, but an 

adjustment is made 

Case errors below $37 (in Fiscal Year 2014) c

Errors caused by a policy change in the 120 days after 

implementation 

Medicaid Full benefit amount counted 

as error 

None 

850

43 Under Federal regulations, FNS makes an adjustment to a state’s error rate if more than 

two percent of the state’s cases selected for review could not be completed, such as when the 

reviewer could not contact a recipient or the household refused to cooperate. See 7 CFR 

§ 275.23(b)(2)(iii). 

44 According to IRS officials, such cases are considered non-response cases and an adjustment 

is made to the improper payment rate calculation assuming that such cases have the same ratio 

of compliance to non-compliance characteristics as taxpayers who participate in the audits. 45 As previously noted, the Fiscal Year 2014 threshold below which SNAP improper payments 

were not included in the error rate, based on SNAP law, was $37. 46Percentages exceed 100 percent due to rounding. 47 Under SNAP, errors resulting from the application of new SNAP regulations or implementing memorandum of changes in Federal law are generally to be excluded from the error 

Table 5: Key Aspects of How Cases Are Factored into the Improper Payment Rate Calculation for SNAP and Select Other Federal Programs for 

Low-Income Individuals (Medicaid, EITC, and SSI)—Continued

Program 

Treatment of cases for 

which review cannot be 

completed a

Errors excluded from the improper payment 

rate calculation 

Earned Income Tax 

Credit (EITC) 

If taxpayer does not respond, 

remains in sample, but an 

adjustment is made.b

If taxpayer responds, but is 

unable to provide documentation, the full benefit 

amount is counted as error. 

None 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Dropped from sample. Errors caused by a policy change in the 6 months after 

implementation 

Source: GAO analysis.≥GAO–16–708T. a A case review cannot be completed when an agency’s review is unable to discern whether a 

payment was proper because of insufficient or lack of documentation. b According to IRS officials, such cases are considered non-response cases and an adjustment is 

made to the improper payment rate calculation assuming that such cases have the same ratio of 

compliance to non-compliance characteristics as taxpayers who participate in the audits. cSNAP has an error reporting threshold, which is the dollar amount beneath which a case error 

is not included in the error rate. 

For some cases, the reviewer may have insufficient information to assess the accuracy of the eligibility and benefit determination, and the programs we reviewed 

treated these cases somewhat differently in the improper payment rate calculation. 

For example, according to FNS officials, for SNAP, these cases are removed from 

the sample so that neither the benefit payments or any potential dollar error 

amounts are factored into the improper payment rate calculation, though the rate 

calculation may be adjusted depending on the proportion of reviewed cases in this 

category.43 According to SSA, such cases are removed from the SSI improper payment rate calculation, and no adjustment is made to the improper payment rate. 

In contrast, according to HHS officials, in Medicaid cases where there is insufficient 

information to make an error determination, the full benefit amount is counted as 

an error in the improper payment rate calculation. EITC policy on incomplete cases 

varies depending on whether contact is made with the taxpayer. Specifically, if the 

taxpayer responds to the audit inquiry, but is unable to provide the required documentation, the full amount of the credit is considered to be in error. However, according to IRS officials, if the taxpayer cannot be reached to participate in the audit, 

the case is not completed, and an adjustment is made to the improper payment rate 

calculation.44

Generally, unlike the other Federal programs for low-income individuals we reviewed, SNAP excludes certain errors from its improper payment rate calculation. 

For example, as previously noted, SNAP excludes errors below a specific dollar 

threshold from its error rate calculation, while according to Federal officials, the 

other programs we selected did not exclude identified errors below a specific dollar 

threshold.45 FNS’s data on payment errors suggests that the threshold has a direct 

effect on the SNAP error rate. Specifically, in our analysis of FNS’s quality control 

data for Fiscal Year 2013, we found that 31 percent of all cases reviewed had errors 

that were below the threshold, six percent had errors that exceeded the threshold, 

and 64 percent had no errors.46 Further, the reviewed cases determined to have errors below the threshold—which were not included as errors in the error rate calculation—accounted for 38 percent of all SNAP dollars paid in error. In addition, 

for SNAP, errors are not included in the rate calculation if they are related to recent 

program changes; within 120 days.47 Similarly, according to SSA officials, such erVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00310 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
851

rate if they are within 120 days of the required implementation date. See 7 U.S.C. § 2025(c)(3)(a) 

and 7 CFR § 275.12(d)(2)(vii). 48 According to SSA officials, errors caused by significant program changes are not included 

in the SSI rate calculation if they are found to have occurred within 6 months of the change; 

however, they stated that there have not been significant changes that would invoke this provision since 2005. 49See 7 U.S.C. § 2025 and 7 CFR §§ 275.23–275.24. 50 In a June 24, 2016 letter to states, USDA said that it will complete a thorough review of 

quality control systems in all states before making decisions about the disbursement of the payment accuracy bonuses. These payments had not been made, because of FNS concerns about 

the integrity of the state data, based on FNS reviews. The USDA OIG had previously found 

that states had used practices to weaken the quality control review process, including the use 

of third-party consultants and error review committees to mitigate individual errors identified 

by reviewers. See, USDA, Office of Inspector General, FNS Quality Control Process for SNAP 

Error Rate, Audit Report 27601–0002–41, September 2015. 51 However, according to SSA officials, the agency uses its annual performance appraisals to 

hold SSI managers, supervisors, and field office employees accountable for reducing improper 

payments. 52See GAO–14–641 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-641). 

rors are not included in the SSI rate calculation if they are found to have occurred 

within 6 months of a change.48 According to Federal officials, neither Medicaid nor 

EITC has such a provision. 

Another difference between SNAP and the other programs we reviewed relates to 

bonuses to reduce error rates. Specifically, SNAP provides states with financial bonuses and sanctions to reduce or maintain low error rates, a policy which differs 

from Medicaid, EITC, and SSI.49 For Fiscal Year 2014 state improper payments, FNS selected ten states to share $24 million in bonuses for best payment accuracy 

and most improved payment accuracy.50 This policy differs from the other programs 

we reviewed likely due, in part, to differences in program structure. For example, 

according to Medicaid Federal officials, states have an inherent incentive to reduce 

Medicaid improper payments because they share in Medicaid program costs. Further, given that SSI and EITC are federally administered programs, they have no 

state-based incentives.51

Despite differences among some Federal programs’ improper payment rate calculations, Federal agencies are generally required to comply with relevant Federal 

laws governing the estimation of improper payment rates. We are currently assessing the SNAP improper payment rate calculation in light of these laws and the relevant OMB implementing guidance and plan to report on these findings in the future. 

States and FNS Have Taken Steps To Address SNAP Recipient Fraud That 

May Help Address Identified Challenges 

Fraud is a key indicator of program integrity and FNS and state agencies partner 

to address it. As previously noted, improper payments made to SNAP households 

may be caused by caseworker or recipient errors, and intentional errors made by 

recipients are considered fraud, as are other recipient and retailer actions that qualify as misuse of benefits. FNS and the states work together to address SNAP recipient fraud, employing various tools that are specifically targeted at detecting recipient fraud. These tools have evolved over time with changes to the SNAP program 

and the ways in which SNAP recipient fraud occur. 

In 2014, we reported that selected states said they employed a range of tools to 

detect potential SNAP recipient eligibility fraud, such as data matching and referrals obtained through fraud reporting hotlines and websites.52 Specifically, at that 

time, all 11 states that we reviewed had fraud hotlines or websites, and all matched 

information about SNAP applicants and recipients against various data sources to 

detect those potentially improperly receiving benefits, as FNS recommended or required. For example, all 11 states reported matching recipient data against prisoner 

and death files. In addition, we found that four of the states we reviewed used additional specialized searches to check numerous public and private data sources, including school enrollment, vehicle registration, vital statistics, and credit reports, to 

detect potential fraud prior to providing benefits to potential recipients. 

To address recipient trafficking of benefits—the exchange of benefits for cash or 

non-food goods or services, in 2014, officials in the 11 selected states reported that 

they took various actions recommended or required by FNS. For example, all 11 

states reported tracking recipients who requested four or more replacement electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards in a 12 month period. States issue an eligible 

household’s monthly SNAP benefits on an EBT card, and recipients use the cards 

to purchase allowable food items at authorized retailers. FNS has required that 

states track recipients who request multiple EBT replacement cards because some 

852

recipients who have trafficked their benefits contact state agencies to report their 

sold cards as lost or stolen and receive new, replacement cards, which they then use 

for future transactions. For recipients identified through such tracking, states generally must warn them that the purchases they are making with their SNAP benefits through their EBT transactions, are being monitored. All 11 states also reported 

reviewing EBT transactions in an attempt to uncover patterns that may indicate 

trafficking, as recommended by FNS, though these efforts varied by state. For example, while Florida officials reported that they routinely review EBT transaction data 

for suspicious patterns, Texas officials reported that they only review transactions 

for individuals or households after they have been referred to them because of potential fraud. Further, eight of the 11 states reported using either automated tools 

or manual monitoring to detect postings on social media and e-commerce websites 

by individuals seeking to sell SNAP benefits, as recommended by FNS. 

However, we also reported in 2014 that these states noted that inadequate staffing levels limited the effectiveness of their actions to detect recipient fraud, though 

some states were exploring ways to address this issue. Among the 11 selected states, 

there was wide variation in the number of staff available to investigate potential 

SNAP recipient fraud, and investigators each had additional responsibilities unrelated to SNAP fraud investigations. Further, eight of the 11 selected states reported 

difficulties in conducting fraud investigations due to either reduced or maintained 

staff levels, while SNAP recipient numbers greatly increased from Fiscal Year 2009 

through 2013. To help address this issue, six of the states reported that they had 

implemented or were in the process of implementing state law enforcement bureau 

(SLEB) agreements at the time of our 2014 report. These agreements enable state 

SNAP investigators to cooperate in various ways with local, state, and Federal law 

enforcement agents, including those within the USDA OIG. For example, under 

these agreements, law enforcement agencies can notify the SNAP fraud unit when 

they arrest someone who possesses multiple EBT cards, and SNAP agencies can 

provide ‘‘dummy’’ EBT cards for state and local officers to use in undercover trafficking investigations. Some states also suggested changing the financial incentive 

structure to promote fraud investigations. To help address the increased caseloads 

and the resources needed to conduct investigations, we recommended that USDA explore ways that Federal financial incentives could be used to better support costeffective anti-fraud strategies. At this time, FNS has decided not to pursue bonus 

awards for anti-fraud and program integrity activities. 

Also in 2014, some states reported that limitations of FNS’s required approach to 

monitoring replacement card data also challenged their efforts to combat recipient 

fraud. Specifically, at the time of our review, four states reported that they had not 

initiated any trafficking investigations as a result of the EBT replacement card data 

monitoring required by FNS, and five states reported a low success rate for such 

investigations. Through our own analysis of replacement card data combined with 

EBT transaction data that suggested trafficking, we found indicators of potential 

SNAP trafficking in households with excessive replacement cards, suggesting that 

a more targeted approach than that required by FNS may improve states’ efforts 

to identify recipient trafficking. As a result of these findings in 2014, we recommended that FNS establish additional guidance to help states analyze SNAP 

transaction data to better identify SNAP recipient households receiving replacement 

cards that are potentially engaging in trafficking, and assess how to better focus 

this analysis on high-risk households potentially engaged in trafficking. In response, 

FNS officials reported that they have provided some states with technical assistance 

on how to effectively utilize replacement card data as a potential indicator of trafficking and have plans to expand their assistance to states in this area. Specifically, 

FNS has worked with seven states to help them more effectively identify SNAP recipient trafficking using models that incorporate predictive analytics. FNS officials 

stated that the models use a variety of eligibility and transaction data, including 

replacement card data, and have demonstrated a significant improvement in effectiveness in these states. FNS officials also stated that they are providing four additional states with technical assistance in Fiscal Year 2016, and FNS is currently 

conducting a training program for state staff to teach them how to build predictive 

models that incorporate the use of card replacement data. 

Further, although an FNS-recommended automated tool for monitoring potential 

SNAP trafficking on e-commerce websites was intended to replace the need for 

states to perform manual searches on these websites, we found the tool to be of limited use. Specifically, our testing found that manual searches returned more postings indicative of potential SNAP trafficking than the automated tool, and that most 

of the postings detected through manual searches were not detected by the automated tool. As a result, in 2014 we recommended that FNS reassess the effectiveness of the current guidance and tools recommended to states for monitoring e-comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00312 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
853

53See GAO–14–641 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-641). 54See GAO–16–719T (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-719T). 55SNAP Requirement for National Directory of New Hires Employment Verification and Annual Program Activity Reporting, 81 FED. REG. 4159. 1These 22 options and 11 waivers come from USDA’s most recent state options report (current 

as of September 2013) and USDA’s waivers database (current as of March 2016). We excluded 

options and waivers that had been adopted by fewer than five states at the time of our review; 

this meant that we excluded no options and 12 waivers. 2 In conducting this analysis, we did not analyze Federal or state laws or regulations, and all 

descriptions and analysis of the various policy flexibilities are based on the documents and research we reviewed.

merce and social media websites, FNS officials reported that they continue to provide technical assistance to states on the effective use of social media and e-commerce monitoring. FNS officials also reported that the agency conducted an analysis 

in 2016 to evaluate states’ current use of social media in their detection of SNAP 

trafficking, and they plan to use information from that analysis to determine how 

best to present further guidance to state agencies on using social media to combat 

trafficking. 

In 2014, we also found that FNS had increased its oversight of state anti-fraud 

activities by issuing new regulations and guidance, conducting state audits, and 

commissioning studies on recipient fraud since Fiscal Year 2011.53 Despite these efforts, we found that FNS did not have consistent and reliable data on states’ antifraud activities because its reporting guidance lacked specificity. For example, FNS’s 

guidance did not define the kinds of activities that should be counted as investigations, resulting in data that were not comparable across states. This limited USDA’s 

ability to monitor states and find more effective ways to combat recipient fraud. To 

improve FNS’s ability to monitor states and obtain information about more efficient 

and effective ways to combat recipient fraud, we recommended in 2014 that FNS 

take steps, such as guidance and training, to enhance the consistency of what states 

report on their anti-fraud activities. As of May 2016, FNS reported that it had redesigned the form used to collect consistent recipient integrity performance information and expect it to be implemented in Fiscal Year 2017, pending approval from 

OMB.54 FNS also published an interim final rule on January 26, 2016 (effective 

March 28, 2016) that increased the frequency with which states are required to submit the form to FNS from annually to quarterly.55 As of June 2016, FNS officials 

reported that they had provided four separate trainings to approximately 400 state 

agency and FNS regional office personnel, covering the new and modified elements 

of the final draft form and the corresponding instructions. 

Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee, 

this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have at this time. 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

For questions about this statement please contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512–

7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations 

and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. GAO staff who 

made key contributions to this testimony include Rachel Frisk, Alexander Galuten, 

Kathryn O’Dea Lamas, Jean McSween, Daniel Meyer, and Srinidhi Vijaykumar. 

APPENDIX I: GAO ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF STATE POLICY FLEXIBILITIES ON

SNAP PAYMENT ERRORS

We used a multi-step approach to assess the expected effect of each of the 33 state 

policy flexibilities we identified on the SNAP improper payment rate.1 First, we reviewed prior GAO work, and FNS and USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) documents, that describe the characteristics of policies that may affect the SNAP improper payment rate. See Table 6 for a description of the policy characteristics we 

identified and the expected effect of those characteristics on the likelihood of errors. 

We then obtained a description of each state policy flexibility using the 2013 USDA 

State Options report, the 2016 USDA waivers database, and other FNS documents.2

We analyzed which Federal and state policy changes had the identified characteristics, and then we assessed the likely cumulative expected directional effect of each 

policy on the improper payment rate, depending on whether the policy change simplified or complicated program rules or increased or decreased caseworker paperwork, among other characteristics. For flexibilities that had multiple characteristics 

with potentially opposite effects on the likelihood of errors, we selected what we considered to be the primary effect, based on a review by two analysts. However, for 

some policies, we were unable to determine the primary effect and therefore catVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00313 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
854

egorized those policies as having a mixed effect—essentially, these policies had characteristics that suggested they both increased and decreased the likelihood of errors. 

Table 6: Characteristics of State Policy Flexibilities GAO Examined and 

How They Might Potentially Affect Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) Payment Errors 

Factor Characteristic Effect on Likelihood of Errors 

Program rules Simplify 

Complicate 

↓

↑

Requirements for participants 

to provide information 

Less 

More 

↓

↑

Caseworker paperwork Less 

More 

↓

↑

Characteristics of eligible population Less error-prone 

More error-prone 

↓

↑

Others, such as program administration or procedures Simplify 

Complicate 

↓

↑

Source: GAO.≥GAO–16–708T 

Note: We did not review program laws and regulations, but we identified when descriptions of 

flexibilities addressed similarities across programs. Greater similarity in program rules decreases 

household and caseworker confusion, as caseworkers may be responsible for determining eligibility for multiple programs. 

We grouped the 33 state policy flexibilities into four categories, those that: potentially reduced the likelihood of errors; potentially increased the likelihood of errors; 

likely had a mixed effect; or likely had no effect. Tables 7, 8, 9, and 10 divide the 

policy flexibilities into these categories, describe each, and provide our assessment 

of each flexibility’s likely effect on errors.

Table 7: Seventeen Options and Waivers That Potentially Reduce the Likelihood of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Payment 

Errors 

Option/

Waiver Description Explanation a

Flexibilities that simplified program requirements

Simplified Reporting option Requires participants to report only if their 

income rises above 130 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, instead of requiring a variety of changes to be reported, including household composition, income, 

and expenses. 

Results in participants reporting fewer 

changes and reduces the amount of paperwork that caseworkers must process.b In 

2005, USDA estimated that simplified reporting could have reduced the improper 

payment rate by 1.2 to 1.5 percentage 

points.c

Simplified Reporting—Certification 

Length option 

Requires participants to submit a periodic 

report with household information at set 

intervals instead of requiring changes be 

reported within 10 days of their occurrence. 

Results in participants reporting changes 

less frequently and reduces the amount of 

paperwork that caseworkers must process. 

Simplified Income and Resources option 

Excludes certain types of income and resources from SNAP eligibility and benefit 

determination requirements that are excluded under state TANF or Medicaid policy. 

Increases uniformity in requirements across 

multiple programs for low-income individuals, which SNAP recipients may simultaneously receive and which are administered by the same caseworkers in some 

states. Therefore, this reduces program 

complexity and the potential for confusion 

by participants and caseworkers. 

Simplified SelfEmployment 

Determination 

option 

Simplifies the method for determining the 

cost of doing business in cases where an 

applicant is self-employed. 

Results in participants having to provide less 

documentation and simplifies paperwork 

for caseworkers. 

Standard Medical Deductions 

waiver 

Establishes a standard medical deduction in 

lieu of calculating actual medical expenses 

for individuals who are disabled or elderly. 

Eliminates the need for participants to provide proof of all medical expenses and 

streamlines eligibility and benefit determination procedures for caseworkers by reducing the amount of information to be 

verified and documented. 

855

Table 7: Seventeen Options and Waivers That Potentially Reduce the Likelihood of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Payment 

Errors—Continued

Option/

Waiver Description Explanation a

Standard Homeless Housing 

Cost option 

States can use a standard deduction from income of $143 per month for homeless 

households with some shelter expenses. 

Eliminates the need for participants to provide proof of all shelter expenses, which 

streamlines eligibility and benefit determination procedures for caseworkers by reducing the amount of information to be 

verified and documented. 

Standard Utility 

Allowances 

(SUAs) option 

Establishes a standard utility allowance in 

lieu of using actual utility expenses. States 

that further make the SUA mandatory for 

all households opt out of the requirement 

to prorate SUAs for households that share 

living space. These states are also required 

to use a SUA that includes the heating 

and cooling costs of public housing residents with shared meters that are charged 

only for excess utility costs. 

Eliminates the need for participants to provide proof of all utility expenses and 

streamlines eligibility and benefit determination procedures by reducing the 

amount of information caseworkers need to 

verify and document. Further, reduces the 

likelihood of a calculation error because 

the caseworker no longer has to prorate 

certain cases. 

Transitional 

Benefits option 

Establishes a set benefit amount for families 

transitioning off TANF, or other statefunded cash assistance, eliminating participant reporting requirements and reducing 

caseworker processing during the transition period. 

Reduces participant reporting burden and reduces caseworker paperwork requirements 

at a time when the household’s situation 

may be particularly subject to fluctuation. 

Averaging Student Hours 

waiver 

Students enrolled at least half-time in an institution of higher education, are ineligible 

to participate unless they meet at least 

one of several criteria. One criterion allows 

students to participate if they are employed for a minimum of 20 hours a week. 

The waiver allows state agencies to average the number of hours worked over a 

month in determining compliance with the 

student work requirement. 

Reduces caseworker burden associated with 

needing to confirm the exact number of 

employment hours each week. 

Interest Income 

Verification 

waiver 

Enables state agencies to waive verification 

of income from interest and dividends if 

less than a certain amount. 

Reduces the amount of verification the participant needs to supply and the amount of 

information the caseworker needs to 

verify. 

Recertification 

Interview for 

Elderly or Disabled Individuals with No 

Earned Income 

waiver 

Allows the state to waive the recertification 

interview for households in which all adult 

members are elderly or disabled and have 

no earned income. 

Reduces the frequency with which recertification interviews need to happen, thus reducing the opportunity for the caseworker 

to discover changes in circumstances that 

would need to be documented and verified.

Flexibilities that modified procedures for receiving and processing information

Online Applications and Case 

Management 

Allows SNAP applicants to apply for benefits 

online. Many state websites also allow clients to view information about their case 

or report changes in factors that affect eligibility or benefit levels. 

May ease the completion of paperwork for 

the participant and the caseworker. Participants can complete applications and 

submit paperwork online. For the caseworker, information provided on-line may 

be easier to document, retrieve, and process. 

Call Centers Allows states to reduce the time local offices 

spend answering phone calls concerning 

general SNAP information and application 

and benefit status, conducting certification 

interviews, handling customer complaints, 

and processing changes. In some states, 

call centers go beyond these functions to 

directly certify and re-certify households. 

May ease participant reporting of required 

household changes. May also reduce burden on local offices. 

Modernization 

Initiatives 

Allows states to take modernization initiatives which include a range of innovative 

managerial and technology solutions to increase efficiency. 

May simplify program administration, for example, through specialization of caseworker tasks, as this enables staff to focus 

on certain aspects of the eligibility process, 

thus increasing efficiency and potentially 

reducing errors. 

856

Table 7: Seventeen Options and Waivers That Potentially Reduce the Likelihood of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Payment 

Errors—Continued

Option/

Waiver Description Explanation a

Document Imaging Allows states to use document imaging to 

scan paper documents and convert them to 

digital images that are stored in an electronic format. 

May simplify program administration by 

making applicant documentation electronically available, thus easing the certification process 

Early Denial 

Waivers 

FNS regulations allow households 30 days to 

provide verification prior to denying the 

household’s application, in cases of missing 

documentation. Under the waiver, state 

agencies may deny an application if the 

applicant fails to provide verification within 10 days of the state agency’s request. 

However, the client still has the right to 

provide the information by the 30th day 

and if she or he does so, the application 

must not be denied. 

May help households avoid a disruption in 

benefits due to missing paperwork. Thus, 

this may prevent applicants from having 

to re-apply, which introduces more opportunities for error, than if the households 

had provided necessary verifications to 

continue their benefits. 

Reinstatement 

waiver 

Allows states to reinstate recently ineligible 

households without requiring a new application if the household provides 

verification required to reestablish eligibility during the calendar month following 

the effective date of closure. 

May prevent applicants from having to reapply, reducing application volume and the 

opportunity for participant or caseworker 

error. 

Source: GAO analysis of information in USDA’s 2013 State Options report, USDA’s SNAP Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March 2016), and other FNS documents.≥GAO–

16–708T. 

Note: In conducting this analysis, we did not analyze Federal or state laws or regulations, and 

all descriptions and analysis of the various policy flexibilities are based on the documents and research we reviewed. aFlexibilities may have had multiple characteristics that suggested opposite effects; in those instances we selected what we considered to be the over-riding or primary effect. bWhether the caseworker needs to process a change, which the caseworker comes to know 

about but that the participant was not required to report, depends on whether the state has a policy to act on all changes. cSee U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, The Effect of Simplified Reporting on Food Stamp Payment Accuracy, October 2005. 

Table 8: Three Options That Potentially Increase the Likelihood of 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Errors 

Option/

Waiver Description Explanation a

Comparable Disqualification 

option 

Can disqualify SNAP applicants or recipients 

who fail to perform actions required by 

other Federal, state, or local means tested 

public assistance programs. A state agency 

has the option to select the types of disqualifications within a program that it 

wants to impose on SNAP recipients. 

Adds a step for caseworkers to determine 

whether disqualifications in other programs are to be imposed for SNAP. 

Child SupportRelated Disqualification 

option 

Can disqualify individuals who fail to cooperate with child support enforcement agencies, who are in arrears in court-ordered 

child support payments, or both. 

Adds a step for caseworkers to determine 

whether an applicant or participant met 

these conditions, thereby increasing the 

opportunity for error. 

Simplified Deduction Determination option 

Averages expenses that are billed more or 

less often than on a monthly basis. For example, if a household receives a single bill 

in February which covers a 3 month period, the bill may be averaged over February, March, and April. Conversely, a 

one-time only expense can be averaged 

over the entire certification period in 

which they are billed. 

Requires an additional calculation to average 

a bill across several months instead of 

counting the bill in the month it was due. 

Source: GAO analysis of information in USDA’s 2013 State Options report, USDA’s SNAP Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March 2016), and other FNS documents.≥GAO–

16–708T. 

Note: In conducting this analysis, we did not analyze Federal or state laws or regulations, and 

all descriptions and analysis of the various policy flexibilities are based on the documents and research we reviewed. 

857

aFlexibilities may have had multiple characteristics that suggested opposite effects; in those instances we selected what we considered to be the over-riding or primary effect. 

Table 9: Four Options That Likely Have a Mixed Effect on Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Payment Errors 

Option/

Waiver Description Explanation 

Simplified Reporting—Action on Change 

option 

State agencies can act on all changes reported during the certification period, or to 

act only on certain changes. This option allows states that have combined SNAP/

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF) programs to more seamlessly integrate. It avoids a situation where the 

TANF program has acted on a change, but 

SNAP has not, and decreases caseworker 

burden by aligning the programs. 

If a state chooses to act on all changes, then 

caseworkers may have to process more 

household changes. However, this option 

could also lead to less participant and 

caseworker confusion due to aligned program requirements. 

Ineligible NonCitizens Income and Deductions option 

Although ineligible non-citizens cannot receive SNAP benefits, their income is relevant to the SNAP determinations for 

other eligible individuals who live in their 

household. States have various options for 

counting the income and deductions of ineligible non-citizens, including to prorate 

these amounts. 

If the state chooses to prorate income, this 

adds another step to the eligibility determination process, increasing program complexity. However, according to FNS, prorating for all ineligible non-citizens (as opposed to only for some) may simplify program administration because of uniform 

eligibility rules. 

Broad Based 

Categorical 

Eligibility 

(BBCE) option 

BBCE makes households categorically eligible for SNAP because they qualify for a 

non-cash TANF or state funded benefit, 

such as a pamphlet or 800 number. 

In states that adopted BBCE and, in effect, 

eliminated SNAP asset limits, participants 

no longer need to provide documentation of 

assets and caseworkers no longer needed 

to verify these amounts. At the same time, 

in states that adopted BBCE and, in effect, 

increased the SNAP gross income limit, it 

may result in greater numbers of households with earned income participating in 

SNAP. According to USDA’s data on 

causes of error, income is the most common cause of error when determining benefit amounts. 

Drug Felony Disqualification 

option 

Federal law permanently disqualifies people 

from SNAP participation if they have been 

convicted of a state or Federal felony offense, based on behavior which occurred 

after August 22, 1996, involving the possession, use or distribution of a controlled 

substance. State legislatures can opt out of 

the penalty entirely or choose to impose 

less severe restrictions through a modified 

ban. 

The effect of this option on the likelihood of 

errors depends on whether a modified ban 

or no ban is adopted. Under a modified 

ban, the level of case complexity appears 

to be similar to what it would be under a 

lifetime ban, as the caseworker would still 

need to delve into the participant’s criminal justice background to ascertain what 

crime was committed. However, in a state 

with no ban, case complexity would be 

eased, as the caseworker would no longer 

need to research the client’s criminal justice background. 

Source: GAO analysis of information in USDA’s 2013 State Options report, USDA’s SNAP Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March 2016), and other FNS documents.≥GAO–

16–708T. 

Note: In conducting this analysis, we did not analyze Federal or state laws or regulations, and 

all descriptions and analysis of the various policy flexibilities are based on the documents and research we reviewed. 

Table 10: Nine Options and Waivers That Likely Have No Effect on 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Payment Errors 

Option/

Waiver Description Explanation 

Child Support 

Expense Income Exclusion 

option 

Treats legally obligated child support payments made to non-household members as 

income exclusion rather than a deduction. 

This option helps to encourage payment of 

child support by excluding the amount 

paid from being considered part of the payer’s gross income. 

Has no effect on the amount of information 

participants need to provide nor does it 

change case processing, as a household’s 

child support payment still needs to be assessed, verified, and documented. 

858

Table 10: Nine Options and Waivers That Likely Have No Effect on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Payment Errors—Continued

Option/

Waiver Description Explanation 

Work Requirements and Disqualification 

option 

Individuals who fail to comply with SNAP 

work requirements without good cause are 

ineligible for program benefits and disqualified from SNAP for certain periods of 

time, depending on how many prior instances of non-compliance there have been. 

The law gives states the options to (1) set 

disqualification periods longer than these 

minimum mandatory periods, (2) make the 

disqualification permanent upon the third 

occurrence, and (3) sanction the entire 

household if the head of household fails to 

comply with work requirements. 

Does not change case processing, as caseworkers still have to undertake the disqualification/sanction process. 

Names for SNAP 

option 

As of Oct. 1, 2008, the name for the Food 

Stamp Program changed to Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). At 

the state level, state agencies may adopt 

the new program name SNAP, continue to 

refer to their program as the Food Stamp 

Program, or choose an alternate name. 

Has no effect on the likelihood of errors. 

Electronic Notices waiver Allows the states to issue electronic notices 

to clients who elect to receive notices via email rather than paper mail. 

Affects the method of communication with 

the client, not program requirements. Has 

no effect on the amount of information 

participants need to provide, nor does it 

change case processing. 

Not Pay for Postage for Change 

Reports waiver 

Waives the use of postage paid envelopes for 

change report forms. 

Has no effect on the information that participants need to report and the caseworkers 

need to verify. 

Postpone Expedited Service 

Interviews 

waiver 

Allows the state to postpone the certification 

interview for certain expedited service 

households for up to 2 months, provided 

that household identity is verified and 

staff have attempted to contact the household for interview. 

Delays the information participants need to 

report and that caseworkers need to verify; 

thus it does not ease program requirements but rather changes the timeframes. 

If a case were selected for quality control 

review and the interview had not yet been 

completed due to the waiver, differences in 

the quality control determined benefit 

amount and the actual amount that were 

discovered through an interview would not 

be considered an error because of the existence of the waiver. 

Provide Paper 

Copy of Online 

Application 

waiver 

Allows the state to waive its obligation to 

provide a copy of the online application information to clients who do not request a 

copy. 

Has no effect on the likelihood of errors. 

Telephone Interview In-Lieu of

Face-to-Face 

Interview 

waiver 

Enables states to allow interviews via telephone in lieu of a face-to-face interview 

without the need to document client hardship. 

Has no effect on the amount of information 

participants need to provide, nor does it 

change case processing. FNS has reported 

that it found little evidence that the likelihood of errors was affected by the interview method. 

On-Demand 

Interview 

waiver 

Allows the state to waive interview scheduling requirements, allowing clients the 

option to call the state to complete the 

interview during business hours within a 

certain time period. 

Has no effect on the amount of information 

participants need to provide, nor does it 

change case processing. 

Source: GAO analysis of information in USDA’s 2013 State Options report, USDA’s SNAP Certification Policy Waiver Database (updated as of March 2016), and other FNS documents.≥GAO–

16–708T. 

Note: In conducting this analysis, we did not analyze Federal or state laws or regulations, and 

all descriptions and analysis of the various policy flexibilities are based on the documents and research we reviewed. 

This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright 

protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced 

and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, 

permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

859

GAO’s Mission 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the Federal 

Government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates Federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and 

other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts 

on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO 

e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select ‘‘Email Updates.’’

Order by Phone 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512–6000, toll free (866) 801–7077, or TDD (202) 

512–2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO 

Connect with GAO on Facebook (http://facebook.com/usgao), Flickr (http://

flickr.com/usgao), Twitter (http://twitter.com/usgao), and YouTube (http://

youtube.com/usgao). 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds (http://www.gao.gov/feeds.html) or E-mail Updates 

(http://www.gao.gov/subscribe/index.php). 

Listen to our Podcasts (http://www.gao.gov/podcast/watchdog.html) and read 

The Watchblog (http://blog.gao.gov/). 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424–5454 or (202) 512–7470

Congressional Relations 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512–4400, U.S. 

Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, Washington, D.C. 

20548. 

Public Affairs 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512–4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Brown. 

Mr. Yost, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVE YOST, AUDITOR, STATE OF OHIO, 

COLUMBUS, OH 

Mr. YOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. You need to push your microphone closer. 

Mr. YOST. Chalk it up to nervousness, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and 

Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

today, and particularly want to recognize my friend, Representative 

Gibbs from Ohio, and Representative Fudge, for their service on 

this Committee. 

860

Recently, our team audited EBT card usage to identify indicators 

of fraud or misuse. The main goal of the audit was not to find cases 

of fraud, but to search for structural weaknesses in the program 

that heighten risk. 

Our findings lead me to conclude that there are likely millions of dollars of fraud in Ohio’s $2.5 billion program. The problems we 

found will not resolve, of course, the Federal deficit, but fraud and 

poor management undermine public support for this program. 

We looked at a 6 month period in 2015. I have attached my entire report to my testimony. And in the interest of time, I will just 

point out a few of the more troubling findings. We identified 36 instances where dead people received benefits more than a year after 

their death. In some cases, someone was still using the card. Federal law requires at least an annual comparison of death records 

against beneficiaries, so the number should have been zero. There 

were actually more than 1,800 people who continued to receive benefits after their death, but for a period of less than 1 year. We also 

found 1,337 recipients with balances greater than $2,300; about 

twice the maximum benefit for a family of eight: 173 had balances 

of more than $5,000, including one who had more than $20,000 balance. If you can bank thousands of dollars, I would respectfully 

suggest you are not in immediate need. 

States may only expunge benefits after an entire year of dormancy, but if a card is used just once, even for a can of soda, that 

1 year clock resets and balances can continue to grow. 

We also saw some unusual card activity. When was the last time 

any of us went to the grocery store and walked away with a bill 

of exactly $100, with no cents charged? We found 183,400 even-sum 

transactions, even-dollar transactions, worth $28.5 million. The 

scatter graph that you see on your monitors, your iPads, illustrates 

that there are sets of transactions by retailer that would provide 

fertile ground for further investigation, looking at those at the top. 

Or how often have you checked out of the grocery store at precisely 

the same time every month, and had exactly the same total every 

month, for 6 months in a row? We found that, and you can see the 

graphic there. We also found multiple purchases by one person at 

the same retailer, within the same hour. A person we have dubbed 

Recipient 9, used their card to make six purchases within 1 hour, 

totaling $1,555. When did you last spend that much on groceries? 

Recipients can use their benefit cards in other states, and we expected to see usage in our neighboring states. We did not expect 

to find usage in states as far away as Florida and Texas and Minnesota. We found $28.7 million that were spent outside of Ohio. 

More than 1⁄3 of that spent in far-flung states. Are these recipients 

living in the other states, or selling benefits, or double-dipping? Important questions to answer. 

The Federal Public Assistance Reporting Information System, 

PARIS, which has previously been cited, uses data matching to 

identify people who might be receiving duplicate benefits. 

In conclusion, I do not believe that fraud is rampant in Ohio, but 

it does exist and it is significant. Food stamp fraud hardens the 

hearts of good people, and deafens their ears to the sound of hunger. Every dollar wasted or fraudulently spent is a dollar that could 

be used for its intended purpose to feed the poor. For those who 

861

hunger and those who pay the bill, we owe a greater effort toward 

integrity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yost follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DAVE YOST, AUDITOR, STATE OF OHIO, COLUMBUS, 

OH 

Good morning Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of 

the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I particularly want 

to recognize Ohio Representatives Gibbs and Fudge for their service on this Committee. 

My name is Dave Yost. I am the Auditor of the State of Ohio, one of five constitutional officers elected statewide. 

Recently, our team audited EBT card usage data to identify indicators of fraud 

or misuse. The main goal of the audit was not to find cases of fraud, but to search 

for structural weaknesses in the program that heighten risk. Our findings lead me 

to conclude that there are likely millions of dollars in fraud in Ohio’s $2.5 billion 

program. 

The problems we found will not resolve the Federal deficit, but fraud and poor 

management undermine public support for the program. 

Ohio SNAP Audit Findings 

We looked at a 6 month period in 2015. I have attached the entire report to my 

testimony, but in the interest of time, I will point out a few of the more troubling 

findings. 

Deceased Recipients 

We identified 36 instances where dead people received benefits more than a year 

after their death. In some cases, someone was still using the card. Federal law requires at least an annual comparison of death records against the list of beneficiaries—so the number should have been zero. (There were actually more than 

1,862 people who continued to receive benefits after death, but for a period of less 

than a year.) 

Excessive Card Balances 

We also found 1,337 recipients with balances greater than $2,300—about twice 

the maximum benefit for a family of eight. Some 173 had balances of more than 

$5,000—including one with more than $20,000. 

If you can bank thousands of dollars, you are not in immediate need. 

States may only expunge benefits after an entire year of dormancy. But if the card 

is used just once—even for a can of soda—that 1 year clock resets and balances can 

continue to grow. 

Unusual Card Activity 

When was the last time you went grocery shopping and walked away with a bill 

of exactly $100 and no cents? We found 183,400 such examples of $100 or more—

totaling $28.5 million. 

862

Even Dollar Transactions

Or, how often have you checked out at the grocery store at precisely the same 

time every month and had the exact same total every month, 6 months in a row? 

We found that. 

Unusual Card Activity

We also found multiple purchases by one person from the same retailer within 

the same hour. A person we’ve dubbed Recipient No. 9 used their card to make six 

purchases for $1,555—all within 1 hour! When did you last spend that much on groceries? 


11403137.eps 11403138.eps
863

One Hour Transactions 

One Recipient, One Hour, Two Retailers, Six Transactions

Recipients can use their benefit card in other states, and we expected to see usage 

in our neighboring states. But we didn’t expect to find usage in states as far away 

as Florida, Texas and Minnesota. We found $28.7 million spent outside of Ohio, 

more than a third of it spent in far-flung states. Are these recipients living in other 

states, or selling benefits, or double-dipping? 

Where is Ohio money going?

The Federal Public Assistance Reporting Information System (PARIS) uses datamatching to identify people who might receive duplicate benefits in two or more 

states. But the states only have to submit information once a year and are not required to report on SNAP. This important program needs to be strengthened. 


11403139.eps 11403140.eps
864

Multiple Reports 

In total, we reviewed seven different reports that identify retailers and individuals with suspect activity. Merely being on such a report does not mean that a person committed fraud. 

But we found nearly 1,100 recipients who appeared on five of the seven reports 

and more than 1,400 retailers flagged on four reports. 

Appearing on one report might be meaningless. Showing up on most of them is 

what we in law enforcement refer to as a clue. 

Benefits of Auditing and Data Mining 

There is much more in the report, but all of it points to two things: weaknesses 

in the system that can be exploited to commit fraud, and a set of tools that can be 

used to manage the program better, much better. 

This is not limited to Ohio. Only about 1⁄4 of the states have undertaken this sort 

of audit, but the results are similar across the country. 

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that this Committee is undertaking study and reform. Our report makes some suggestions, and you will hear others. But, I would 

suggest an overarching principle for reform: Block-granting this program to the 

states. 

While we can identify the problems, the solutions are often less obvious. The only 

iron rule in government, it seems, is the Law of Unintended Consequences. When 

the Federal Government makes a change and there are unintended consequences, 

we all feel the pain if a reform fails. If the states develop their own management 

systems, failures will be limited to that state, and the successes and innovations will 

be there for others to copy. 

I do not believe that fraud is rampant in Ohio, but it does exist, and it is significant. Food stamp fraud hardens the hearts of good people and deafens their ears 

to the sound of hunger. Every dollar wasted or fraudulently spent is a dollar that 

could be used for its intended purpose: to feed the poor. For those who hunger, and 

for those who pay the bill, we owe a greater effort toward integrity. 

[ATTACHMENT] 

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services—Auditor’s Report on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for the Period January 1, 2015 

Through June 30, 2015

Hon. DAVE YOST, Auditor of State

Table of Contents 

Auditor’s Report 

General Background 

Deceased Recipients 

Duplicated Recipients 

Unusual Card Activity

Even Dollar Transactions 

Replacement Cards 

Out-of-State Activity 

Manual Card Entries 

Full Benefit Withdrawal Transactions 

Excessive PIN Attempts 

Invalid Card Attempts 

Multiple Consecutive Transactions 

Recipients and Retailers Identified on Multiple Reports

Excessive Card Balances 

EPPIC Reports Use 

Overall Recommendations 

Auditor’s Report 

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services 

30 East Broad Street, 32nd Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215

We have audited the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services’ (the Department) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP—formerly known as Food 

Stamps) Electronic Benefit Transfer Card (EBT) usage data and other pertinent information for the period January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2015, under the authority of Ohio Revised Code Section 117.11. 

865

We have performed the procedures enumerated in this report to identify anomalies which may indicate higher risks related to misuse, fraud, or other concerns regarding SNAP EBT Card transactions and inquired whether procedures were in 

place to mitigate the identified risks. 

The information that follows describes the procedures performed during our audit 

and the related results for each procedure. Our analysis was based on information 

provided by the Department directly, including reports for analysis they obtained 

from a service organization; the completeness and accuracy of which we could not 

verify. The Department indicated they reviewed the reports prior to providing them 

for audit. Because retailer and recipient information is confidential according to the 

Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 at 7 U.S.C. 2018(c) and 7 CFR 278.1(q), we have 

not included any names or other identifiers in our report results. 

This engagement was not a financial or performance audit, the objectives of which 

would be vastly different. Therefore, it was not within the scope of this work to conduct a comprehensive and detailed examination of the SNAP EBT Card activity or 

test for compliance with program requirements and other Federal regulations, or 

evaluate for efficiencies of the processes. 

On May 26, 2016, we held an exit conference with the Department’s management 

and discussed the contents of this report. A response was received on June 8, 2016 

and was evaluated and included in our working papers.

DAVE YOST, 

Auditor of State, 

Columbus, Ohio, 

May 26, 2016. 

General Background 

The Department is the single state agency responsible for administering the 

SNAP program in Ohio. During Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, the Department reported approximately $2.5 billion in SNAP benefits issued to 824,231 primary recipients on 

behalf of their assistance groups (referred to throughout this report as recipients); 

approximately $1.3 billion of which was issued during our 6 month audit period. 

The Department utilizes a state-supervised, county-administered approach for the 

SNAP program. As a result, certain processing functions are performed by the 88 

County Departments of Job and Family Services (CDJFS). The Department’s Client 

Registry Information System—Enhanced (CRIS–E) determines eligibility and benefit amounts based on income, dependents, and other information entered by the 88 

CDJFS. The Ohio Benefits System (a new integrated eligibility system) is expected 

to replace CRIS–E in 2017. Any recommendations referenced to CRIS–E would also 

apply to the new eligibility system. The CDJFS are also tasked with maintaining 

the documentation to support the information entered into CRIS–E and for following 

up on recipient issues. 

The Department has also contracted with a service organization, Xerox, to perform various functions related to the SNAP EBT Card process, including:

• issuing EBT cards to SNAP recipients based on eligibility information from 

CRIS–E;

• loading available benefits onto the EBT cards each month based on information 

from CRIS–E;

• expunging expired benefits from the cards based on rules provided by the Department;

• processing food purchase transactions from the retailers (provided to the United 

States Department of Agriculture’s, Food Nutrition Services (FNS)); and

• requesting reimbursement for food purchases on behalf of the retailers from 

FNS.

The EBT cards are automatically loaded each month with the recipients’ benefits 

issued. The recipients are then able to use their benefits to purchase (claim) food 

at retailers authorized by FNS by swiping their card and entering their PIN. FNS 

has maintained responsibility for the identification and investigation of fraud related to retailers, although oftentimes contracts with other agencies for this function; the state is responsible for the identification and investigation of fraud related 

to recipients. 


11403141.eps
866

We requested and the Department provided several CRIS–E reports and Electronic Payment Processing Information Control (EPPIC—Xerox report package system) reports, in order to perform our audit. We also requested listings of deceased 

individuals from the Ohio Department of Health for 2010 through 2014. In addition, 

we inquired with the Department and ten selected CDJFS regarding procedures 

used to mitigate the identified risks. All amounts included in this report have been 

rounded to the nearest dollar, unless otherwise indicated. 

Deceased Recipients 

7 CFR 272.14(c)(1) requires that states shall provide a system for:

Comparing identifiable information about each household member against information from databases on deceased individuals. States shall make the comparison of matched data at the time of application and no less frequently than 

once a year.

If benefits are issued and loaded onto EBT cards on behalf of deceased individuals, there is a higher risk those benefits will be obtained and used by an unauthorized individual. This risk is further increased if benefits are not terminated timely. 

Under the current process, the Department receives files weekly from the United 

States Department of Commerce—National Technical Information Services’ (NTIS) 

database listing all deceased individuals. The listing is uploaded and stored within 

CRIS–E and CRIS–E matches to recipient data at midnight that evening. When 

CRIS–E matches a new deceased record with an existing recipient, an error alert 

is generated for the recipient’s case file record. The CDJFS case worker is to review 

and verify the alert and take appropriate action. However, because of the current 

‘‘pay and chase’’ process in place, if these alerts are not worked timely, there is an 

increased risk and effort in recouping inappropriate benefits claimed. Using the 

2010 through 2014 deceased files obtained from the Ohio Department of Health, we 

performed the following procedures:

(A) We compared deceased individuals to benefit recipients in CRIS–E and identified 1,862 instances in which a deceased individual was issued benefits during the audit period. We then evaluated the date of death to determine if it 

was prior to January 1, 2014 to evaluate the Department’s compliance with 

7 CFR 272.14(c)(1) which only requires they perform the match to deceased 

individuals ‘‘no less frequently than annually’’, resulting in a possibility of a 

12 month lapse between the date of death and the update of CRIS–E records. 

We identified 36 instances in which the individual’s date of death was prior 

to January 1, 2014 and, thus, the CRIS–E file should have been updated prior 

to our audit period. The Department issued an estimated $24,406 in benefits 

to these recipients; $13,598 of which was claimed for nine of these recipients, 

resulting in questioned costs for the claimed amount included in the FY 2015 

State of Ohio Single Audit Report. The Department’s related corrective action 

plan was also included in the State of Ohio Single Audit Report.

(B) We haphazardly selected 20 deceased individuals from those remaining in 

the deceased file (excluding the items matched from step A above). For each 

individual selected, we verified CRIS–E was updated within 1 year from the 

date of death and the individual’s benefits were terminated, per the code of 

Federal regulations. There were claims paid to the recipient number after the 

date of death, however, all 20 of these individuals were part of a larger recipient group that would be associated with the same recipient number.

Recommendation No. 1

We recommend the Department implement additional procedures to reasonably ensure 

the CDJFS caseworkers are reviewing and verifying the CRIS–E error alerts and taking appropriate action timely to reduce the risk that benefits are being claimed by an unauthorized individual. The Department should:

• Conduct additional mandatory training with CDJFS caseworkers pertaining to the review and resolution of CRIS–E errors alerts generated for deceased individuals, including more timely resolution of alerts.

• Implement a process to prioritize these alerts for the CDJFS caseworkers to follow up 

on based on number of fields matched.

• Perform quarterly reviews, at a minimum, of all CRIS–E error alerts generated for deceased individuals and reasonably ensure they are being investigated and resolved 

timely by the CDJFS.

867

Recommendation No. 1—Continued

• Consider implementing an automated control in CRIS–E to terminate eligibility for recipients when all data related to the deceased individual matches to the data provided 

by the NTIS.

• Investigate the recipients specifically identified in our testing to ensure any necessary 

repayments are received or additional actions are taken. 

Duplicated Recipients 

If one individual is assigned multiple recipient numbers, there is a higher risk 

the individual will be issued duplicate benefits, which could result in unallowable 

and/or fraudulent benefit claims paid. When a new applicant’s information is entered into CRIS–E, a recipient number is assigned to the applicant. If the CRIS–

E edit checks identify this individual may already be assigned a recipient number, 

an error alert is generated for the CDJFS caseworker to review/investigate the alert 

and take appropriate action. These error alerts are generated to help ensure one individual is not assigned multiple recipient numbers. In addition, during the application entry process, the caseworker is to ensure the [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber provided is valid by checking it in a CRIS–E subsystem, which interfaces with the 

United States Social Security Administration’s (SSA) database. Using the overall 

benefits listing report from CRIS–E, we performed the following procedures:

(A) We identified all individuals on the recipient listing who had the same name 

and date of birth, but with different [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umbers and recipient numbers. There were 153 instances identified where an individual’s name 

and date of birth was associated with more than one recipient number for a 

total of 322 recipient numbers. We were able to determine that, in 104 of the 

153 instances, each individual had a valid [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber and 

were, therefore, separate individuals. For the remaining 49 instances related 

to 98 recipient numbers, one of the [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umbers was not a 

valid number. The Department indicated that, in 37 of these instances, the 

[S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber was inaccurately entered initially. Once the mistake was identified, the CDJFS case worker entered the correct [S]ocial 

[S]ecurity [N]umber and a new recipient number was generated. However, 

there were 12 instances related to 24 recipient numbers in which benefits, totaling $17,878, were issued for the same months and the recipient could have 

received duplicate benefits. This amount was included in the questioned costs 

reported in the FY 2015 State of Ohio Single Audit Report. The Department’s 

related corrective action plan was also included in the State of Ohio Single 

Audit Report.

(B) We compared [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umbers to all recipient numbers in CRIS–

E. There were four instances identified where two recipient numbers were associated with the same [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber for a total of eight recipient numbers. We were able to determine no overlapping benefit payments 

were made to four of these recipient numbers because a new recipient number 

was assigned when the individual reapplied due to changes in their eligibility. 

In the other four cases, the recipient numbers were created within the system 

for test purposes and were not actual recipients.

Recommendation No. 2

We recommend the Department implement additional procedures to reasonably ensure 

the CDJFS caseworkers are reviewing and investigating the CRIS–E error alerts and validating the [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber provided during the application process. The Department should:

• Conduct additional mandatory training with CDJFS caseworkers pertaining to the application entry process. The training provided should specifically address how to review, investigate, and resolve errors alerts generated during the applicant entry process and reiterate the importance of validating the [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber in the 

SSA subsystem.

• Implement a process to prioritize these alerts for the CDJFS caseworkers to follow up 

on.

• Perform quarterly reviews, at a minimum, of all CRIS–E error alerts generated for possible duplicated recipients and reasonably ensure they are being investigated and resolved timely by the CDJFS.

868

Recommendation No. 2—Continued

• Consider implementing an automated control in CRIS–E to perform a real-time [S]ocial 

[S]ecurity [N]umber check to ensure a valid [S]ocial [S]ecurity [N]umber is entered 

prior to the determination of eligibility.

• Investigate the recipients specifically identified in our testing to ensure any necessary 

repayments are received or additional actions are taken. 

Unusual Card Activity 

In many instances, fraud or other issues may be identified through data analysis. 

Xerox has made several standard ‘‘fraud’’ reports available to the Department and 

88 CDJFS within the EPPIC reporting system. These reports can be used to identify 

possible anomalies or unusual occurrences pertaining to EBT card activities. We requested several EPPIC reports for our audit period from the Department, who reviewed the reports provided by Xerox prior to releasing them to us. We then reviewed the reports to identify anomalies which may indicate higher risks related to 

misuse of EBT cards. 

Even Dollar Transactions 

We identified even dollar purchase transactions exceeding $100. Even dollar 

transactions are not common when purchasing food, particularly at small retailers 

where inventories are more limited. This risk could be less at large retailers where 

recipients are more likely to use their full benefit amount, typically issued in whole 

dollars. Therefore, excessive even dollar transactions associated with a certain recipient and/or retailer could signify potential fraudulent activity. The total even dollar transactions for our audit period were as follows:

Total Retailers Total Recipients Total Transactions Total Dollar Amount 

13,200 129,141 183,437 $28,503,733

(i) We prepared a graph showing all retailers utilized by recipients for even dollar transactions and the total number of these transactions per retailer to 

identify outliers. 

Even Dollar Transactions

(ii) We analyzed all even dollar transactions exceeding $100 to identify retailers 

and recipients with multiple occurrences. The following tables list the top 10 

small retailers (i.e., those retailers not part of a chain representing higher 

risk) and recipients.

Small Retailers—Highest Even Dollar Transactions 

Retailer No. Total Dollar Value No. of Transactions 

1 $146,971 690

2 $119,133 707

3 $115,993 716

4 $112,900 776


11403142.eps
869

Small Retailers—Highest Even Dollar Transactions—Continued

Retailer No. Total Dollar Value No. of Transactions 

5 $94,356 597

6 $89,918 457

7 $80,971 370

8 $68,516 264

9 $59,636 236

10 $59,238 291

Total $947,632 5,104

Recipients—Highest Even Dollar Transactions 

Retailer No. Total Dollar Value No. of Transactions 

1 $11,504 60

2 $4,626 12

3 $3,740 6

4 $3,258 6

5 $3,119 6

6 $3,096 6

7 $3,000 6

8 $2,908 9

9 $2,760 11

10 $2,734 8

Total $40,745 130

(iii) We analyzed one recipient in our top 10 who also made significant even dollar purchases at one of the top 10 small retailers listed above. Below are the 

results.

Recipient No. 2 Even Dollar Transactions 

Transaction No. Date and Time of 

Transaction 

Amount of Transaction Retailer 

1 1/3/2015 12:00 a.m. $575 No. 1.

2 1/3/2015 12:04 a.m. $196 No. 1.

3 2/3/2015 12:01 a.m. $575 No. 1.

4 2/3/2015 12:03 a.m. $196 No. 1.

5 3/3/2015 12:01 a.m. $575 No. 1.

6 3/3/2015 12:02 a.m. $196 No. 1.

7 4/3/2015 12:00 a.m. $575 No. 1.

8 4/3/2015 12:02 a.m. $196 No. 1.

9 5/3/2015 12:00 a.m. $575 No. 1.

10 5/3/2015 12:03 a.m. $196 No. 1.

11 6/3/2015 12:01 a.m. $575 No. 1.

12 6/3/2015 12:04 a.m. $196 No. 1.

Total $4,626

Recommendation No. 3

• The Even Dollar Transaction Report should be used as a monitoring tool to identify recipients with a significant number of even dollar transactions and implement procedures to investigate unusual activity.

• As noted in the table above for Recipient 2, the dates, times of use, and same dollar 

amounts indicate an unusual pattern of use of the EBT card. The Department should 

review the individual transactions for each recipient and retailer identified in our testing to determine whether the amount and time the transactions were completed are 

unusual and should be further investigated.

• The outliers identified in the retailer graph above should be reviewed to determine if 

there is anything unusual about the transactions associated with these retailers and if 

these retailers should be referred to the appropriate investigative agency.

• As other anomalies are noted pertaining to retailers, the information should be forwarded to the appropriate investigative agency. 

870

Replacement Cards 

7 CFR 274.6(b)(5), effective November 2013, states, in part, ‘‘The state agency 

may require an individual member of a household to contact the state agency to provide an explanation in cases where the number of requests for card replacements 

is determined excessive. If they so require, the state agency must establish a threshold for the number of card replacements during a specified period of time to be considered excessive. That threshold shall not be less than four cards requested within 

12 months prior to the request . . .’’ The Department has determined that four or 

more replacement cards issued during a 12 month period is considered excessive. 

We identified recipients that were issued replacement cards four or more times (‘‘excessive replacement card recipients’’) during our audit period. Excessive replacement 

cards issued to recipients could indicate the cards are being sold or otherwise traded 

for cash or other commodities, requiring the recipient to request additional cards. 

There were 1,431 recipients that were issued four or more replacement cards during 

our audit period. We also compared the number of recipients receiving excessive replacement cards to excessive replacement card recipients in 2011 for the same 

months; 2011 was the last year similar procedures were conducted. See the results 

in the graph below. 

Excessive (Four Or More) Card Replacements

We also compared the fluctuation percentage for recipients with ten or more replacement cards to the total number of SNAP recipients. In 2011, we determined 

recipients issued ten or more replacement cards over the life of the EBT card program starting in March 2006 were excessive and reviewed accordingly. A decrease 

in the number of recipients with ten or more replacement cards issued was expected 

if recommendations made in the 2011 audit were implemented. There was a decrease in the percentage of recipients with ten or more replacement cards issued 

from 2011 to 2015 for the same 6 month period, and therefore, it appears that the 

Department implemented procedures to reduce the number of replacement cards 

issued.

Period 

Total Excessive

Replacement Card

Recipients 

Total SNAP

Recipients 

% of Recipients with 

Frequent Replacement 

Cards 

2011 17 832,677 0.02042%

2015 2 824,231 0.00024%


11403143.eps
871

Recommendation No. 4

Implement procedures to review the Card Issuance & Replacement Report to reasonably 

ensure that excessive replacement cards issued are investigated and any possible fraudulent activity resulting from excessive issuances is investigated and action taken. 

Out-of-State Activity 

We identified all EBT card activity occurring out of state. If EBT cards are excessively utilized out of state, this could indicate the recipient does not live within state 

lines, is receiving benefits in more than one state, and/or exchanging their EBT card 

with others for cash and/or other commodities. The total purchase transactions 

made out of state were:

Recipients Number of Transactions Total Amount 

118,316 909,177 $28,725,305

(i) We prepared a graph showing all retailers utilized by SNAP recipients outof-state and the total number of transactions per retailer to identify outliers. 

Out-of-State Activity

(ii) We removed all the border state activity from the listing and identified the 

following top 10 non-contiguous states with the most activity:

State Total 

Recipients 

with 

Activity 

Total Amount Top Two Cities within the State

Florida 9,174 $2,125,844 Orlando 

Jacksonville 

$119,130

$104,091

Georgia 5,065 $1,149,962 Atlanta 

Decatur 

$124,922

$58,833

Minnesota 4,733 $678,023 Marshall 

Minneapolis 

$596,709

$17,893

Texas 2,458 $662,746 Houston 

San Antonio 

$92,770

$48,944

Tennessee 4,823 $623,976 Memphis 

Sevierville 

$70,824

$58,100

North Carolina 3,150 $590,430 Charlotte 

Fayetteville 

$106,496

$24,478

South Carolina 3,215 $469,114 Myrtle Beach 

Columbia 

$134,017

$32,816

New York 2,207 $454,060 Brooklyn 

Bronx 

$75,394

$61,914

Illinois 2,783 $451,144 Chicago 

Rockford 

$159,528

$12,718

Alabama 1,808 $414,881 Tuscaloosa 

Birmingham 

$51,448

$32,136

Total 39,416 $7,620,180

(iii) Next, we identified all the border state activity from the listing and noted 

the following:


11403144.eps
872

State Total 

Recipients 

with 

Activity 

Total Amount Top Two Cities within the State Distance to City 

from Ohio Border 

(approximate)

West Virginia 20,887 $5,846,885 Mason 

Huntington 

$1,335,979 

$932,926 

1 mile 

3 miles 

Kentucky 26,471 $5,049,361 Ashland 

Covington 

$1,361,317 

$496,206 

1 mile 

1 mile 

Michigan 12,328 $2,295,295 Lambertville 

Detroit 

$345,344 

$335,095 

4 miles 

52 miles 

Pennsylvania 11,299 $2,208,820 Erie 

Hermitage 

$303,357 

$285,184 

32 miles 

5 miles 

Indiana 9,850 $2,125,093 Richmond 

Fort Wayne 

$496,068 

$267,538 

5 miles 

20 miles

Total 80,835 $17,525,454

(iv) Since recipients living in counties bordering other states may use their card 

significantly within those bordering states, we removed all purchases made 

in a bordering state for any recipients whose county of residence bordered 

that state and analyzed the remaining activity. We identified the top 10 recipients with the most out-of-state activity:

Recipient No. State County of Residence Total 

Amount 

Number of 

Transactions 

1 Pennsylvania Franklin $2,775 31

2 Michigan Cuyahoga $2,722 3

3 New York Cuyahoga $2,155 1

4 South Carolina Seneca $2,056 4

5 Kentucky Butler $1,663 10

6 Colorado Montgomery $1,608 11

7 Florida Stark $1,543 24

8 Illinois Franklin $1,533 8

9 Mississippi Ashtabula $1,471 7

10 Arkansas Lucas $1,442 36

Recommendation No. 5

• Implement additional monitoring procedures to review the Out-of-State Activity Report

and investigate recipients utilizing their EBT card multiple times out of state.

• Determine whether the large amount of out-of-state usage is due to travel required by 

employment or other valid reasons.

• Consider additional procedures to verify the recipient is not also receiving benefits in 

other states, which would require corroboration with those states.

• The outliers identified in the retailer graph above should be reviewed to determine if 

there is anything unusual about the transactions associated with these retailers and if 

these retailers should be referred to the appropriate investigative agency.

• As other anomalies are noted pertaining to retailers, the information should be forwarded to the appropriate investigative agency. 

Manual Card Entries 

We identified all purchase transactions associated with manual card entries. 

These entries involve keying in the card number and PIN at the point of sale either 

because the card swipe did not work or because the EBT card was not present. Excessive manual card entries could indicate the benefits are not being utilized by the 

intended recipient, or there are issues with the EBT cards themselves.

Total Retailers Total Recipients Total Transactions Total Amount 

10,188 109,172 679,236 $17,338,056

(i) We prepared a graph showing all retailers utilized by recipients for manual 

card entry transactions and the total number of these transactions per retailer to identify outliers. 

873

Manual Card Entry

(ii) We identified the top 10 retailers with the highest dollar amount associated 

with manual card entries.

Retailer No. Amount Transactions 

1 $152,717 2,813

2 $148,435 814

3 $128,127 1,950

4 $124,986 2,800

5 $120,149 2,251

6 $92,091 1,416

7 $89,761 1,533

8 $85,404 1,795

9 $82,671 1,591

10 $81,736 1,551

Total $1,106,077 18,514

(iii) We also identified the top 10 recipients with the highest dollar amount associated with manual card entries.

Retailer No. Amount Transactions 

1 $8,055 98

2 $7,885 161

3 $7,003 101

4 $6,578 268

5 $6,347 123

6 $6,184 266

7 $6,017 71

8 $5,946 602

9 $5,942 135

10 $5,908 110

Total $65,866 1,935

Recommendation No. 6

• Implement procedures to review the Manual Card Entry Report and investigate recipients with an excessive number of manual card entries to determine the reason the EBT 

cards are not being swiped. These procedures could include recipient inquiry and the 

review of additional EPPIC reports.

• The outliers identified in the retailer graph above should be reviewed to determine if 

there is anything unusual about the transactions associated with these retailers and if 

these retailers should be referred to the appropriate investigative agency.

• As other anomalies are noted pertaining to retailers, the information should be forwarded to the appropriate investigative agency. 

Full Benefit Withdrawal Transactions 

We identified all individual purchase transactions where at least the full monthly 

benefit amount awarded was withdrawn in a single purchase transaction. This could 

indicate the recipients were transferring their benefits to others for cash or other 

commodities, or they had other resources available indicating they may no longer 


11403145.eps
874

be eligible for benefits. There were 96,367 recipients with 152,740 full benefit withdrawal transactions totaling $25,430,189.

(i) We prepared a graph showing all retailers utilized by recipients for full benefit withdrawaltransactions and the total number of these transactions per retailer to identify outliers. 

Full Benefit Withdrawal Transactions

(ii) Next, we identified all recipients with one purchase transaction that exceeded three times their benefit issuance amount, as identified in the table below. 

We performed this additional analysis as it could be reasonable to use 1 

month’s benefit issuance in one transaction; however, the use of three times 

the benefit issuance amount in one transaction would seem more unusual.

Total Recipients Total Transactions Total Amount 

274 274 $57,218

The ten highest dollar transactions were identified.

Recipient No. Total Purchase Transaction Date/

Time 

Monthly Benefit 

Amount 

1 $1,323 3/4/2015 12:02 p.m. $194

2 $1,281 2/20/2015 3:45 p.m. $194

3 $1,273 5/26/2015 5:21 a.m. $194

4 $1,242 6/2/2015 5:56 a.m. $156

5 $1,108 3/4/2015 12:03 p.m. $194

6 $1,073 3/29/2015 5:44 p.m. $194

7 $1,063 5/22/2015 11:24 a.m. $194

8 $1,027 6/2/2015 5:56 a.m. $194

9 $898 6/25/2015 1:01 a.m. $163

10 $781 2/20/2015 1:12 p.m. $194

Recommendation No. 7

• Review the Full Food Assistance Balance Withdrawal Report to identify recipients with 

a significant number of full benefit withdrawal transactions and review the individual 

transactions to determine if there are any unusual patterns identified. If anomalies are 

identified, determine methods and implement procedures to investigate these recipients.

• If the recipient carries a large accumulated balance on their card, investigate the reason for the large balance as detailed in Recommendation No. 12 below.

• The outliers identified in the retailer graph above should be reviewed to determine if 

there is anything unusual about the transactions associated with these retailers and if 

these retailers should be referred to the appropriate investigative agency.

• As other anomalies are noted pertaining to retailers, the information should be forwarded to the appropriate investigative agency. 


11403146.eps
875

Excessive PIN Attempts 

We identified all recipients who exceeded their allotted four PIN attempts (as determined by the Department). If four unsuccessful PIN attempts are made, the card 

is automatically locked and cannot be used until the recipient resets the PIN. If a 

recipient has an excessive number of unsuccessful PIN attempts, this could indicate 

the individual is not the rightful owner of the card. We identified a total of 7,938 

recipients with 18,878 unsuccessful PIN attempts; 880 of these recipients had an 

excessive number (more than four) of PIN attempts, as detailed below. 

Excessive (More Than Four) PIN Attempts

Recommendation No. 8

Implement procedures to review the Excessive PIN Attempts Report to identify recipients 

with a significant number of PIN attempts, and determine the reason for the excessive attempts. Consider reviewing EPPIC transaction history reports to identify any other unusual 

activity that may indicate an unauthorized individual was utilizing the card. 

Invalid Card Attempts 

We identified all purchase transactions attempted on an invalid card (reported as 

lost, damaged, stolen, etc.). Transactions attempted on an invalid card could indicate 

an unauthorized individual attempted to use the card. There were a total of 12,906 

excessive (more than four) transactions attempted on an invalid card relating to 

1,898 recipient accounts, as shown below: 

Excessive (More Than Four) Transactions Attempted on Invalid Card


11403147.eps 11403148.eps
876

Recommendation No. 9

Review the Transactions Attempted on Invalid Card Report to identify recipients with a 

significant number of transactions attempted on an invalid card assigned to them, and determine the reason for the excessive attempts. Consider reviewing EPPIC transaction history reports to identify any other unusual activity that may indicate an unauthorized individual was utilizing the card. 

Multiple Consecutive Transactions 

We identified multiple purchase transactions occurring on one recipient account 

within 1 hour, shown in the table below, by month. If the card or benefits are being 

used excessively within a short amount of time, especially utilizing a single retailer, 

this could indicate the card is being exchanged for cash and/or being used by multiple unauthorized individuals.

Month Retailers Recipients Transactions Amount 

January 1,921 2,628 15,835 $365,124

February 1,686 2,211 13,245 $315,923

March 1,887 2,570 15,561 $341,215

April 1,890 2,576 15,529 $353,262

May 2,114 2,875 16,363 $357,229

June 2,144 2,887 16,387 $364,422

Total 11,642 15,747 92,920 $2,097,175

(i) We prepared a graph showing all retailers utilized by SNAP recipients for 

multiple transactions within 1 hour and the total number of these transactions per retailer to identify outliers. 

Multiple Transactions Within One Hour

(ii) We identified the top 10 recipients with the highest dollar amount of transactions within a 1 hour period during the 6 month period tested.

Recipient No. Transactions No. of 1 hour 

time periods 

No. of Retailers 

Visited 

Amount of All 

Transactions 

1 48 7 2 $2,343

2 54 7 20 $2,335

3 68 6 23 $2,079

4 44 7 17 $1,920

5 26 5 5 $1,879

6 23 4 4 $1,825

7 31 4 2 $1,707

8 12 3 7 $1,671

9 6 1 2 $1,555

10 24 4 8 $1,545

Total 336 48 90 $18,859

(iii) We analyzed an individual 1 hour period for Recipient No. 9 in our top 10. 

Below are the results.


11403149.eps
877

Transaction No. Transaction Date/Time Retailer No. Amount of Transaction 

1 1/31/2015 7:57 p.m. 1 $201

2 1/31/2015 8:01 p.m. 1 $189

3 1/31/2015 8:04 p.m. 1 $269

4 1/31/2015 8:42 p.m. 2 $262

5 1/31/2015 8:49 p.m. 2 $262

6 1/31/2015 8:52 p.m. 2 $372

Total $1,555

Recommendation No. 10

• Review the Multiple Transactions Within 1 Hour Report to identify recipients with a 

significant amount of transactions within multiple 1 hour periods. Identify the retailers 

utilized in these instances to determine whether the same retailer was utilized during 

the period. If the same retailer is utilized multiple times within the same period, this 

could indicate the card is being exchanged for cash and/or used by multiple ineligible 

individuals. If anomalies are identified, determine methods and implement procedures 

to investigate these recipients.

• The outliers identified in the retailer graph above should be reviewed to determine if 

there is anything unusual about the transactions associated with these retailers and if 

these retailers should be referred to the appropriate investigative agency.

• As other anomalies are noted pertaining to retailers, the information should be forwarded to the appropriate investigative agency. 

Recipients and Retailers Identified on Multiple Reports 

Using all eight of the EPPIC reports noted above, we identified recipients and retailers that appeared on more than one of the reports. If a recipient or retailer appears on multiple reports, there is a higher possibility that fraud or other questionable activity is occurring. There were 151,360 recipients appearing on multiple reports, as follows. 

Recipients Identified on Multiple Reports

There were 11,681 retailers appearing on multiple reports, as follows. 


11403150.eps
878

Retailers Identified on Multiple Reports

Recommendation No. 11

• Utilizing all the standard EPPIC reports available, recipients and retailers appearing 

on multiple reports should be identified since this could be an indicator of fraudulent 

activity. Review the data periodically to identify outliers and other anomalies and investigate those occurrences.

• The 37 retailers identified in our testing on five reports should be referred to the appropriate authorities for investigation. 

Excessive Card Balances 

7 CFR 274.2(h) states:

(1) If EBT accounts are inactive for 3 months or longer, the state agency may 

store such benefits offline.

(i) Benefits stored off-line shall be made available upon reapplication or 

re-contact by the household; 

(ii) The state agency shall attempt to notify the household of this action 

before storage of the benefits off-line and describe the steps necessary to 

bring the benefits back on-line;

(2) The state agency shall expunge benefits that have not been accessed by 

the household after a period of 1 year. Issuance reports shall reflect the adjustment to the state agency issuance totals to comply with monthly issuance reporting requirements prescribed under § 274.4. 

(3) Procedures shall be established to permit the appropriate managers to adjust benefits that have already been posted to a benefit account prior to the 

household accessing the account; or, after an account has become dormant. The 

procedures shall also be applicable to removing stale accounts for off-line storage of benefits or when the benefits are expunged. Whenever benefits are expunged or stored off-line, the state agency shall document the date, amount of 

the benefits and storage location in the household case file.

In addition, the Department indicated the EBT contract requirements, approved 

by FNS, state: 

Section 2.2.2.4 Benefit Expungement—

The Contractor must track aging at both the account and benefit level. Each 

food assistance benefit begins aging at the time it becomes available to the client. The EBT account begins aging at the point that the first benefit becomes 

available. Subsequently, each time that the client completes a transaction, the 

account aging clock is reset to start anew, even if one or more benefits have 

been expunged. 

No benefits may be expunged until the account aging clock has reached 365 

calendar days. Once the account has reached expungement age, only those benefits that have been available to the client for 365 or more calendar days shall 

be expunged. If one or more subsequent benefit authorizations for the same cliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00338 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN

11403151.eps
879

ent account have been available to the client for less than 365 calendar days, 

they are not expunged. They must remain online until each has reached full 

expungement age. If an account that has had all benefits expunged is reactivated because the client has again become eligible, the account must be treated in the same manner as a new account in terms of benefit aging and 

expungement timeframes.

An excessive benefit balance carried on an EBT card could signify the benefit balance has accumulated more than a period of 1 year increasing the risk of noncompliance with requirements. This could also indicate the recipient had additional resources available and was no longer in need of the benefits, allowing the benefits 

to be distributed elsewhere. Using a listing of all recipients with card balances 

greater than $2,300 (nearly double the maximum benefit amount for a family of 

eight), we identified a total of 1,337 recipients with a balance greater than this 

threshold on their card during the audit period, as listed below:

Balance Range: Total Recipients Total Balance Carried 

$2,300–$2,999 706 $1,813,619

$3,000–$3,999 323 $1,104,199

$4,000–$4,999 135 $595,857

$5,000–$5,999 69 $374,777

$6,000–$6,999 40 $254,692

$7,000–$7,999 31 $230,454

$8,000–$8,999 6 $50,765

$9,000–$9,999 14 $131,772

$10,000–$10,999 3 $31,512

$11,000–$11,999 2 $22,658

$12,000–12,999 2 $24,685

$13,000–$13,999 1 $13,827

$14,000–$14,999 1 $14,496

$15,000–$15,999 0 0

$16,000–$16,999 1 $16,910

$17,000–$17,999 1 $17,471

$18,000–$18,999 1 $18,757

$19,000–$19,999 0 0

$20,000–$20,999 1 $20,610

Total 1,337 $4,737,061

We also obtained information from the Department, provided by Xerox, for each 

of the 1,337 high balance recipients listed above to show when their EBT card was 

last utilized. We found the high balance recipients last accessed their account/used 

their card in the following calendar years:

Calendar Year Recipient’s

Account Last Accessed Total Recipients Total Balance Carried 

2012 7 $23,221

2013 19 $63,585

2014 72 $248,640

2015 1,165 $4,143,677

* 74 $257,938

Total 1,337 $4,737,061

Date Not Provided. 

We reviewed a Xerox report documenting which recipients had benefits expunged 

during our audit period. Eight of the 26 (30.8%) recipients listed above who last 

accessed their accounts in 2012 and 2013 were not listed on the expungement report 

covering our 6 month period. The Department provided further information to indicate benefits for these eight recipients had been fully expunged prior to our audit 

period. However, these recipients continued to be eligible based on the redeterminations performed by the counties and, therefore, continued to earn benefits. Since the 

contract agreement requires benefits to be available for 365 days before 

expungement, their balances continued to accumulate even though they were not 

being used. See the timeline below for further information for one of these eight recipients. In addition, the Department indicated that no date was available for the 

74 recipients for which no date was provided because those recipients had not 

accessed their benefits since at least July 2009 (the beginning date of the report provided). Of the 20 recipients selected for testing, ten were listed on the expungement 

report covering our 6 month period. In addition, the Department provided docuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00339 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
880

mentation for the other ten selected recipients from these 74 to show their benefits 

had been fully expunged prior to our audit period. 

Timeline of Activities for Recipient One of Eight

Recommendation No. 12

• Investigate the remaining 54 of the 74 accounts identified above where a date the account was last accessed was not provided and verify the card balances loaded over a 

year ago were expunged as required by 7 CFR 274.2(h)(2).

• Utilize the standard EPPIC report that includes all recipient cards that have not been 

utilized in a year, the date the account was last active, and the benefits expunged to 

assist in monitoring card balances. Ensure Xerox immediately expunged those benefits 

to comply with the requirements of 7 CFR 274.2(h)(2).

• Implement procedures as allowed in 7 CFR 272(h)(1) to store any benefits not utilized 

for 3 months off-line. Only reactivate the benefits upon reapplication or re-contact by 

the recipient.

• Inquiries should be made at the time of reapplication or re-contact to determine why 

benefits had not been used and whether additional income or resources are available to 

the recipient that had not been reported to ensure continued eligibility is appropriate. 

EPPIC Reports Use 

(A) We inquired with the Department to determine whether they were using the 

EPPIC reports provided by Xerox. Department personnel indicated they do not use 

the reports for monitoring purposes. They indicated it is the CDJFS’ responsibility 

to generate and review EPPIC reports, investigate fraud allegations, and recoup 

overpayments from recipients. The Department indicated it conducts quarterly 

meetings with CDJFS investigators and provides technical assistance and training 

to the CDJFS pertaining to EPPIC report use and investigations. 

(B) We selected ten counties: Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, Holmes, Huron, 

Logan, Lucas, Montgomery, Muskingum, and Pickaway. We inquired with the 

CDJFS in these counties to determine:

i. Whether the CDJFS utilized the EPPIC reports;

ii. If sufficient and knowledgeable personnel were assigned to fraud identification and investigation;

iii. What procedures were in place for fraud identification and investigation;

iv. Whether training was provided by the Department;

v. If quarterly meetings were conducted with the Department; and,

vi. The steps that are taken when possible fraud is identified.

Based on the responses provided by the ten selected CDJFS:

• There are no procedures in place to review EPPIC reports to identify anomalies for possible investigation. Investigations are not initiated until the

CDJFS receives a complaint or referral. At that point, the EPPIC reports

are utilized only as they relate to the specific recipient under investigation.

• The Department does provide training and conducts quarterly meetings

with the CDJFS for reviewing recipient family, income, and other information to identify potential fraud during the application process. The Department also provides training on how to handle a complaint and the corVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00340 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN

11403152.eps
881

responding investigation. However, the Department does not provide training pertaining to EPPIC report monitoring and how to identify anomalies

and other outliers related to fraud and misuse of the EBT cards.

• Seven of ten CDJFS either do not have personnel dedicated full time to

SNAP fraud identification and investigation, have only one investigator, or

have had significant turnover and vacant positions in their fraud section.

Overall Recommendations 

Since resources are often limited at the CDJFS, the Department should take a more 

proactive role in identifying possible fraud related to EBT cards and centralize the function. 

Centralizing this function at the Department level would allow specific personnel to become 

more experienced and adept at identifying and investigating anomalies and help focus the 

resources of both state and county personnel. In addition to the recommendations made 

throughout this report, we recommend the Department:

• Regularly review EPPIC reports and identify anomalies and other outliers for investigation. The information could then be passed to the CDJFS or appropriate authorities 

for investigation.

• Provide additional training to CDJFS personnel to help them better understand the 

EPPIC report data and how to proceed with investigations. The training materials provided should be maintained and readily made available to the CDJFS for reference.

• Conduct meetings with CDJFS personnel periodically to ensure all questions and concerns are addressed and investigations are being performed properly.

• Update and formally document the policies and procedures regarding the SNAP eligibility and fraud review/investigation process, including any changes made as a result of 

these recommendations. Communicate these policies and procedures to all affected 

staff, both state and county. Periodically review and update the policies and procedures 

to ensure they remain current and are sufficient.

• Ensure all procedures completed are documented and the documentation is maintained 

in accordance with established records retention policies. 

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—SNAP Franklin County Clerk’s Certification 

This is a true and correct copy of the report which is required to be filed in the 

Office of the Auditor of State pursuant to Section 117.26, Revised Code, and which 

is filed in Columbus, Ohio.

Clerk of the Bureau.

Certified June 28, 2016.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Yost. I appreciate that. 

The chair would remind Members that they will be recognized for 

questioning in order of seniority for Members who were here at the 

start of the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in 

order of arrival. And I appreciate Members’ understanding. 

I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Brown, help me understand. The $38 floor is unique to 

SNAP, and it is figured into the 3.7 percent error rate, or is it not? 

Which is it? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, what we understand from the threshold is it 

has come up and down over the years, but this most recent change 

gave us a good indicator that it probably did have an effect on the 

error rate. The rate had been going down for years, and when the 

threshold was changed from $50——

The CHAIRMAN. No, no, I mean, mechanically, errors inside the 

threshold are they included in the error rate for the 3.66, or are 

they not? 

Ms. BROWN. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just the errors that we do find. 


11403153.eps
882

Ms. BROWN. Yes. The errors that are below the threshold are not 

included in that error rate. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, so the error rate of 3.66 is understated 

by, I think your testimony said 38 percent? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. There is a percentage, let me double check that 

just to make sure, but, yes, 38 percent. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, that would equate to a 5.1 percent error 

rate if we included the safe harbor transactions? 

Ms. BROWN. I don’t think you can make that connection, because 

what we actually did was we looked at the percent of errors that 

were under the threshold, and then we looked at the percent of dollars that those errors made up. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, so help me understand. 

Ms. BROWN. It is complicated. 

The CHAIRMAN. The 3.66 then would be understated, it is fair to 

say we don’t know how much it is, but it is understated by some 

amount. 

Ms. BROWN. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I appreciate that. Are there other 

means-tested programs that have a failsafe like this in their error 

rates. 

Of all the other ones that we are comparing to, they track all the 

errors? 

Ms. BROWN. We only looked at the four and SNAP was the only 

one that had that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I appreciate that. 

Ms. Shahin, would you walk us through the differences, when we 

start talking about fraud and error rates, give us the specifics between those two, and trafficking, let me throw that one in, error 

rates that are touted as being low versus fraud, which is not included in those error rates, I don’t believe. Would you walk us 

through that briefly? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes, sir, and thank you so much, because there can 

be confusion over that. 

The error rate relates to improper payment. It could be an overissuance or an under-issuance that is added together, it is an improper payment. The person received too much or they received too 

little. 

When that happens, it happens at the state administrative, and 

we look to see where did that error come from. We find that about 

62 percent of those mistakes or errors come from the state agency, 

about 38 percent of them come from the client. Just to give you an 

example, the state agency might not take action on a reported income change in the timeframe required, or a change in household 

composition. Mostly it is—Kay is right, most of it is related to income, which becomes more dynamic the more you have a population that is working. And we have seen a great deal of increase 

in the working families. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. So then USDA defines fraud then as 

what? Retailers and——

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes. Fraud, we are talking really about an intentional, purposeful action on the part of a client or a retailer. TrafVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
883

ficking is an excellent example of that. That is when a client, and 

a retail is the most common kind, they collude together to say ‘‘I 

want cash for my SNAP benefits. I will give you 50¢ on the dollar, 

80¢ on the dollar.’’ Then the retailer gets the full amount into their 

account, and the——

The CHAIRMAN. In this example, the retailer would charge $100 

on the card and give the recipient back some percentage of that? 

Ms. SHAHIN.—it could be $50, $70, $80 whatever agreement they 

came to, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Recently, there was in the news a very large bust, $13 to $16 

million, and it appeared to be conducted from storefronts that 

didn’t even a business there. Is there not a site visit associated 

with the retailer approval process? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes, sir, there is a site visit that is involved, and 

we have made a lot of improvements actually in the area of denying stores up-front because we are doing better work in that area. 

Are you talking about the one down near Miami? 

The CHAIRMAN. It was in Florida, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Opa Locka. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SHAHIN. So that is a really good example of the work of state 

law enforcement, our USDA OIG. Our agency actually were the 

first to get the hotline call. We did some investigation. It looked 

like trafficking was happening. It was referred over to OIG and 

they said, ‘‘Yes, this is a criminal case we want to go after.’’ So it 

takes a little bit more time to get those done because they are taking criminal action. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right, but my understanding of that one is the 

storefronts were just that; there were no businesses associated with 

it. There wasn’t actually a retail shop there for folks to actually 

buy food. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes. That is not the way I understand it but that 

is really good to know, so I can go back and check on that. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 915.] 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay? 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. My time has 

expired. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Sure. Can I just mention one thing on the threshold? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Would you mind? On the threshold, I just——

The CHAIRMAN. No, I don’t mind. 

Ms. SHAHIN. On the threshold, the $37 was actually a part of the 

2014 Farm Bill. So that threshold exists in the law. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. No, I understand. 

Ms. SHAHIN. And I do want to make sure that folks know that 

while it doesn’t count in the error rate, the states must provide us 

all of their errors, whether they are below the $37 or not, because 

they have to take action on anything they find in an over- or underpayment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Even if it is below the threshold. 

884

Ms. SHAHIN. Even if it is below, yes, sir. Absolutely. It is not in 

the error rate but it is a part of their reporting, and they must take 

action on it. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you. I appreciate that clarification. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ranking Member Peterson. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Shahin, I mentioned in my opening remarks that I am not 

the big fan of having these different standards. And I realize that 

in most cases it doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. But, in 

North Dakota, people qualify for benefits that, if they were in my 

district in Minnesota, they don’t. It is just not right, in my opinion. 

One question I have is with the LIHEAP situation. Minnesota is 

not one of those states where we had a lot of people on this dollar 

LIHEAP payout so that they were qualifying, and we raised it to 

$20, didn’t we? Is that what we did? And CBO was saying at the 

time that the states wouldn’t spend the $20 to qualify people. So 

what ended up happening? Did it knock a lot of people off the rolls 

that were on there before, or not, or what happened? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes, on LIHEAP, and I am not anywhere near as 

good keeping numbers in my head, so let me just say I will go back 

and check and make sure I did this right, but I believe there were 

about 17 states that were doing the nominal, and I believe around 

12 to 13 went ahead and brought their nominal LIHEAP up to the 

$20 to meet the law as it was provided for. The remainder did not. 

Once again, as you are suggesting, these are options and choices 

that we do have for states in terms of their flexibilities and ways 

they can approach the program. We have the national standards, 

but there are places and flexibilities that provide for that kind of 

thing. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 915.] 

Mr. PETERSON. In the categorical eligibility, which apparently 

was done to simplify the administration, that was the idea that it 

was supposed to be the same as welfare benefits. When we changed 

the welfare law back in 1996 and we allowed the states to do different levels, and all that sort of stuff. In the 2014 bill, I had discussions, and I brought up that we should raise the bottom 130 

percent to some other number, and make it standard across the 

whole country and eliminate this. And some people didn’t want to 

do that because, even though they were from states that would 

have actually cut people off of benefits, they were against it because it made it look like they were raising benefits. It got in the 

whole political thing. My question is, if we had a situation where 

we had one standard and that was it, and the states couldn’t have 

a different level, would that eliminate some of these errors, would 

that reduce the error rate, or would that improve the situation or 

not? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Actually, this might be a good question for Kay as 

well, but I do know that with fraud-based categorical eligibility it 

can reduce errors because of the streamlined administration, there 

are certain things, you are using a different program that you already have in your state, that is already means-tested, and you are 

using its income and asset limits for determining the eligibility of 

885

the SNAP participant. But in the end, you still have to work the 

case, you still have to determine what the benefit is, and you still 

have to get really close to that 100 percent net to be eligible for 

a benefit. In other words, you might be eligible for the program but 

not for the benefit because of that. So that is kind of an important 

distinction as well. 

It can have a positive effect on the error rate in terms of reducing it. I think that Kay has some thoughts on how it also might 

be a policy that can increase error rates. 

Mr. PETERSON. Well, yes. 

Ms. BROWN. Right. When we looked at this at broad-based categorical eligibility in particular, we did find that it did have some 

aspects that really helped simplify the process of determining eligibility, including the fact that many states were no longer looking 

at assets that applicants had when they came to apply. But the 

other side of that is, because states could go up to a higher income 

level for eligibility, they were allowing more people who had earned 

income to receive benefits, and that is one of the areas that is the 

highest likelihood to cause errors. 

Mr. PETERSON. So both of you think it kind of cuts both ways? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. We said it had a mixed effect. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Lucas, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the Ranking Member 

will remember in the joys of the 2012, 2013, and 2014 Farm Bill. 

There were a number of times when we tried to do things in a variety of places, in a really logical fashion, and that created the most 

problems. Trying to be reasonable, rational, and logical. It didn’t 

mean that we weren’t trying to do the right things, it just meant 

that, in a few places, some of our colleagues preferred the irrational to the rational. By the way, I like all my colleagues. 

That said, Ms. Shahin, would you discuss for a moment the historic nature, the Food and Nutrition Service has always been responsible for retail fraud. The states have been tasked with looking 

at individual fraud cases, and as we mentioned here in a variety 

of areas, things changed in the 2014 Farm Bill included the fraud 

reduction pilot projects to expand that collaborative effort between 

state and Federal Government to prevent and detect retailer fraud. 

That was necessary because they increased the significant number 

of authorized retailers to participate in the program. And it provided states with some dedicated resources to help maintain that 

integrity. Can you expand for a moment on how USDA has implemented those pilot projects for a couple of minutes? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. The provision 

in the farm bill, one of the ways that we found that we could very 

quickly implement that is that we already have relationships with 

a lot of states through what are called State Law Enforcement Bureaus. And we call them SLEBs because we love acronyms, but also 

because it is much shorter. Those SLEB agreements, we looked at 

those to see how we could enhance those agreements to make them 

more useful, more effective, and use them to take on these pilot 

ideas, because we already have them in place. We added some aspects about the SLEBs actually working with us and helping us on 

886

the recipient fraud side. That was really important because if you 

will remember, the provision said they had to be doing a good job 

on recipient fraud, and that is not something that is real common 

across the country. This really helped us to put that in to get the 

SLEBs working with us on the recipient and the retailer side, and 

also provides for giving them a reporting mechanism so that we 

could see how we are doing. 

So that is how we have implemented it. We have SLEBs in New 

York and California, and Texas, a few other large places where 

that urban environment that you were looking for us to include, we 

have that in there as well. So that is how we are implementing it. 

On the funding for states on recipient fraud, we have put out about $10 million in grants to states, competitive grants to states, 

to improve their recipient integrity. 

Mr. LUCAS. Is it fair to say that you see value in the authority 

that has been given to states to investigate retail fraud, and would 

it be a good idea to increase even more their authority to pursue 

that avenue? 

Ms. SHAHIN. The jury is probably still out a little bit. We need 

a little bit more time working with states. I think that the key here 

is really, Mr. Lucas, it is two sides of a coin, and if we are doing 

all this work on the retailer side and we aren’t taking care of the 

recipient side, we are not going to stop the fraud and trafficking. 

You have to hit both sides of this coin. And so we would really like 

to see states putting their efforts—I know it is hard. I know it is 

hard on the recipient trafficking side, but we are working with 

some to get some tools out there for them. The GAO audit gave us 

a lot of opportunity. We are improving our reporting mechanism 

that way too. I would like to see us make a little bit more headway 

first in that area. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you. Auditor Yost, let’s talk for just a moment. 

Your comments about Ohioans using their benefits in Texas and 

Florida, and places like that, those are the kind of stories that stir 

up the public back home and make it more difficult to provide the 

assistance to our fellow citizens. Expand, if you would, about the 

nature of that. And I assume you would agree that is an alarming 

thing from your earlier comments. 

Mr. YOST. There may be individual hard luck fact patterns that 

would justify it. 

Mr. LUCAS. We all go to funerals. Yes. 

Mr. YOST. But, the numbers we are seeing raise questions about 

the integrity of the administration of the program. Obviously, if 

you are living in Florida, you shouldn’t be getting your EBT card 

out of Ohio. We saw almost $600,000 of Ohio benefits being spent 

in tiny Marshall, Minnesota. Fewer than 14,000 people. That number, as a former prosecutor, just makes me go, ‘‘Huh.’’

Mr. LUCAS. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Scott, 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It might be good for us to understand the purpose of these hearings, and the purpose of these hearings is to see if cutting the food 

stamp program is the answer to the issues of fraud and the error 

rates. 

887

Now, my concern is this, that when we come to whatever conclusions we come to, that we cannot determine how we fix this problem with just an attitude of we have to cut the food stamp program. Everything that I have heard has indicated that, whether it 

be the error rates, the overpayment rates, those are internal, structural, administrative issues. When it comes to the other area of 

fraud, that is on the outside. That is an enforcement issue. 

And so if we back away from this and look at it for what it is, 

the answer to fraud, the answer to the error rates are all management of our resources, to be able to correct those, not on wholesale 

attitude because somebody talks about 1,000 people from the dead. 

Well, that is neither the dead folks’ fault or whoever is benefitting. 

If you know that that is the case, then you structurally change 

that. 

Because here is my concern, if we just make our manifestation 

as the answer to this problem is totally on cutting the food stamp 

program, we miss the whole issue. Ninety percent of all the households that get food stamps have children, have seniors, have disabled, and a growing number of veterans. When you start dealing 

with finding solutions to these problems, the panacea for that is 

not cutting the program, it is putting the resources where they are 

needed to correct it, to enforce against these abuses. 

And so I wanted to ask you all on the panel, don’t you agree that 

what I am saying is the best approach for this, going forward, and 

that is particularly because if 90 percent of these folks have people 

in that household who have no other means. We have 1.7 million 

veterans receiving food stamp benefits. Somebody somewhere ought 

to say why is that. Isn’t this a structural problem? And that is 

growing. 

I just want to really use my little time here to stress how we 

really go at this, because there are some issues here in fraud, but 

cutting the food stamp program is not the answer to that. It is putting the resources in place to enforce that situation and get these 

people who are doing that. If we have the error rate and the overpayment, that is within the USDA. Perhaps they don’t have the resources, the manpower to effectively correct the situation. 

Where am I going wrong on this, any one of you, and where am 

I going right? 

Ms. SHAHIN. If it is okay with you, Mr. Scott, I will start. 

I think that the key point that you are making there that identifying the problem is step one. Step two is fixing it. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. 

Ms. SHAHIN. And that is the key, and that is what we need to 

look towards in any of these. A payment error rate, it may be low 

but that doesn’t mean it is low enough. We should always be looking to do better. We should always be looking to improve. I honestly believe that the states believe this and want this as much as 

I do. I believe that they care in this program. Partnering with our 

states to make sure that when we identify problems, we get those 

fixed. That is critical. That is on the improper payment side of it. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Well, let me ask you this. I only 

have 15 seconds, because the 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes, sir. Okay, sorry. 

888

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia.—the purpose of this hearing is reauthorization of the food stamp is coming up, and one of the reasons we are having all these hearings on food stamps is to determine whether or not cuts in the program or across the board, without understanding the intricacies of what you all have explained, 

is the reason. Do you think cutting the program just arbitrarily will 

fix any of these things, or a better allocation of resources? 

Ms. SHAHIN. I think that SNAP is a program that works and 

works well. I think that the various hearings you have had, you 

have heard a lot of support for a program that does work, that 

meets its goals. That doesn’t mean it can’t be better. That doesn’t 

mean there aren’t things we can do to make it better. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Right. 

Ms. SHAHIN. We should always be striving for that. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Gibbs, 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Yost, thank you for doing this work on the audit. We have 

seen in Ohio news reports about the excessive card balances. 

Seems like over a certain period of time the balances might make 

sense, it is commonsense things. Unusual card activity. You talk 

about 1 hour transactions, people spending $1,000 in less than an 

hour, or the unusual card activity where you have even balances 

and the same balances after every month, on the same time, same 

date of following months. In your audit, were you able to determine 

if there were any triggers, does USDA have any triggers or mechanisms that red flag these so that there is oversight to bring this 

back, or did your audit look at that or not? 

Mr. YOST. Thank you, Representative Gibbs. The key, I believe, 

is on the retail side. I have run a lot of investigations in my time 

as a county prosecutor, and I have done both recipient fraud cases, 

which are very, very difficult to prove, and we never really get repayment because these folks are typically in need to begin with. 

Fraud doesn’t work unless it is monetized, and that requires the 

retailer. The bang for your buck is to organize this around data 

mining to find exactly the kinds of indicia that you just cited in 

your question, and to use those indicators to open high quality, targeted investigations on the folks that are providing the dollars for 

this type——

Mr. GIBBS. Let me go to USDA, Ms. Shahin. Does USDA have 

any protocols in place that red-flags when they see unusual activity, or that a reasonable person could say, ‘‘Hey, this doesn’t make 

sense?’’

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS. What is the process? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes, sir. I am so excited you asked this question because we definitely do. We actually have what we call our alert system, and it is looking at eight million transactions around the 

country every day, and it is making connections and looking and 

doing these data analytic things. And so we have a watch list, we 

have the ALERT system that gives us information, and then we 

have people who then look at that information. We can actually 

make cases for trafficking just by the data alone. If we can’t do it 

889

that way, we will send investigators out as well and go undercover. 

But we can even do it from the data. 

Mr. GIBBS. Do your investigators go out to the retail stores where 

you see this happening and audit their records and investigate 

them when it is flagged? 

Ms. SHAHIN. They go undercover is what they do. It is not really 

an audit of their paperwork, it is an undercover to try and see if 

they can get them—well, that sounds bad—but they go in to see, 

are you going to let me sell you my benefits, or let me buy something that I shouldn’t be able to buy, because I can only buy food 

with this card, but if you let me buy something else we have a 

problem. So they do those kind of things. But the thing that I 

wanted to mention that is very exciting and helpful, maybe for Mr. 

Yost, is that we give states our list of disqualified retailers so that 

they can go in and look at those stores and see who of their recipients shopped there, and then look at those and see, ‘‘Okay, do I see 

any transactions here that look weird.’’ The kind of information 

that Mr. Yost has in his report is exactly the kind of stuff we are 

looking for states to do, to use their EBT vender to get reports and 

get the kind of activity and bring these things together. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay, my time is going to run out. I want to——

Ms. SHAHIN. I am sorry, I am excited. 

Mr. GIBBS. That I all right. Is there cross-referencing between 

states of participants to make sure that we don’t have people in 

Ohio that are also receiving benefits in Illinois, are we doing crossreferencing checks with the technology? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Right. Now then, I don’t know if you want me to 

talk about out-of-state transactions, or if you want me to talk about 

duplicate participation. 

Mr. GIBBS. I want to make sure that——

Ms. SHAHIN. But the duplicate——

Mr. GIBBS.—if one is not signed up for food stamps help in 

Ohio——

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes. 

Mr. GIBBS.—but then somehow I have an Illinois address of a 

relative in Chicago, I can sign up so I can draw down, illegally, of 

course. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Commit fraud is what you are you talking about. 

Absolutely. What we ask on the high balances or the out-of-state 

transactions, or any of that, we ask states to take a look at those 

on a regular basis. Ohio actually has a pretty good system in place. 

Mr. GIBBS. But is there cross-referencing between states? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes. Now, the cross-reference between states, we actually just finished a pilot of five southeastern states, it is called 

the National Accuracy Clearinghouse. And that actually looked at 

doing checks for duplicate participation among the states. And we 

have had very promising results from that. In fact, we sent a report to Congress in May, and we are looking at what our next steps 

are going to be on that because it is real-time data. Mr. Yost mentioned Public Assistance Reporting Information System, PARIS. 

That is not real-time data, so this is a real-time data kind of thing, 

and depending on if the states are using it and putting the information in, it can be very, very effective. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. 

890

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Walz, 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all the 

witnesses for being here. In the spirit of trying to find a balance 

between compassion, smart economic policy, and being good stewards of taxpayer dollars, that is our responsibility, because Mr. 

Yost, you are correct that if a dollar is lost to either fraud or error, 

that is a dollar not going to its intended purpose, and it is critical 

to try and balance some of these things. 

Ms. Shahin, if I could ask, it is my understanding after the OIG 

report you are taking 50 states and all the territories, you are 

doing a quality control measurement process by the end of the 

year, is that correct? 

Ms. SHAHIN. That is correct. That is correct. 

Mr. WALZ. Has that been done before? 

Ms. SHAHIN. It hasn’t. No, this is the first time that we have dug 

quite as deep as we are with the——

Mr. WALZ. What are you going to be looking at? Just if you can 

give me the 50,000′ view on that. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Sure. Sure. We are looking doing a QC review, can 

I give a little bit of history first? 

Mr. WALZ. Sure. 

Ms. SHAHIN. We don’t have much time. Anyway, states do a sample of their cases. They pull that sample and then the QC reviewer 

is going to look at that case in that sample month and see if the 

benefit that they are receiving in that month is correct. They are 

going to have to look at the original month as well, so there is a 

lot of work that has to go into that. We do a Federal re-review as 

well. 

We started seeing some things that were happening that gave us 

pause. Then OIG did their audit and that gave us more pause. We 

started going in to look at states to see if they were complying with 

some of our rules, and the concern was the introduction of any kind 

of bias. Now, bias doesn’t have to be intentional. It could be totally 

unintentional. That is not the point. It is a bias that is introduced 

that we are going to have to adjust for. These reviews, we are going 

in to dig really deep and make sure that there is all the documentation in the file that should be, and if there is not, ask the 

state to do a corrective action that makes sure that we are getting 

all of the documentation, that the use of things like error review 

committees, that they are done properly as after-the-fact, as a 

learning mechanism, not a before-the-fact, as a mitigation of the errors. All kinds of things. 

Mr. WALZ. And it is your belief that this QC review and these 

type of procedures will help the states and help you reduce those 

error rates and those fraud rates even further? 

Ms. SHAHIN. I absolutely do believe that what we are doing right 

now will get us to the right place in determining what our improper payment rate is. 

Mr. WALZ. Does this have a——

Ms. SHAHIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. WALZ. Does reducing this fraud have the same quality as 

many things? If you are attacking a problem, the first part of it, 

even the first 90 percent, seems to be easier, and then you get to 

891

the last bit it gets harder and harder as you get smaller. And we 

should strive for zero. I think that is the goal we should all have. 

My question is, are the fraud or the errors that are taking place, 

now that it is a relatively small number, we are talking 97 percent 

correct, three percent roughly in there, does it get much harder to 

get after that three percent, or is it the same type of activity that 

was done before that we are just better at catching it? 

Ms. SHAHIN. I think that, first off, I would really want to emphasize that we are talking improper payments. So this really isn’t 

fraud. There may be a small——

Mr. WALZ. That is right. 

Ms. SHAHIN.—but this is really that they are giving people the 

right amount. I do think that the lower it gets, the harder it is to 

hone in on what we can do to make it better. That doesn’t mean 

that we don’t do that. I would say that also states have done an 

extraordinary job over the last 10 or 20 years, actually, in doing 

a lot of things to bring that error rate down. Things like technology, using technology, doing business process improvements, the 

simplified policies that Congress has made available to them has 

been very important because that also——

Mr. WALZ. That brings me to this point. Mr. Yost brought up 

something, and I do think people are kind of baffled by this and 

I do think it makes them a little skeptical. The payments after 

death, or whatever, is it a requirement to run those data matches 

like they did? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Thank you. Actually, yes, they have to run them a 

minimum of once per year. 

Mr. WALZ. Could Ohio run them more if they wanted to? 

Ms. SHAHIN. They certainly could. Absolutely. You can run it as 

often as you want. 

Mr. WALZ. Mr. Yost, what would preclude you from running that, 

say, quarterly? You would catch it sooner then. 

Mr. YOST. Actually, in the State of Ohio it does get run more frequently. Those are referred to the counties and they simply don’t 

have the resources to follow up with them. 

Mr. WALZ. Yes. And my last question, just because you brought 

up a good point, and I heard you say a community in Minnesota, 

and your numbers were pretty staggering that that would hit that. 

That seems to me to be one of those situations. Has somebody gone 

out there and see who is physically there and what is actually happening in that, because it must be one retailer at one place? I don’t 

want to jump to conclusions, and I am glad my colleague said that. 

People travel out-of-state for family emergencies, they travel, just 

because you are hungry doesn’t mean you don’t go to a funeral, or 

you don’t go somewhere to see a relative. But when a number like 

that comes up, that suspends all belief. Do you get to go out there? 

If I could just ask on that. Did somebody——

Mr. YOST. We did not. 

Mr. WALZ. Okay. 

Mr. YOST. We did not. 

Mr. WALZ. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Davis, 5 minutes. 

892

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the witnesses. 

Ms. Brown, if I could start with you. Is USDA doing enough to 

address actually even more recipient fraud? I know this has been 

brought up. Can you give us your take on some of the solutions 

that you think USDA can implement, or solutions you think we 

might be able to implement? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, it is interesting, I was trying to think back, 

when I started doing this work in 2006, the main focus was on retailer fraud, and we started to pester USDA to do a little bit more 

on recipient fraud. And starting in about 2011 they really did begin 

to step up and take some action, because what we saw was you can 

address it at the retailer level, but we really felt like there needed 

to be a focus on the recipient level as well. 

We have seen them make some very good progress in this area, 

and our recommendations to them have been on ways that they can 

continue to improve their focus on recipient fraud, and a lot of that 

is the kinds of things that they did in Ohio where they are looking 

at data analytics, and trying to link different clues together to help 

them identify fraud. 

Mr. DAVIS. And which states, top three, do you think are doing 

the best job of identifying fraud? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, we only looked at 11 when we looked at that, 

and each of them had strengths and weaknesses. I know that some 

states focus more of their resources on having more investigators 

to look at whether the information that applicants provide is accurate, but I am not sure that we have an answer on how effective 

that has been. 

Mr. DAVIS. Okay. Mr. Yost, what changes do you recommend to 

Federal law to allow state auditors to conduct more thorough and 

meaningful reviews of SNAP spending? 

Mr. YOST. There are three broad categories. The first is a series 

of just technical changes that are listed in our report. There are 

some useful improvements that could be made at the Federal structure as it exists. The second is to allow purchase-level data to the 

states. For example, the $1,500 in 1 hour purchase, over six transactions, we have no idea what they bought. There are some reasons 

why knowing what is purchased and where can help us to lead to 

those that are monetizing benefits. 

Mr. DAVIS. Not to limit what they can purchase, just knowing 

what they did purchase. Right? 

Mr. YOST. Yes, exactly. What they did purchase. 

Mr. DAVIS. I mean it seems like it would be obvious, since we all 

have those rewards cards and we go to the grocery store, and they 

seem to print out the coupons of everything that I buy. 

Mr. YOST. Yes. 

Mr. DAVIS. The technology is already there. 

Mr. YOST. The database is there, the information exists. I do not 

have access to it. Neither do my colleagues. 

And finally, because of the difficulty in structuring these rules, 

block granting this to the state makes a great deal of sense because 

we will have a variety of innovations. When the Federal Government makes a mistake on making a very hard decision, and these 

are hard decisions, these are hard-luck stories, the iron law of unVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
893

intended consequences means that everybody in the country suffers. If we allow the states to do it, when a state gets it wrong, only 

the people in that state are affected, and the innovations, the success stories are there with empirical proof for everybody else to 

pick up on. 

Mr. DAVIS. I agree. Anything that you would also recommend we 

do at our level? 

Mr. YOST. Thank you. I hope that you will find our report useful. 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, thank you. I am sure we will. And I will yield 

back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Fudge, 5 minutes. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you all for being here today. 

And forgive me if I sound somewhat concerned, I am, since this 

is our 16th SNAP hearing. I wonder if we do anything other than 

deal with SNAP in this Committee. 

Mr. Yost, I am obviously from Ohio. Thank you especially for 

being here today. But let me just ask you. You mentioned in your 

testimony, as well as in your written testimony, you suggest there 

are hundreds of millions of dollars of possible fraud in our program 

in Ohio, but you really have no basis to say that. If you look at the 

fact that balances on a card are not fraudulent necessarily. If you 

look at the fact that, heaven forbid, somebody would travel to Florida, a poor person, certainly they should leave their neighborhoods. 

If you look at the fact that you have nothing to tie one thing to 

another, how do you make a suggestion that there is over $100 million in fraud in the State of Ohio? I am having problems figuring 

that one out. 

Mr. YOST. What I said was millions, which would mean more 

than $2 million. I would not suggest that——

Ms. FUDGE. Okay, that is fine. So tell me how do you draw that 

conclusion? 

Mr. YOST. And the basis for that is the multiplicity of structural 

weaknesses in the management of the program. We are spending 

$21⁄2 billion. Now, I want to reiterate that that doesn’t mean that 

there should be cuts to the program——

Ms. FUDGE. No, I didn’t ask that question. Let me just ask this 

question. 

Mr. YOST. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. FUDGE. How much actual fraud did you find? 

Mr. YOST. We were not looking for actual fraud, ma’am. The purpose of the audit was to test the structure. 

Ms. FUDGE. Why would you even make a statement about how 

much fraud you think there is if that wasn’t the purpose of the 

audit? 

Mr. YOST. Because I have been asked numerous times why do 

these structural matters, what do these structural weaknesses 

mean. I am trying to give it a sense of the order of magnitude. 

Ms. FUDGE. What did it cost us to do the audit? 

Mr. YOST. I don’t recall the precise number, ma’am. 

Ms. FUDGE. Well, from a report from the Columbus Dispatch, they indicate that there was actually about $31,000 in fraud found, 

and that the audit cost $48,000. I am just trying to get to the point 

894

to figure out what it is you are trying to tell us, because I can’t 

figure that out from what you wrote or what you said. At one point 

you are saying you weren’t trying to find fraud, but that is basically all you have been talking about is fraud. I am still having a 

problem making the connection. 

Let me just ask this question. Do you audit other Federal programs? 

Mr. YOST. Yes, ma’am, under the Federal Single Audit Act, we 

do the Federal single audit for all Federal programs. 

Ms. FUDGE. What have you found in other programs? 

Mr. YOST. That is a very broad question. Can you help me understand what you are looking for? 

Ms. FUDGE. This is a very broad statement. Have you found 

fraud in Medicare or Medicaid, and at what level? 

Mr. YOST. Sure. We find misspending in a variety of programs. 

We issued a report last year about some in the Department of Education. 

Ms. FUDGE. Are you concerned about those as much as you are 

concerned about this? 

Mr. YOST. I am concerned about all of the misspending I find, 

ma’am. 

Ms. FUDGE. What about crop insurance, what has your audit 

found about that? 

Mr. YOST. I don’t know that we have ever looked at crop insurance, and I don’t know what the risks associated on it are. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 916.] 

Ms. FUDGE. Ohio is an agricultural state. It is a Federal program. 

Mr. YOST. I am sure that it is. I don’t know if we have looked 

at it. 

Ms. FUDGE. I am truly not trying to give you a hard time, I am 

just trying to determine how you come to a conclusion that there 

is significant fraud in the State of Ohio without any basis upon 

which to make that conclusion. 

Mr. YOST. I disagree that there is no basis, ma’am. Our examination——

Ms. FUDGE. Well, that was the first question I asked you, what 

are you basing it on? 

Mr. YOST. And then you cut me off. I told you that the systems 

that we found, the weaknesses suggest that, the fact of the matter 

is nobody is looking at this stuff. When matches come back to the 

counties, they are under-resourced and unable to pursue it. The 

data mining happened before. 

Ms. FUDGE. But again, you have no proof. 

Mr. YOST. We actually put it together. And when you look at the 

money that is being spent on even-dollar transactions, $1,500 of 

groceries in 1 hour, ma’am. Really? 

Ms. FUDGE. And what percentage of the——

Mr. YOST. If that doesn’t sound like fraud——

Ms. FUDGE.—total is that? What percentage of the total is $1,500? 

Mr. YOST. It is an example that is illustrated——

Ms. FUDGE. What what percentage is $1,500 of the total money 

spent on food stamps in the State of Ohio? 

895

Mr. YOST. Once again, ma’am, that was not the focus of our program. 

Ms. FUDGE. I am just asking a question. You raised the $1,500, 

I didn’t. 

Mr. YOST. As an example to explain what my basis is. If you look 

at the even-dollar transactions slide from our program——

Ms. FUDGE. Mr. Yost, I am asking the questions. 

Mr. YOST. Well, I am trying to answer it, ma’am. 

Ms. FUDGE. No, I just asked you what percentage, if you don’t 

know, just say that and that is fine. 

Mr. YOST. Yes, it is infinitesimal. 

Ms. FUDGE. Okay. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. Abraham, 5 minutes. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the witnesses for being here. 

Ms. Shahin, I will start with you first. Ninety-seven percent success rate, three percent error rate, which sounds good but in reality 

when we are dealing with the kind of money you guys are, that is 

$2.6 billion, if my math is right, you could give $1,000 to everybody 

over 18 in this United States. So it is a big deal. And to the previous $1,500 is important to me, and I am sure it is to most people, 

but it is a big deal. 

My point is, if a surgeon in a hospital has a three percent error 

rate, if a bank under Dodd-Frank has a three percent error rate, 

they are penalized severely. I understand that 97 sounds good, but 

in the overall scheme when we are talking billions of dollars, three 

percent matters. It really does. 

Again, if Mr. Yost in Ohio, the USDA, they are not on time, is 

that what you said, Ms. Brown, about not releasing a 2015 error 

report? 

Ms. BROWN. Correct. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. All right. I guess the question is, if Mr. Yost can 

do this in Ohio, we have great data, why can’t other states do it 

and give this data to you guys to give us a 2015 error rate? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Sure. Thank you for the question. It might be a little bit longer answer than you were hoping for, but——

Mr. ABRAHAM. Well, just give me the short one. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Keep it short, okay. What Mr. Yost looked at is the 

back-end, and what the improper payments and the error rate are 

about is the front end. It is the certification process. So when 

we——

Mr. ABRAHAM. We don’t have the computer technology to do that 

now, is that what you are telling me? 

Ms. SHAHIN. No, it is not that there isn’t technology that supports that, there absolutely is, but what I am saying is that once 

we realized that we might have a problem with bias because of certain rules not being followed, it is really not a matter of just looking at a computer, it is a matter of needing to go into the states 

and actually looking at those case files and seeing what happened. 

It is very investigative, very research-focused. And we will have all 

50 states and the three territories done and an error rate announced by December. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. When was it supposed to be due? 

896

Ms. SHAHIN. June 30 is when we would normally do it. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. It is about 6 months behind. 

Ms. SHAHIN. It is. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Right. And I don’t mean to cut you off. 

Ms. SHAHIN. And I appreciate——

Mr. ABRAHAM. Okay, let me go to another question. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Did you say that there is now a higher percentage 

of working people receiving SNAP? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes, sir. Absolutely. About 42 percent of our participants live in households with earnings. They are working but they 

are not working enough. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Right, and again, that just goes back to my statement——

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Scott said, unfortunately, we have 1.7 million 

veterans that are now receiving SNAP. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Absolutely. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. It is a structural problem, but not with the USDA, 

it is a structural problem with our economy, just not providing jobs 

for these poor folks that are trying to make ends meet. We will do 

that. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Well, we are working on that too, Mr. Abraham, and 

we would love to come and talk to you about it. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Well, we would love to get people the jobs they 

want, and the jobs that provide a living wage instead of a minimum wage. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Exactly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions. I yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. McGovern, 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all 

for being here. 

I agree with Mr. Abraham in the sense that we need to do everything we can to get our economy moving so we can get people the 

jobs that pay a livable wage. But what we shouldn’t do in this 

Committee is make it more difficult for them, and especially our 

veterans, during a time when the economy is still in recovery. We 

have a lot of people up here talking about removing the waiver for 

our able-bodied adults without dependents. That would take away 

that waiver from Governors, to be able to help some of these people 

who can’t find a job or who can’t get in a job training program, and 

a lot of veterans will lose their food benefit as a result of it. And 

if anybody can give me a reason or rationale how making somebody 

hungry will help them get a job more quickly, I am all ears. 

Mr. Yost, I have been trying to figure out what this hearing is 

all about, but then you mentioned a phrase that sent alarm bells 

off in my mind, basically saying that we should block grant the 

SNAP Program. And I worry about that because this is a good program. There are 48 million people in this country who struggle 

with food insecurity and hunger, and I want to make sure that 

those people get the benefits that they are entitled to. And we have 

a system right now where FNS and OIG and GAO and Congress 

897

can do oversight to make sure that states are, in fact, taking this 

benefit for food and getting it to the people in need. You turn it 

over to states and I don’t know what the oversight is going to be, 

or what the guarantee is that people will actually spend that 

money to help struggling families, and to help people who are hungry. This notion of block granting this program is a really bad idea. 

We have a lot of people that are hungry, quite frankly, who are eligible for this benefit and who don’t get the benefit. 

And I just have a couple of questions. Ms. Shahin, do you have 

all the tools and resources you need to identify suspicious behavior 

and remove bad actors from the program? I mean are there additional things that we can do here to help you get at these bad actors? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Well, does a Federal agency ever say no to additional resources? 

The CHAIRMAN. I need your microphone on, ma’am. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Sorry. I don’t think I am supposed to talk that way. 

Let me just talk a little bit about the fact that a lot of what we 

have done, a lot of support that we have gotten from Congress already really has helped us to improve our automated systems, like 

that ALERT system that I was talking about. You have given us 

resources, we have centralized our retailer management system, 

and so we now are in one place that lets us target our resources, 

and you have supported that through funding as well. We appreciate that. You have given us dollars for states and things like that. 

I think that we need to continue our efforts. 

We have seen some really good results, we have seen improvement, and we need to keep on that path. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. So, Ms. Shahin, Mr. Yost raised the issue 

that households sometimes shop at stores outside of Ohio. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. That is allowed, right? Is that allowed? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Actually, nationwide, and Ohio is right in with the 

nationwide average, out-of-state transactions are about three percent of the SNAP purchases. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right, but it is allowed, right? It seems to me 

that it would be important, since people sometimes, as Mr. Walz 

said, sometimes travel out-of-state. I think he mentioned Marshall, 

Minnesota. I just got to do a quick Google search, and Marshall, 

Minnesota, is the home of Tyson’s meat packing and meat processing. I mean lots of hourly jobs there. I am not saying this is the 

answer to everything, but it is also possible that people, in order 

to comply with all the rules and regulations that we have put forward, travel outside of state, work at temporary jobs, work at jobs 

that are only a few weeks in length, and use their benefit there. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. SHAHIN. That is very correct. There are all sorts of reasons 

why benefits would be used in a different state. Border states, it 

is very common. Working or just shopping at the best-price supermarket or the closest supermarket could be in the state because 

you live close by, in that sense. But also, it is important to remember that when we had coupons, they could be used across states, 

and with EBT they have to be interoperable. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. 

898

Ms. SHAHIN. The key is you have the audit trail and if you find 

things that are suspicious you can look at them. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. It is important that people be able to 

have some flexibility with their EBT card. I just point out that, 

going back to what Ms. Fudge said, that is why the follow-up is important. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Yes, there may be examples where there are examples of fraud, but there also may be examples where people are 

using these benefits outside of the state because they are working 

outside of the state. And that is an important thing to remember. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Sure. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. I thank you all for being here. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Newhouse, 5 minutes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

want to thank all of you for being here and contributing to this discussion, Mr. Yost, Ms. Brown, and Ms. Shahin. I especially want 

to thank you for your enthusiasm that you exude on this topic. I 

can tell that this means a lot to you, and I appreciate your hard 

work on this. 

I would agree with Mr. McGovern, looking for ways that we as 

Congress can help in this whole issue, because the biggest travesty 

would be that people who are actually in need of food are literally 

having food taken out of their mouths because someone else is 

gaming the system. And so that is something that we should definitely be concerned with. 

In my home state, I am from the State of Washington, I can 

proudly say that we have a model SNAP Workforce and Training 

Program that really does exceptional work in helping beneficiaries 

find employment. And given how SNAP allows states this kind of 

flexibility to implement certain aspects of their programs, are there 

any states that have a noticeably lower error or fraud rate? If so, 

do we have a sense of how we can achieve that in looking to other 

states for models? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Sure. Absolutely. Actually, one of the things that we 

do, we have funding that we call state exchange funding, and we 

use those funds for taking states to places where really good administration is happening. Error rates are low or an employment 

and training program is really good, any kind of thing like that we 

really want states to share with each other, and we have funds 

that allows for that kind of thing. So that is one important part of 

it. 

The states get together, actually, on a regular basis. They have 

a trade association that brings them together once a year where 

they share with each other. It is called NAPIPM, and please don’t 

ask me what that stands for. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Say it again. 

Ms. SHAHIN. NAPIPM. That is the group, and it is all about payment accuracy though. They get together and they share a lot of 

best practices. We also have keys to a low error rate and provide 

best practices on what we call our Partner Web, where states have 

access to share and consider those kinds of things. 

899

A lot of different things can go into a lower error rate. We like 

to share those things that are successful. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Yes, thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Could you also help me understand what happens when a SNAP 

payment error or fraud is discovered, either by the state or by 

FNS? Are funds somehow recouped or are underpayments made, or 

exactly how does corrective action happen? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Thank you. Yes, that is an important thing. Every 

error, even the ones that are under the threshold, must be reconciled. If an overpayment occurred, then the state must go to the 

client and recoup those funds. It doesn’t matter if it was the state’s 

fault or the state’s mistake that caused the error, it still has to be 

recouped. If they get too little, they have to also make that adjustment and give a supplemental payment to the household to make 

it right. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. The state does. 

Ms. SHAHIN. The state has to do that. It is Federal funds still. 

It is still our Federal dollars that go to the benefits. Yes. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. And one last question, Ms. Brown, states have 

the authority to waive asset tests for beneficiaries in their states. 

Help me understand this, when that data is not collected, it can 

remove a tool to identify instances when errors can and do occur. 

Do we typically see a reduction in recorded error rates when asset 

tests are performed versus when they are not? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, asset tests can be a source of error. Anything 

that requires a caseworker to go through and check on things and 

manipulate the numbers can be a source of error. But when asset 

tests are removed, then that takes away that extra responsibility 

and the extra checking, and can actually lower the error rate. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. It can lower the error rate of the benefits payments? 

Ms. BROWN. It can lower the state’s error rate if they have large 

numbers of program recipients where the caseworkers are not 

checking their assets. When they check an asset, they go to a bank, 

they ask for the amount of savings that people have, and it is a 

number of extra steps. And so if they don’t check that at all, which 

is what happens in many states in BBCE, then that is just one 

whole lump of potential errors that is off the table, which is why 

the error rate in a state can go down. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Well, I can see my time has expired, but I would 

like to further understand that and so maybe we can, after the 

hearing talk about that. 

Ms. BROWN. Sure. Broad-based categorical eligibility is one of the 

most complicated issues that we are trying to figure out. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Right. Okay. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. NEWHOUSE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Adams, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all the 

witnesses for your testimony. 

SNAP is a very important program for the 12th District in North 

Carolina that I represent. Mecklenburg County, for example, has 

154,000 individuals participating in the program, more than any 

other county in our state. SNAP benefits are already inadequate to 

900

help a needy family put food on the table through the end of the 

month. Complex application requirements may reduce the number 

of individuals that receive SNAP benefits, but they also increase 

the rate of administrative errors at the state and county levels. 

Streamlining application and recertification requirements will reduce errors within the SNAP program, and more importantly, it 

will help more people in need be able to purchase food through the 

program. 

Ms. Brown, I recently introduced the Closing the Meal Gap Act 

of 2016 to strengthen the SNAP program, and to authorize benefits 

at a level that will actually help people put food on the table 

through the end of the month. And one of the provisions in the bill 

is to permanently authorize a standard medical expense deduction 

for seniors and disabled individuals that apply for SNAP benefits. 

A standard medical deduction, for example, would allow seniors to 

submit only $35 in out-of-pocket medical expenses in order to claim 

this deduction when applying for SNAP benefits. It is estimated 

that if a standard medical deduction was permanently authorized 

for all states, that seniors claiming the deduction would see an increase of $7 to $69 in monthly SNAP benefits. 

How would establishing a standard medical deduction in every 

state reduce errors in processing SNAP benefits for seniors? 

Ms. BROWN. We took a look at that particular waiver and we determined that that is the kind of thing that would both make it 

easier for the participant, and have them not have to collect quite 

so much information when they were applying, and also make it 

easier for the caseworker, because they would have less calculations that they would have to do. Those two things combined would 

likely decrease the errors associated with that kind of application. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. As a follow-up, state options are something that we have spent a lot of time discussing in this Committee. In your work with states, do you feel they would largely 

agree that options like simplified reporting, for example, should be 

mandatory? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, simplified reporting is one of the biggest factors that states cite as a likely way to reduce error rates. I can’t 

speak to whether states would want things to be mandatory or not, 

that probably varies from state to state, but it is one of the options 

that can reduce error rates. When you think about the fact that 

this program has gone from 26 million people in 2007, to 48 million 

in 2013, I am sure that caseworkers would say anything that could 

be done to decrease their workload and make it a little bit easier 

would be appreciated. 

Ms. ADAMS. Yes. Thank you. For our state, and my district in 

particular, where we have high unemployment rates, and, as has 

been mentioned here, people don’t make enough money. I mean 

they are working two and three jobs, minimum wage and even less, 

and that also adds to the problem. 

Finally, Ms. Shahin, let me ask you, if you would clarify the Federal rules for dealing with SNAP accounts that go unspent. 

Ms. SHAHIN. So——

The CHAIRMAN. Microphone. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Sorry. I believe it was the 2008 Farm Bill, if I remember correctly, set the rules around—it is called expungement. 

901

If a household’s account is not touched for 12 months, it is totally 

inactive, then those benefits are expunged. Now, there is an option 

that states have, we don’t have many states that take it but it is 

available to them, they can, at 6 months, take the account offline. 

The account continues to accrue its benefits, but it is not available 

because it has been taken offline. And so if the household is looking 

to have those funds, they try to use the card and they can’t, they 

will call the worker and those funds can be put back into active 

status. 

Ms. ADAMS. All right, thank you, Ms. Shahin. I really wonder 

why eligible people might not spend the money when they need the 

food. 

But I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Benishek, 5 minutes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Yost, I have some questions for you about this data that you 

have presented. And it seems to me that there is suspicion for 

fraud over a lot of the things like the even-dollar, who investigates 

that? How is that done? Is that the Feds’ problem or the state? 

This kind of issue that you brought up here, they seem all suspicious to me. I mean, the same transaction. What happens to this 

data that you audited, and did somebody act on this? 

Mr. YOST. And my colleagues here may wish to add to this answer. The traditional division of labor is that the Federal Government goes after the retailers, and the state government is assigned 

to go after the recipient level. With all respect, and as a former 

prosecutor, going after recipients is a lot like trying to solve drug 

trafficking by locking up the guy that uses heroin, and has one hit 

and putting him in prison. We have seen across the country that 

just isn’t a very effective way to approach it. 

That being said, at the state level when something gets referred 

back it always ends up down at the county level. Some counties 

have some resources to deal with that. Most of them don’t. 

Mr. BENISHEK. So it is like it is up to the state prosecutor. So 

then like when the——

Mr. YOST. At the recipient level. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Who finds this data? You found this data and 

then what do you do with it? You have to refer it to the state prosecutor then to investigate it, and then he refers it to the county 

prosecutor? 

Mr. YOST. In Ohio, the county prosecutor is the only state prosecutor. But this transaction that is up here, that report had never 

been run before we did it. No one had gone back to look at it. I 

don’t know who the recipients are here, and I can’t tell a county 

prosecutor who the recipients are. I think that there are some 

synergies that we could explore. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, who would have to tell? Okay, all right——

Ms. SHAHIN. May I——

Mr. BENISHEK.—Ms. Shahin, you are excited here——

Ms. SHAHIN. Thank you. 

Mr. BENISHEK.—go ahead. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Thank you. I am because, actually, remember I 

talked about that ALERT system that looks at the data? We don’t 

902

talk about what we look at because then the retailer will know 

what we are looking at and they will change it, so we kind of try 

and keep it a little bit of a secret. But all of the things that Mr. 

Yost is talking about are all things that are available through a 

state’s EBT vendor or through our system. So there is an opportunity for synergy here. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Then what do you do about it? 

That is what I want to know, what do you do about it? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Sure. What we do when we find suspect retailers, 

we had 1,900 retailers last year that we disqualified for trafficking. 

Out of business. They will never be a SNAP retailer again. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Yes, was an individual prosecuted in that? Because you can always like change from ABC News Mart to——

Ms. SHAHIN. No, sir, we—these——

Mr. BENISHEK.—CBS New Mart. You know what I mean? I mean 

that seems to be a simple thing to do. 

Ms. SHAHIN. That is a very good question. A very good question. 

First off, we can do most of ours through an administrative process. 

So that works out fairly quickly. We can get them disqualified administratively. They have an appeal process, but we can do that. 

And so we share that data then with the state, for them to look 

at the people who shop there. Now, to the point of you are going 

to move down the way, that is one of the things that we have improved, when I was talking about some of the improvements we 

have been making. We really need to make sure that the guy that 

was disqualified can’t come back some other kind of sneaky way. 

We have put some processes and procedures in place to make sure 

that that doesn’t happen, because that is really important, you are 

right. I move across the way and I just buy a different store. No. 

If you have been permanently disqualified——

Mr. BENISHEK. But nobody is actually prosecuted for this kind of 

thing, it doesn’t sound like. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Well, no, when OIG actually takes it on as a criminal case, that does go to court. That is the thing like what you were 

talking about Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, how many times a year does that happen? 

Ms. SHAHIN. I am sorry? 

Mr. BENISHEK. How many times a year does that happen where 

somebody actually goes to court? Yes. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay, now are we talking about the recipients? 

Mr. BENISHEK. No, I am talking about these retailers. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay. Okay. For the retailers. I don’t have that information because that is through OIG, but I can get it for you. 

Could we get back to you on that, on how many that do——

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, yes, I guess. 

[The information referred to is located on p. 916.] 

Ms. SHAHIN. Sure. 

Mr. BENISHEK. It doesn’t seem to me that it is that much of a 

penalty if you just get cut off. You just get a new corporate name 

and you start doing business again. 

Ms. SHAHIN. But you can’t do that. We are going to catch you. 

They have to give us all the information about who is in any way 

connected to this business. So even if they try to——

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, it is easy to get around that. 

903

Ms. SHAHIN. We do a lot of checks, and we require a lot of documentation. 

Mr. BENISHEK. All right, thank you. 

My time is up. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Can I just speak for 1 second? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SHAHIN. There was the question about states that do a really 

good job on the recipient fraud side——

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, ma’am. Very quickly. 

Ms. SHAHIN.—and I couldn’t answer. I do have an answer for 

that, and there is one, and, Mr. Chairman, it is your state. And if 

you haven’t noticed, it is my state too. 

The CHAIRMAN. I got you. 

Ms. SHAHIN. They do a good job on the front-end with data 

broker work, and they do a great job on the other end with an inhouse data analytics. They are one of our stars in that area. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate the advertisement. 

Mr. Ashford, 5 minutes. 

Ms. SHAHIN. We will send Ohio there. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Do you have any—I am sorry. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. This really is a key hearing. I am sorry I was late, I 

was at another hearing. I spent 16 years in Nebraska Legislature, 

and before that working with the county and state on many of 

these issues, so it is a massively difficult issue to put one’s arm 

around. 

I had a number of questions, most of them have been discussed. 

Let me just ask Mr. Yost. In Ohio, going after or pursuing fraud 

on the recipient level is very, very difficult, clearly. Hard to identify 

right away, and what do you do with it, tell me just a little bit 

more, maybe you have already answered this, but how does that 

sort of investigatory work interface with what Ms. Shahin has 

talked about, because I think that is what she is talking about? 

But, do you notify USDA, or the Inspector General, of a pattern of 

recipient fraud, or what do you do and how do you relate to that? 

Mr. YOST. Again, our office is not primarily the investigative 

agency here, so I——

Mr. ASHFORD. Okay. 

Is it the county or state? 

Mr. YOST. There is an Ohio investigative group that has jurisdiction over this that is housed under the Governor’s Administration. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Okay. What is the magnitude in Ohio of this fraud 

on the recipient level? When does it rise to the level of sort of actionable——

Mr. YOST. Well, again, there can be an individual case that 

comes into attention either by a flag or by an alert caseworker, and 

that is referred at the county level to what would be the DA in 

most states. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Okay. And so when the caseworker, and this gets 

a lot of—spent years working on—with this issue with the magnitude of the caseloads, and maybe I have a general question as to 

what everyone would suggest we do to try to alleviate some of that, 

because that is a massive problem in Nebraska, as it is everywhere, the caseloads are huge. It would take a caseworker to really 

take the initiative generally, correct? 

904

Mr. YOST. Yes, and you have to prove intent to do a criminal conviction——

Mr. ASHFORD. It can’t be just sort of a mistake kind of thing. 

Mr. YOST. Which is why it is so much easier to use data mining 

and attack this at the retailer level where the monetization is actually happening. 

Mr. ASHFORD. But the recipient level though is a pathway into 

discovering fraud on the—or the retailer level as well, I assume. I 

mean that is where some of this comes from, or no? Not really, 

or——

Mr. YOST. Well, it can be but, frankly, if we had in drug trafficking the kind of deep database that we have for the SNAP purchases, we would never do the monkey move-up, get the first level, 

get them to snitch on the next level and move up the food chain, 

we would go straight to the top of the food chain and use this data. 

That is the way it makes sense. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Okay. Ms. Brown, thank you, can you——

Ms. BROWN. Yes, I was just going to mention that when we did 

our work where we looked at 11 states and what they were doing 

about fraud, we did hear that the investigators had very heavy 

caseloads, and we also heard that in instances where they found 

intentional violations, it was very difficult to get prosecutors to pick 

up those cases because they are small. But the other option to remember though is that they can be referred to a hearing in the office itself, and at least be administratively disqualified from receiving further benefits. 

Mr. ASHFORD. And once it goes into that administrative process 

too, everybody is alerted, those who know about the case are alerted to how this happened and so forth and so on, that may or may 

not lead to other investigatory opportunities that would involve 

someone other than the recipient. It would involve the retailer, possibly. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes, right. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Yes. Ms. Shahin, do you have anything to add to 

that? It wasn’t really a question. 

Ms. SHAHIN. No, I think that what you are getting at though is 

something that I really appreciate, which is looking at how we can 

work together. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Sort of, yes. 

Ms. SHAHIN. It really is two sides of the coin. And I don’t disagree with Mr. Yost that the states’ job on the recipient is a tough 

one, but there are a lot of tools and a lot of things that we can 

work on, a lot of grants that we are doing, the data analytic model 

that we have developed, South Carolina has shown great new recent results. Last year they didn’t disqualify any recipients. In the 

first 9 months of this year, they disqualified 185. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Right. 

Ms. SHAHIN. It lets them target those minimal resources by using 

a model that really makes sense for them. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Thank you. I am over time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Allen, 5 

minutes. 

905

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you panel for 

giving us some real inside information on what is going on out 

there. Of course, we hear lots about this in our districts as well. 

I was wondering, I have a couple, he is a disabled veteran and 

she is a homemaker, and has to take care of him, and they were 

on the program, and pretty much he has a specific diet he has to 

eat, and she is very nutrition-conscious. And their problem is that 

there was an enormous amount of availability to them that they 

didn’t need, so they kind of wanted to give that to somebody else. 

How does that work, because when they talked to their, I guess 

whoever they reported to get this benefit, they basically said take 

it or leave it. In other words, you had to take this much and you 

could not say, ‘‘Okay, my neighbor needs more, and we have heard 

stories of folks who are going without,’’ do you administer requests 

like that? And if there is no way to do that, how could you implement something like that? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Wow, that is a pretty amazing story. And I guess 

I would just start with that the amount of benefit they receive is 

based on the rules and the regulations. You have this many people 

in your family, you have this much earned income, you have this 

much unearned income, you have these kinds of deductions and 

this is what you are eligible for. The state couldn’t really say you 

are eligible for this, but since you don’t want all of that we will 

give you less, because we would call that an error. They gave an 

under-amount. The challenge here is how do they take their compassion and their generosity and make that work for others, since 

they feel blessed themselves. I think that there are a variety of 

ways to do that. I would imagine through perhaps their church, 

their food bank, and other opportunities volunteering——

Mr. ALLEN. Well, and that is what they did, they got off the program and their church and I guess other organizations were able 

to fill that need. But you have heard about the cards and you can 

buy them for 50¢ on the dollar, I mean couldn’t there be some kind 

of a requirement where whoever that card is issued to has some 

kind of identification to prove that that is exactly who they are? 

Because we know in some of these drug busts I have heard of these 

folks having multiple numbers of these EBT cards. What can we 

do on that as far as restraining that problem? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay, I will take the second one first because we 

also hear the stories of drug busts, a whole pile of EBT cards. We 

would certainly hope that that state law enforcement, since we do 

have relationships with a lot of state law enforcement, but even if 

we don’t, that somehow they get that information to the state 

SNAP agency so they can do investigations on those cards and see 

what may have happened, how did that happen, is this an indication of something that we need to investigate, do we need to refer 

it to our fraud unit those kinds of things. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, I mean it is obvious that they are trading their 

EBT card for drugs. 

Ms. SHAHIN. It definitely raises the red flag, doesn’t it? 

Mr. ALLEN. Right. 

Ms. SHAHIN. It absolutely does. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. 

906

Mr. Yost, you have any comment as far as your auditing and 

what kind of issues we got there, and how we can fix that ID problem? 

Mr. YOST. One thing that would help some, wouldn’t cure it, put 

the picture of the recipient on the card. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. Yes, and is that too expensive to do, or is there 

a reason we are not doing that? 

Ms. SHAHIN. It does cost more to have the photo on the EBT card 

than not. 

Mr. ALLEN. Picture ID. But the ultimate saving——

Ms. SHAHIN. But it is a state option. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. Yes. 

Ms. SHAHIN. It is a state option. 

Mr. ALLEN. Is it? Okay. 

Ms. SHAHIN. If they want to do that, they can do that. That is 

a state option. One of those flexibilities. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Costa, 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to offer some 

observations, and I hope they are viewed in a constructive fashion. 

This is the 16th hearing that I believe we have held on the SNAP 

program. In California, we have, of course, the highest number of 

recipients, for a combination of reasons, and based on the data that 

has been collected by the Food and Nutrition Service, in my district 

we have more recipients under this program than perhaps any 

Congressional district in California. It is a district that has a lot 

of interesting social, economic breakdowns in terms of contrasts of 

a lot of poverty and a lot of wealth. And it seems to me the whole 

challenge here and the whole purpose of the SNAP program is to 

give people in America, the richest country in the world, the ability 

to have a helping hand, and how we have programs that really 

allow them, the overwhelming majority of them who are in assistance, whether it is through SNAP or Women, Infants, and Children 

program, sometimes it is a combination of both, to be able to become self-sufficient. And the overwhelming majority of them want 

to become self-sufficient. People fall on hard times for a lot of reasons, and we have a lot of challenges out there. Out of the 2+ million households that are receiving SNAP benefits in California, 

50,000 of them are in my district. 

And so I know the focus today is on error rates, and the sixteenth hearing that we have had, error rates by states and trying 

to focus on fraud, waste, and abuse. And I understand that we 

should never, ever tolerate any fraud, waste, or abuse of taxpayer 

dollars that are spent for good purposes and good intentions, but 

having looked at this both at the state level, when I was in the legislature, and now in Congress, one can take the position that 

maybe we shouldn’t have the program. And I would disagree, but 

I can understand where some people may come to that conclusion. 

But the fraud, waste, and abuse in terms of error rate is among 

the lowest of a whole host of Federal programs that we provide 

support for. I would like to focus our efforts, I mean if there are 

some good ideas on how we can narrow that error factor in 11⁄2 percent or so, I believe, on fraud, waste, and abuse, and if we can get 

907

it even lower, that is good. But it seems to me the real focus ought 

to be able to give people an opportunity to get off the assistance. 

We have programs in my area like the Fresno Bridge Academy that 

has been very successful at doing that, and we want to expand it. 

The pilot projects in Washington State, and other places that I am 

aware of, we want to try to figure out how we can more effectively 

get people off the assistance. Certainly, we spend a lot of money 

on this. 

And so what can we do to that end? And I don’t know if any of 

the witnesses want to opine. I have used most of my time in making my observation. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Do you all mind? Okay. I will take your——

Mr. COSTA. Forty seconds or less. 

Ms. SHAHIN.—few minutes left, Mr. Costa. Thank you. We also 

have put a great deal of focus. I will admit to you that for a number of years we were not paying this much attention to the employment and training services that we have available to us. But a few 

years ago, we actually put our money where our mouth was. We 

have put resources to it, we have put resources not only in our national office but out in the regions. Now, why is that important? 

Because states really weren’t necessarily used to how to do employment training as a part of the SNAP program. We have really 

beefed-up the technical assistance, we have a SNAP to Skills, it is 

very job-driven because that is one of the things we wanted to pay 

special attention to. What are the jobs, and train for those jobs. It 

is a really important way of looking at work services. 

You are absolutely right, Fresno has one of our E&T pilots, and 

we are very excited about it. It is multigenerational, it is an approach that is very interesting to us, and testing that and taking 

a look at it and seeing if that is something that we can then take 

on as a best practice to other states. We are excited about that. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s——

Ms. SHAHIN. Mr. Newhouse mentioned Washington State——

The CHAIRMAN. Ma’am, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, and we should expand it. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. In order to get through this me need to keep 

moving. 

Mr. Thompson, 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks to the members 

of the panel for being here, for being a part of the process, which 

has been a very thorough, comprehensive process of looking at an 

important program, making sure that we are doing it right, meeting people’s needs, that we are minimizing errors and obviously 

fraud. And today we are focused on errors. 

Now, one of the numbers when I first came in, and I apologize 

if this was already covered, but I had heard that one of the statistics was, and correct me if I am wrong, I thought I heard today we 

have 48 million citizens that are utilizing the SNAP program. 

Ms. BROWN. Forty-eight million in 2013. Today it is 46 million. 

It has gone down slightly. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay, gone down. All right. My first question, 

and thanks for clarifying that number for me. 

908

Ms. Shahin, when a state agency or the USDA is reviewing certain case files, are there certain procedures that a case file reviewer must follow? For example, is a single phone call sufficient, 

or are there Federal requirements or guidelines USDA enforces, or 

is it left up to the state agency in terms of how they gather the 

required information? 

Ms. SHAHIN. If I am not mistaken, what you are talking about 

is in the QC review. Is that what you mean, is in the QC review 

they have to actually, in that sample month, basically determine 

whether or not the benefit that they received that month was correct. They basically have to work the case all over again. They have 

to do the verifications, they have to do the interview, all of those 

have to happen, and all of that has to be documented in the file 

very clearly. That is what the state review is all about is doing all 

of that work. And it is very similar to the original certification. It 

is a rigorous——

Mr. THOMPSON. Just to clarify too though, some of the questions 

were about where the accounts have been inactive and, therefore, 

frozen until maybe a recipient chooses to try to use a card, cannot, 

and that that kind of triggers, are those benefits just fully restored, 

or does it go through that kind of a thorough process to make sure 

that there is still eligibility, they haven’t been successful finding 

better employment or employment, or those types of things? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Absolutely. Yes, and that is one of the things that 

states do when they take it offline. Then they are going to discuss, 

you had not touched it for this period of time, have there been 

changes in your circumstances, we need to take a look at this. And 

they can even do some of their own data matches that they have 

available to them to see what might be going on for that household 

or family. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. My next question is for any of the 

witnesses. Since the SNAP program obviously is a taxpayer-provided assistance for those folks who are in need. What percentage 

of SNAP payments made in error are recovered, and how is this 

tracked and does it include payments that are errors and payments 

as a result of fraud, and exactly how is that payment recovered? 

Ms. SHAHIN. I think that is mine. Okay, so when they go through 

the QC review process, any cases that is found to be an error, 

whether it is an overpayment or an underpayment, and no matter 

of the threshold, all of them have to then be corrected and reconciled and made correct. That means that if they received an overpayment, then the state must recoup that money from the client, 

no matter whose fault it was. Now, remember, I don’t know if you 

were in here, but 62 percent of the errors happen through the state 

administrative process, 38 percent happen by client mistakes. And 

so as a part of that, and you mentioned fraud, so when they look 

at that and they see the over-issuance, they are going to have to 

recoup, and they are also going to have to look at that case and 

think, ‘‘Was this a mistake on the part of the client.’’ Let’s say it 

wasn’t a state error, is this a mistake on the part of the client, did 

they misunderstand, or were they trying to pull something over on 

me. Was there an intent to do that. If that is the case, then they 

have to refer that to their fraud unit as well. So any case that is 

found in error. 

909

On the other side, if it is an underpayment they have to give 

them a supplemental payment for that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, just to clarify before the gentleman’s 

time is yielded, Ms. Shahin, I know that you are saying that they 

have to do that on the overpayments. What is the percentage of 

overpayments that are actually collected? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Well, it should be——

The CHAIRMAN. I know, but——

Ms. SHAHIN. It should be——

The CHAIRMAN. We don’t track that? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Well, we do, and we are going to actually be getting 

better information. I mentioned that we are revising our reporting 

form from the states, so we will be getting more information on 

this. But they have to do the recoupment. They actually get to keep 

35 percent, that is a part of the statute. They get to keep some of 

that. If they can’t recover it, then they have to refer it to Treasury 

Offset, and then those funds are recovered in that manner. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t have any idea what a Treasury Offset is. 

What is that? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Treasury Offset——

The CHAIRMAN. Next month’s benefit is offset? 

Ms. SHAHIN.—it is like taking their tax return. The government 

will——

The CHAIRMAN. These folks aren’t filing tax returns. 

Ms. SHAHIN. I am sorry? 

The CHAIRMAN. These folks—okay. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Well, some of them do have tax returns. Some of 

them. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, so this would come out of their earned 

income credit? 

Ms. SHAHIN. It could come out, yes. And actually, the Treasury 

Offset Program, I don’t have the information right off the top of my 

head, but that might be something you would be interested to know 

the billions of dollars we have recovered that way. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, does the state get 35 percent on underpayments, do the states get 35 percent of the underpayment as well? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Of the underpayments? No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Ms. Lujan Grisham, 5 minutes. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too am 

really interested in making sure that a benefit in a program that 

I actually think highly of, particularly in terms of its both intended 

beneficiary group, given that I am still representing one of the 

most hungry states and hungry populations in the country per capita, but also think that in spite of what are considerable and significant shortcomings in the oversight and quality work by USDA, 

that most states do a fairly effective job at keeping the administrative costs low. 

I believe that you are aware of the many concerns that we have 

in New Mexico’s program, which are longstanding, at least 8 years. 

And, in fact, USDA, by all accounts, has done very little with this 

knowledge. It is incredibly disturbing to me to continue, as recent 

as last night, on national news to hear the allegations from beneficiaries who meet the qualifications for emergency benefits, which 

910

means that they are at risk of being homeless, there is no food in 

the house, they are raising kids, and that state employees in New 

Mexico are adding benefits to their applications so that they don’t 

get dinged. This is apparently one place where USDA will ding you, 

it is like the veterans wait list, that if you don’t move those applications timely, because they are emergencies, then you are in trouble. What our state is doing is they falsify those records. And, in 

fact, the person who the court believes to date was most involved 

in falsifying those records, in a report to USDA, it was confirmed 

that it was okay that that person manage the improvements to the 

New Mexico program. The courts and others have disagreed with 

you, and that person is no longer, who pleaded the Fifth, I might 

get this a little wrong, 20 times, 100 times, multiple times in court, 

is no longer going to be able to try to rectify this program. 

Now, in a government oversight hearing, we finally, bipartisanly, 

got the Under Secretary Concannon to agree that this should be referred to the OIG for investigation, because prior to that, the idea 

was that USDA would provide technical assistance to the state to 

investigate itself, which is untenable and really goes to the larger 

question. We are not creating environments where we are protecting the beneficiaries, protecting the benefits, holding states accountable, or holding bad actors accountable. And I think that the 

genesis of this hearing, while we might disagree about the policy 

of the program, we definitely want it to be administered correctly. 

Since all of these hearings, and, in fact, I am going to quote 

Concannon who said, ‘‘New Mexico has the most fouled-up SNAP 

program in the country.’’ And yet we were just doing technical assistance. 

I am interested to know what progress you have made in New 

Mexico, and given what you now know about New Mexico, what are 

you going to do to hold states accountable? All right, so I get that 

we want the tools for the beneficiaries who are bad actors, and the 

grocery stores, and the drug dealers, and all those bad actors, I 

have no tolerance for it, but I expect the state administrators to do 

their job and to be held accountable in the same way, which is why 

I am not a big fan of block grants because then you can’t even get 

the data when the states aren’t doing their job. How are we doing? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Microphone. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay. Lots of information there. Lots of questions 

there. I am going to try and take what you have asked, but if I 

don’t get it all please——

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. I just want an update. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Yes. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay. First off, thank you for mentioning the U.S. 

OIG. The Under Secretary did send the request to them on June 

15. We have heard from them. They have initiated an independent 

review and investigation. Part of that we did get on the phone with 

them to say we have a lot of other things that we need to work 

on in New Mexico. We want to make sure we don’t impede your 

investigation in this. Is there anything you want us to do. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. And you want to protect those beneficiaries. 

How are you going to——

911

Ms. SHAHIN. That is right. That is absolutely right. And you are 

absolutely correct that actually integrity is two sides of the same 

coin, and that coin has access on one side. Integrity is also the access to the program. Receiving the right benefit, when you are eligible, timely. Whether you are talking about an expedited or a regular program, you do that. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Ms. Shahin, the Chairman is 

overly patient with me. I am always over time. But it does speak 

to your question, Mr. Chairman, which is we need data about 

whether or not accountability is really occurring at all levels. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. LaMalfa, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Brown, coming back to some of the previous testimony, in 

the 2014 GAO report there was discussed a great deal of fraud 

within the program, as well as many factors limiting the effectiveness of detection tools that would be coming from the USDA. But 

during the same year, USDA actually touted their record of their 

payment accuracy rate and work reducing the fraud. As you mentioned earlier, in the identified report there is concern that USDA 

and the Food and Nutrition Service do not have reliable or relevant 

data, so it is pretty difficult to actually determine how they got to 

these numbers and figures they are labeling as a successful venture, when multiple state investigations are getting different numbers at the same time. FNS was pushing the use of monitoring 

software, which I understand to be described as the really simple 

syndication, or the RSS, technology, which is known to be outdated, 

and the report found only one state of eleven that it surveyed found 

it to be effective. 

My question is, in your opinion, which is also based on GAO’s 

overall findings on fraud, is USDA doing enough to not only implement more effective methods to prevent fraud before it happens, 

but also to improve the data they have so we actually have a more 

accurate picture of the figures of fraud. As they mentioned in this 

statement, it is pretty sketchy. How would you really bottom line 

address that to how are we going to have a better, more accurate 

picture overall of fraud with this kind of issue going on at the state 

level, and with previous technology? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, one of the things that you mentioned was trying to get a handle on the extent of recipient fraud. And what we 

asked USDA to do was take a look at their reporting form on that 

because we don’t have a measure, like there is X percent of recipient fraud in the country or in any state. But in lieu of that, USDA 

has a reporting form that Ms. Shahin has mentioned that they are 

modifying, and that form has how many investigations are done, 

how many administrative disqualifications, how many prosecutions, 

that kind of thing, that at least gives some kind of measure about 

state effort. And what we found was that the information that was 

coming in on that form to date was not good because different 

states were interpreting what they were supposed to be reporting, 

what constituted an investigation, for example, differently. We 

asked them to fix that form, and they have, in fact, they have developed a new form, I think it is a——

912

Mr. LAMALFA. Let me break in, is this part of the RSS, or the 

really simple syndication system? 

Ms. BROWN. That is a second issue that I want to make sure I 

address too. 

Mr. LAMALFA. But, those are two different ones. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. And so the form thing, they are working on 

that and they are waiting for OMB to approve it, and they are 

doing training on it. 

The RSS feed is about the fact that there is some concern that 

traffickers are using e-commerce and social media sites to try to 

traffic their benefits. They might be trying to trade for cash or even 

trade for a place to stay, or other types of nonfood goods and that 

is not——

Mr. LAMALFA. And when you find this type of transaction going 

on, on social media, do you have the means to come down upon 

that immediately and firmly? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, we did some studies and did find examples of 

that. Not a huge amount, but we did find examples. And our recommendation to USDA was that the types of guidance they were 

giving the states on how to get a handle on that and get out in 

front of it, the states didn’t find it very helpful. And so it was just 

a lot of data through the RSS feeds that you are talking about. And 

we found that just by looking at an e-commerce site and doing a 

manual search, we found better information than they did through 

all this data that was coming to them that USDA was recommending. We suggested that they improve that process and——

Mr. LAMALFA. I am about out of time, so just the bottom line, 

do you feel that the USDA is doing enough right now to implement 

more effective methods? 

Ms. BROWN. I think they are taking steps in all of the areas that 

we recommended. I don’t think they are quite there on any of them 

yet. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, the steps as they play out, will that be 

enough, or is it going to be still behind the curve ball? 

Ms. BROWN. Well, what we looked at was just some elements of 

fraud at the state level, and there are many other opportunities 

that we have talked about today that are instances where USDA 

and the states can work together more closely to share their data 

and find ways to identify fraud. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Just a couple of nits and nats. Ms. Shahin, the clearinghouse the 

tests that you did, how many states were involved in the clearinghouse? 

Ms. SHAHIN. It was five states. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Do you want to know which they were? 

The CHAIRMAN. No, that is okay. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. It was five. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. And then on people who are disqualified, retailers disqualified under your administrative procedures, is that pubVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00372 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
913

lic information, is that available for the public to know? Should we 

publicize that better and shame these people? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes, sir. Actually, it goes onto, I can’t remember the 

name of it. I think it is called SAMS. It gets posted. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, it would be the retail establishment, 

XYZ Food Mart. Are the individuals who——

Ms. SHAHIN. It would be the owner. The owner’s name. 

The CHAIRMAN. The owner. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes——

The CHAIRMAN. The individual themselves who——

Ms. SHAHIN. You bet, because remember that he might sell that 

store now, okay, and if he sells it, he is going to have to pay a penalty for having sold it because the disqualification wasn’t enough, 

so we are going to charge him a penalty. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Ms. SHAHIN. But that new owner may keep the same name of the 

store. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. I got you. All right. 

Ms. SHAHIN. So we want the owner’s name. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. Denham, did you want to ask a 

question? 

Mr. DENHAM. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Well, thank you all for being here. Ms. 

Shahin, your first bite at the apple, the USDA may never let you 

come back. Your way is too candid. But thank you. Good job. 

Ms. Brown, thank you. 

Mr. Yost, you had one slide up there that showed the same 

transactions for 6 months in a row, right after the EBT cards refreshed. I used to be an auditor back in my misspent youth, and 

that is suspicious. And it wasn’t your task to go find that individual or look at that retailer to see if there were other similar 

transactions going on, that couldn’t be the only time that retailer 

perpetrated that deal with that one individual. There had to be 

other individuals doing it as well. And so there is plenty of meat 

in your information, your data mining, for me to say that this 

should have been fodder for additional investigations. I understand 

the challenge of small-dollar defalcations and small-dollar errors, 

but nevertheless, each of those chip away at the public integrity, 

the public support. Mr. Yost, you said it really well in terms of why 

we need to get this right over and over. I am a little concerned with 

the quest to get the error rate down by making it easier to not 

make errors. Errors are there, tracked errors to find out if people 

are getting benefits they shouldn’t get, or didn’t get benefits they 

should. If we just simply make it easier to not make errors then 

I don’t know that that is necessarily the proper quest that we 

should be on. But all this fits into the overall pattern. My colleagues from time to time on the other side of the aisle gripe about 

the number of hearings we have had. We spend $80 billion a year 

on this program. It is worthy of several hearings to understand 

what is going on, and so I am not embarrassed by it. And, quite 

frankly, I have no way to compel them to come to these hearings. 

They show up on their own. If they don’t like it, they can stay 

home. 

914

But nevertheless, I appreciate our witnesses being here this 

morning and giving us some good information. 

We might have some follow-up things to talk about as well, particularly the offsets or the way to get back the overpayments on the 

error rates, even the ones that we do track. The fact that the error 

rate is understated, many point to that as a point of honor, and 

knowing that the data is just not inclusive of all the errors because 

of the floor that is under this program, and none of the other 

means-tested programs. That is good information to have this 

morning as we continue to get this right. Forty-five million Americans are dependent on this. The rest of the Americans who are paying for this need to know that it is being administered correctly 

and properly. And I appreciate all of your efforts across the spectrum of how you make that happen. 

Under the rules of the Committee, today’s hearing will remain 

open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplemental written responses from any of the witnesses to any of 

the questions by a Member. 

This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

915

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY JESSICA SHAHIN, ASSOCIATE ADMINIS- TRATOR FOR SNAP, FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRI- CULTURE

Insert 1

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Recently, there was in the news a very large bust, $13 to $16 million, and 

it appeared to be conducted from storefronts that didn’t even a business there. 

Is there not a site visit associated with the retailer approval process? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes, sir, there is a site visit that is involved, and we have made 

a lot of improvements actually in the area of denying stores up-front because 

we are doing better work in that area. Are you talking about the one down near 

Miami? 

The CHAIRMAN. It was in Florida, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Opa Locka. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SHAHIN. So that is a really good example of the work of state law enforcement, our USDA OIG. Our agency actually were the first to get the hotline call. 

We did some investigation. It looked like trafficking was happening. It was referred over to OIG and they said, ‘‘Yes, this is a criminal case we want to go 

after.’’ So it takes a little bit more time to get those done because they are taking criminal action. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right, but my understanding of that one is the storefronts 

were just that; there were no businesses associated with it. There wasn’t actually a retail shop there for folks to actually buy food. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes. That is not the way I understand it but that is really good 

to know, so I can go back and check on that.

Yes. Every firm that was authorized at the Opa Locka flea market was visited 

prior to authorization. In addition, since July 2015, FNS has consistently required 

proof of the owner’s inventory purchases prior to authorization. 

Insert 2

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Shahin, I mentioned in my opening remarks that I am not the big fan 

of having these different standards. And I realize that in most cases it doesn’t 

make a whole lot of difference. But, in North Dakota, people qualify for benefits 

that, if they were in my district in Minnesota, they don’t. It is just not right, 

in my opinion. One question I have is with the LIHEAP situation. Minnesota 

is not one of those states where we had a lot of people on this dollar LIHEAP 

payout so that they were qualifying, and we raised it to $20, didn’t we? Is that 

what we did? And CBO was saying at the time that the states wouldn’t spend 

the $20 to qualify people. So what ended up happening? Did it knock a lot of 

people off the rolls that were on there before, or not, or what happened? 

Ms. SHAHIN. Yes, on LIHEAP, and I am not anywhere near as good keeping 

numbers in my head, so let me just say I will go back and check and make sure 

I did this right, but I believe there were about 17 states that were doing the 

nominal, and I believe around 12 to 13 went ahead and brought their nominal 

LIHEAP up to the $20 to meet the law as it was provided for. The remainder 

did not. Once again, as you are suggesting, these are options and choices that 

we do have for states in terms of their flexibilities and ways they can approach 

the program. We have the national standards, but there are places and flexibilities that provide for that kind of thing.

The Agricultural Act of 2014 modified the link between a household’s receipt of 

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) benefits and its eligibility 

for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) heating or cooling 

standard utility allowance (SUA) by requiring that the LIHEAP payment exceed $20 

annually and be received in the current or immediately preceding 12 months. These 

changes primarily impacted the 17 states that had implemented nominal LIHEAP 

payments. FNS provided detailed implementation guidance, policy clarifications, 

and technical assistance to these 17 states. FNS encouraged these states to move 

forward with implementation in a manner that follows the intent of the law. 

To date, 13 states have increased their minimum LIHEAP payments to greater 

than $20: California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and 

Washington State. Four states, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and New Hampshire, chose not to increase payments and no longer apply the SUA automatically 

to households that receive LIHEAP. In the states that did not increase their 

916

LIHEAP payments, impacted households continued to receive SNAP benefits but 

likely experienced a reduction in benefit levels. 

FNS will continue to monitor each SNAP state agency’s compliance with this requirement and will quickly address potential challenges. LIHEAP is a state-administered program under the Federal oversight of the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS). States have the authority to determine how to use their 

LIHEAP funding, in accordance with that program’s requirements. LIHEAP is not 

administered or funded by the USDA and USDA does not have the authority to regulate state’s administration of LIHEAP. USDA has consulted with HHS in order to 

ensure mutual understanding of the new requirements that now govern the SNAP/

LIHEAP link and will continue to coordinate with HHS to address any issues that 

arise. 

Insert 3

Mr. BENISHEK. But nobody is actually prosecuted for this kind of thing, it 

doesn’t sound like. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Well, no, when OIG actually takes it on as a criminal case, that 

does go to court. That is the thing like what you were talking about Mr. Chairman. Mr. BENISHEK. Well, how many times a year does that happen? 

Ms. SHAHIN. I am sorry? 

Mr. BENISHEK. How many times a year does that happen where somebody actually goes to court? Yes. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay, now are we talking about the recipients? 

Mr. BENISHEK. No, I am talking about these retailers. 

Ms. SHAHIN. Okay. Okay. For the retailers. I don’t have that information because that is through OIG, but I can get it for you. Could we get back to you 

on that, on how many that do——

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, yes, I guess.

FNS has consulted with the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General (USDA OIG) to provide this response. The USDA OIG takes as many actions 

as are necessary in any given year. For example, in FY 2015, for cases involving 

SNAP fraud directly attributed to retailers, USDA OIG had 352 indictments, and 

504 convictions with monetary results totaling $65.2 million. Note: Indictments and 

convictions often do not align one-for-one in any given year. The average time between indictment and conviction is 14–18 months (or potentially longer in some 

cases) so they may not occur within the same year. 

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY HON. DAVE YOST, AUDITOR, STATE OF

OHIO

Ms. FUDGE. This is a very broad statement. Have you found fraud in Medicare or Medicaid, and at what level? 

Mr. YOST. Sure. We find misspending in a variety of programs. We issued a 

report last year about some in the Department of Education. 

Ms. FUDGE. Are you concerned about those as much as you are concerned 

about this? 

Mr. YOST. I am concerned about all of the misspending I find, ma’am. 

Ms. FUDGE. What about crop insurance, what has your audit found about 

that? 

Mr. YOST. I don’t know that we have ever looked at crop insurance, and I 

don’t know what the risks associated on it are.

July 7, 2016

Hon. MARCIA L. FUDGE,

Member of Congress, 

Cleveland, OH.

Dear Representative Fudge:

I was taken aback yesterday during the House Committee on Agriculture’s SNAP 

hearing when you asked me if the Ohio Auditor of State’s office audits the Federal 

Crop Insurance Program. It turns out my surprise was for good reason: Crop Insurance is not a Federal program administered by the state and is not included on the 

states’ Federal schedule to be audited. 

The Federal Crop Insurance Program you referenced is administered by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Risk Management Agency (RMA). RMA selects and 

pays private insurance companies to sell and service the policies. Crop insurance 

917

claims are paid by the private insurance company directly to the farmer. The State 

of Ohio is not involved in the process. 

I hope this information is helpful as you continue to review SNAP and assess all 

the programs that fall under the direction of the Department of Agriculture. 

Sincerely,

Hon. DAVE YOST, Auditor, State of Ohio.

CC:

Hon. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Chairman; 

Members of the House Committee on Agriculture. 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY TRACY WAREING EVANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN

PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION

July 18, 2016

Hon. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Chairman,

House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.;

Hon. Collin C. Peterson, 

Ranking Member,

House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson:

I write today on behalf of the American Public Human Services Association 

(APHSA), which represents the state and local public human services administrators responsible for implementing and managing the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). We have a long-standing interest in assuring that SNAP provides long-term, positive impacts for the population it serves directly and the nation 

at large. APHSA is committed to a human services system that supports stronger 

and healthier individuals, families, and communities through positive and sustainable outcomes, and SNAP plays a critically important part. 

We appreciate this opportunity to submit a written statement for the record following your hearing of July 6, 2016, ‘‘Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: Evaluating Error Rates and Anti-Fraud Measures to Enhance Program Integrity.’’ States 

take seriously the issue of SNAP program integrity and want to see this program 

administered properly in every respect, including its quality control (QC) procedures. Over the years, we in partnership with the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 

have steadily improved SNAP’s performance despite tight budgets and the program’s size and complexity. We will continue to work with FNS to maintain and 

further strengthen this record. 

The July 6 hearing covered both trafficking (the prohibited use of converting benefits to cash through a cooperating retailer) and errors made during the eligibility 

determination process. States have primary responsibility for eligibility errors, and 

our comments below focus on this issue and its associated QC procedures. (While 

FNS has primary responsibility for retailers and trafficking, states also devote resources to taking appropriate action against recipients who traffic their benefits.) 

As you are aware, the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) submitted a report 

in September 2015 criticizing both FNS and the states for shortcomings in SNAP 

QC. Following this report and its own recent intensive reviews, FNS has begun informing states that some are seriously out of compliance with a variety of SNAP 

QC requirements. FNS has asked states to develop corrective action plans if they 

concur. The FNS reviews have covered more than 30 states so far and we understand are scheduled to be completed in all states by late December 2016. 

SNAP QC procedures are extensive and detailed. FNS and the states have 

partnered for many years to understand and properly implement training protocols 

and administrative techniques to assure QC is done well. We and FNS have engaged in countless conference workshops, trainings, conference calls, monitoring visits, and other joint activities to implement these procedures in the best way posVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00377 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN

11403155.eps
918

sible. The last step in this process is that FNS reviews a subsample of state QC 

cases and confirms their validity before error results are finalized and published. 

Given the closely intertwined responsibilities that FNS and states have in administering SNAP and its QC procedures, and the continuous communication taking 

place between us, it is not our purpose to assign blame for any problems that exist 

but instead map out a productive and mutual path forward to mitigate systemic factors that have helped produce the current controversy. As outlined below, we believe 

that a combination of simpler program rules, rapid modernization of eligibility and 

verification methods, and a far more intentional system of training and communication are critically important first steps. More significantly, we call for a far broader 

and more outcome-focused way of assessing SNAP’s performance and impacts, perhaps augmented by an independent analysis of what metrics are most important to 

consider and how they should be administered. 

Program simplification—As APHSA and its members have urged for many 

years, simpler SNAP rules would reduce the opportunities for errors in the first 

place, as well as reducing administrative burdens for states and confusion for customers. SNAP’s profusion of eligibility factors attempts to reflect precisely every 

type of and change in these factors—perhaps a desirable goal in theory, but they 

are now so numerous and so complex that we doubt there is any longer a net benefit 

to this approach. Many SNAP households have frequent changes that strain our resources to constantly track and verify them. SNAP formerly had a very sensible tolerance level of $50 in budget changes before an error was cited, but the 2014 Farm 

Bill lowered that figure. Minor variations in circumstances should not be included 

in eligibility factors and their associated QC reviews. 

SNAP should also become more aligned with other major assistance programs, including Medicaid, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, housing, 

child care, and similar programs—such as by counting income the same way, among 

many other possibilities. Again, doing so would enhance program integrity, reduce 

confusion, and streamline administration. 

Modernization to take full advantage of electronic information—SNAP 

must be aggressively modernized in the way it collects, uses, and verifies eligibility 

information. The program is still far too paper-based, is too hampered by outmoded 

technology, makes insufficient use of existing electronic data, and focuses too little 

on the creation of new databases. For example, SNAP and other human services 

programs need access to a central data source such as the Federal Data Services 

Hub, and the data within it must be considered already verified for SNAP use. Further, FNS and other Federal agencies must revisit how proprietary data sources 

used in eligibility determination are shared and paid for; while some of this data 

is available free for Medicaid, states must pay for the same data again to access 

it for SNAP, an obvious unnecessary use of scarce funds. 

Pilots such as the National Accuracy Clearinghouse, which is testing a multi-state 

recipient database, are promising and should be quickly implemented for a variety 

of other creative ideas in generating and sharing information. Potentially helpful innovations like these demand a much higher priority and much faster timetables 

than we have seen to date. Progress on these fronts could alone reduce or eliminate 

many of the integrity concerns we currently face. 

Training and communication—Despite how closely we work with FNS, the recent reviews have highlighted that far too much confusion still exists around what 

QC procedures are permissible and how a long list of technical issues should be interpreted and resolved. Our state members report that there are regional variations 

in guidance and training provided by FNS; a range of interpretations about the 

meaning of FNS manual material; different rulings by FNS on the same issue over 

time; and, in the current round of reviews, the flagging as violations of practices 

that were already known to FNS and were even part of approved corrective action 

plans. They also note a number of mistakes and misinterpretations in what the OIG 

findings assert. We believe that alternative training approaches would yield major 

progress toward resolving these problems, for example online, national training 

events; simultaneous training of both policy and quality control staff, and of both 

Federal and state staff, in the same events; and outside facilitation and analysis 

that can help sustain the impacts of training for all staff, regardless of the roles 

they play. 

We continue to work closely with FNS to resolve these concerns, and understand 

that FNS is bringing regional leaders together for intensive new training and is updating the QC Handbook. We stress that the lack of consistency must be aggressively addressed in fairness to all states. 

A broader approach to assessing SNAP—Beyond the more immediate changes 

above, APHSA urges that we work promptly toward a more comprehensive assessment of SNAP’s performance and impacts that demonstrate how SNAP has made 

919

the lives of individuals and families better. SNAP must of course remain grounded 

in accuracy and timeliness, but the program accomplishes so much more: supporting 

gainful employment, stabilizing family budgets, and improving nutrition and other 

factors in well-being. The intense and nearly exclusive focus on current QC metrics 

leaves little staff time and capacity—either state or Federal—to pay proper attention to these significant and broad impacts. SNAP plays important roles in preventing downstream, ‘‘heavy touch’’ problems and in strengthening families in multiple other ways, and these outcomes must be given their proper weight. 

An independent study of SNAP program integrity—APHSA also believes 

there could be great value in having an independent, outside party study SNAP’s 

QC and integrity procedures, such as was done to resolve QC concerns in the 1980s 

by the National Academy of Sciences. This analysis should examine which measures 

are most relevant and useful for evaluating SNAP’s success and how they should 

be administered. It should focus particularly on what SNAP could learn from how 

other government programs are measured, how SNAP’s broader impacts can be 

practically evaluated, and how improvements in administration can best be 

incentivized. 

APHSA and its members are preparing detailed policy proposals to cover the 

above issues and others in advance of SNAP’s upcoming reauthorization, and we 

will share those with you when they have been completed. In the meantime we will 

of course cooperate with FNS to end violations warranted by evidence found in the 

current reviews. However, this experience has reminded us again of the very serious 

need for a fresh look at SNAP QC and how the entire program can be made better. 

We offer the expertise and experience of our members as we undertake this important effort, and look forward to working with you in any way we can. 

Thank you again for this opportunity. If you have any questions please contact 

Larry Goolsby, Director of Strategic Initiatives, at [Redacted] or [Redacted]. 

Sincerely,

TRACY WAREING EVANS, 

Executive Director. 


11403154.eps
(921)

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM 

(PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: IMPROVING 

INNOVATION AND SUCCESS IN EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 

PROGRAMS) 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NUTRITION, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Jackie Walorski 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Walorski, Thompson, Gibbs, 

Crawford, Benishek, Yoho, Moolenaar, Conaway (ex officio), McGovern, Lujan Grisham, Aguilar, Ashford, DelBene, and Costa. 

Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Jadi Chapman, Mary Nowak, 

Mollie Wilken, Stephanie Addison, Lisa Shelton, Liz Friedlander, 

Faisal Siddiqui, John Konya, Nicole Scott, and Carly Reedholm. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE WALORSKI, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM INDIANA 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Good morning. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled, Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: Improving Innovation 

and Success in Employment and Training Programs.

I would like to say good morning and welcome to today’s Nutrition Subcommittee hearing. Thank you to everyone for being here, 

and thank you, in particular, to our witnesses for your participation and valuable insights. 

We are continuing the series of hearings looking at the past, 

present, and future of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, by examining employment and training, or E&T, 

programs. While we know that a job is the surest way to get out 

of poverty, it can be difficult for individuals to find a job that 

matches their skills, or to gain the skills needed to fill the jobs 

available in an area. This is why Congress created employment and 

training components in various welfare programs to help low-income individuals obtain the skills and training they need to find 

and keep a job. 

SNAP E&T and other workforce training programs exist to ensure that the safety net is a temporary stop for able-bodied adults. 

They build up valuable skills. They lend a helping hand to those 

bouncing back from adversity. Each state SNAP E&T plan is apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00381 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
922

proved and overseen by USDA. States are required to operate a 

SNAP E&T program and have considerable flexibility to tailor their 

state’s program to their specific needs and economic circumstances. 

Among the services SNAP E&T programs offer are job search training, work training, educational programs, and job retention. Some 

states operate their programs with mandatory participation, while 

others make it voluntary. Some coordinate their workfare programs 

through one central agency, while others are more separated. 

Recognizing the transformative impact that a job can have on 

someone trying to lift him or herself out of poverty, the 2014 Farm 

Bill authorized SNAP E&T pilot projects to test innovative strategies. In March of 2015, the USDA awarded ten states grants that 

carry rigorous reporting and evaluation requirements in order to 

ensure quality and evidence-based information. We are fortunate to 

have representatives from three of the ten states here with us 

today. 

Though the final evaluation of the pilots is not anticipated until 

2021, today’s hearing will be useful to learn what factors influenced 

each state’s pilot design, what strategies are being tested, and how 

these states intend to utilize the pilot results within their core 

E&T services offered by the state. 

I want to close my remarks with one final point. Our safety net 

programs are indispensable, but for those that are able to work, 

the safety net should be a temporary stop and not a final destination. This is something that has been echoed by Republicans and 

Democrats alike. In his second State of the Union address, Franklin Delano Roosevelt told Congress, ‘‘Work must be found for ablebodied but destitute workers.’’ He extolled not only the obvious financial benefits of a job, but also the benefits to the mind, body, 

and spirit as well. And while President Roosevelt took a government-centric approach to create jobs, the core principle behind it 

remain, if you can work, you should work. 

Today, we will examine programs that help those who can work 

secure and keep a job and look at new, innovative approaches to 

make these programs more effective. 

I thank each of our witnesses again for being here and I look forward to hearing from you. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Walorski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE WALORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM INDIANA

Good morning and welcome to today’s Nutrition Subcommittee hearing. Thank 

you to everyone for being here and thank you, in particular, to our witnesses for 

your participation and valuable insights. 

We are continuing the series of hearings looking at the past, present, and future 

of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, by examining employment and training, or E&T, programs. 

While we know that a job is the surest way to get out of poverty, it can be difficult 

for individuals to find a job that matches their skills, or to gain the skills needed 

to fill the jobs available in an area. This is why Congress created employment and 

training components in various welfare programs to help low-income individuals obtain the skills and training they need to find and keep a job. 

SNAP E&T and other workforce training programs exist to ensure that the safety 

net is a temporary stop for able-bodied adults. They build up valuable skills. They 

lend a helping hand to those bouncing back from adversity. 

923

Each state SNAP E&T plan is approved and overseen by USDA. States are required to operate a SNAP E&T program and have considerable flexibility to tailor 

their state’s program to their specific needs and economic circumstances. 

Among the services SNAP E&T programs offer are job search training, work 

training, educational programs, and job retention. Some states operate their programs with mandatory participation, while others make it voluntary. Some coordinate their workfare programs through one central agency, while others are more 

separated. 

Recognizing the transformative impact that a job can have on someone trying to 

lift himself or herself out of poverty, the 2014 Farm Bill authorized SNAP E&T pilot 

projects to test innovative strategies. In March 2015, the USDA awarded ten states 

grants that carry rigorous reporting and evaluation requirements in order to ensure 

quality, evidence-based information. We are fortunate to have representatives from 

three of the ten states here today. Though the final evaluation of the pilots is not 

anticipated until 2021, today’s hearing will be useful to learn what factors influenced each state’s pilot design, what strategies are being tested, and how these 

states intend to utilize the pilot results within their core E&T services offered by 

the state. 

I want to close my remarks with one final point. Our safety net programs are indispensable, but for those that are able to work, the safety net should be a temporary stop and not a final destination. This is a something that has been echoed 

by Republicans and Democrats alike. In his second State of the Union address, 

Franklin Delano Roosevelt told Congress, ‘‘Work must be found for able-bodied but 

destitute workers.’’ He extolled not only the obvious financial benefits of a job, but 

also the benefits to the mind, body, and spirit as well. And while President Roosevelt took a government-centric approach to creating jobs, the core principle behind 

it remain: if you can work, you should work. 

Today, we will examine programs that help those who can work secure and keep 

a job and look at new, innovative approaches to make these programs more effective. 

I thank each of our witnesses again for being here and I look forward to hearing 

from you.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you. And I want to thank Chairwoman 

Walorski for convening this hearing, and I want to thank all of our 

witnesses for being here today to share your experiences and findings. I am looking forward to hearing about these pilot programs. 

As I understand it, there is a lot of innovative work being done, 

and perhaps some ideas that we can draw upon in the future. 

We need to remember, however, to look at these pilot programs 

in terms of the bigger picture. Employment and training is funded 

by a block grant of $90 million per year. This funding level hasn’t 

been updated since 2004, and SNAP E&T funding is extremely limited compared to the number of recipients who could potentially be 

eligible for services. And it is important to note that some states 

aren’t even using all of their grant funding. I point this out not to 

be critical of these jurisdictions. I know there are a lot of pressures 

on states, but there are gaps in funding, and we know we aren’t 

reaching everyone who needs assistance. 

In fact, while there are about 44 million people receiving SNAP 

benefits, only about three million are served by SNAP E&T programs. And with the ABAWD waivers expiring, at least 500,000 

able-bodied adults are being kicked off of SNAP. A lot of these individuals lack education, and are unskilled. Many of them are veterans who are returning to the United States after serving our 

country, and trying to get reoriented back into life here, but without adequate E&T program funding, I am not sure what will happen to them. 

924

Given the diversity of the SNAP population, it is important to 

underscore that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. And I would 

like to remind my colleagues of the testimony Secretary Vilsack 

gave this Committee in 2014, that the pilots are an important component to helping SNAP recipients towards self-sufficiency, but 

they are only one tool states can use to engage this high-risk population. 

I also appreciate hearing that the states testifying before us 

today use case management to achieve successes in their programs. 

I would like to remind Members of the Subcommittee that case 

management costs money. We need to provide our states with the 

resources needed to continue the good work in this area as well. 

So, I am pleased to see states taking innovative approaches to 

these employment and training pilots, and I look forward to learning more about how these programs can help our most vulnerable 

neighbors. 

I also just want to point out, yes, we are all dedicated to trying 

to help able-bodied people be able to get employment and to get a 

job, but we also need to understand that a big chunk of able-bodied 

people who are on SNAP right now work. And one of the challenges 

is finding a job that actually pays a livable wage. So contrary to 

the perception out there that everybody on SNAP doesn’t work, 

that is just not the case. We have many, many, many recipients, 

the majority of able-bodied people, who do work, who work hard to 

support their families, but still earn so little that they need to rely 

on SNAP. 

So I look forward to the hearing, and I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. The chair would request that 

other Members submit their opening statements for the record so 

the witnesses may begin their testimony, and to ensure that there 

is ample time for questions. The chair would like to remind Members they will be recognized for questioning in order of seniority for 

Members who were here at the start of the hearing. After that, 

Members will be recognized in order of arrival. I appreciate Members’ understanding. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, is not a Member of 

the Subcommittee, but has joined us today. Pursuant to Committee 

Rule XI, I have consulted with the Ranking Member, we are 

pleased to welcome him to join in the questioning of the witnesses. 

Witnesses are reminded to limit their oral statements to 5 minutes. All of the written statements will be included in the record. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses to the table. I now recognize Ms. DelBene to introduce our first witness. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very pleased to 

introduce David Stillman from my State of Washington. He is the 

Assistant Secretary of the Economic Services Administration at 

Washington State’s Department of Social and Health Services, 

where he is responsible for a number of Washington’s public assistance programs and benefit programs. David oversees more than 

4,000 employees, 80 offices, and a $2 billion budget, with a focus 

on transforming government to better serve families in need. 

Prior to accepting his current position, David served for over 5 

years as Director of the Department’s Division of Child Support. 

Among his achievements, he is a 2001 recipient of the Governor’s 

925

Distinguished Manager Award; the highest recognition for a state’s 

government manager. David received his B.A. from Whitman College, and his J.D. from the University of Puget Sound School of 

Law. He truly does excellent work on behalf of so many, and I am 

just thrilled that you are here with us today. Thanks for joining us. 

And I yield back. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. We also have Mr. Jon Anderson, 

Deputy Director, Georgia Division of Family and Children Services, 

Office of Family Independence, Atlanta, Georgia. Welcome. I would 

also like to yield now to Mr. Costa to introduce our final witness. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you 

for the courtesy of allowing me to participate in this morning’s Subcommittee hearing. 

I am honored to introduce Mr. Pete Weber, a friend, a gentleman 

who I’ve known for many years, who retired in 2001 to dedicate 

himself to community and economic development for the people 

who live in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Mr. Weber is the founder of the Fresno Bridge Academy, which 

was recently selected by the United States Department of Agriculture as one of the ten national pilot programs that we are going 

to be hearing about this morning, aimed at increasing income and 

self-reliance of families eligible for food stamps. He makes a compelling case. I know because I have visited the Fresno Bridge Academy many times. His work with the Fresno Bridge Academy led to 

the James Irvine Foundation Leadership Award last year for creative and inspirational leadership benefitting the people of California. I have had the pleasure of knowing Pete for many years, as 

I have said, and come to respect his involvement in many of the 

various segments of our community. And for so many reasons, I 

want to thank you for that dedication to, in today’s testimony, 

those who are challenged and who have very difficult economic circumstances by trying to provide a helping hand through the SNAP 

Program to improve their lives and make them independent. And 

so we will look forward to his testimony. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Mr. Costa. Mr. Weber is also accompanied today by Ms. Kim McCoy Wade, CalFresh Branch Chief, 

Department of Social Services, Sacramento, California. Thank you 

to all of our witnesses. 

Mr. Stillman, please begin when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID STILLMAN, J.D., ASSISTANT

SECRETARY, ECONOMIC SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH

SERVICES, OLYMPIA, WA 

Mr. STILLMAN. Good morning, Chairwoman Walorski and Ranking Member McGovern, and thank you also, a gracious thank you 

to Representative DelBene for her introduction. 

In Washington, under the leadership of Governor Inslee, and 

with the support of our Congressional delegation, we have elected 

to make TANF, SNAP, and the SNAP employment and training 

programs part of our WIOA state plan. I begin there, and hopefully, you will have the chance to look at the slide that has been 

put into your packets, that looks a little bit like a superhighway. 

I think that it is really important to note that, with Congress’ help, 

926

we have been able to push a reset button on how we deliver our 

workforce system support services across the entirety of what we 

do and how we do it in Washington State. 

The WIOA priority populations intersect and overlap with those 

populations that we serve with TANF and SNAP, and so many 

other parts of our program. In fact, we are really happy to be able 

to work with our Departments of Commerce, Vocational Rehabilitation, the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, our 

Department of Labor equivalent in employment self-sufficiency, 

and really through that combination of SNAP, employment and 

training, and the other parts of our basic food program, put this 

effort at the center lane of our superhighway to focus our attention 

on the alleviation of poverty. 

So that is my set of bureaucratic statements, but I would be remiss if I didn’t mention or begin with more of a client-centric perspective. So I am going to talk about Taylor. Taylor is a single mom 

with two kids. She enrolled into the Basic Food Employment and 

Training Program in Seattle, part of the Seattle Jobs Initiative, one 

of our stellar community-based organizations, and the Highline 

College in the fall of 2012. I hope you will pay attention to this 

anecdote. She was working as an L.P.N., barely able to make ends 

meet, and through the support that she received at SJI and 

Highline College, she was able to complete her program and receive 

services such as transportation, required school items, and utility 

assistance. She took some time away to help an ailing parent, and 

was able to re-enter the program, and is now working 32 hours a 

week at $26 an hour plus benefits. 

So what do we take away from that? We should take away that 

life is not seamless, and that is so true for so many of the clients 

that we serve. It is also a takeaway that there is a need for the 

availability of coaching and career navigation services, support 

service funds, and that Taylor’s success is equally attributable to 

the efforts of the local community investment that is involved in 

the SNAP employment and training funds. 

I will quickly make reference to the second slide that I provided, 

which shows how there is skin in the game, dollars in the game, 

that are invested from the local level on up to draw down these important Federal funds. This is not about a state bureaucracy, although many of the funds are needed to build and sustain infrastructure. This is about local dollars matching Federal dollars in 

order to build a really important and critical program for the clients that we serve. 

In addition, Washington has been blessed as being one of the ten 

states awarded a grant under the recent farm bill, where we are 

testing some additional innovative approaches for work registrants 

that receive SNAP. Our pilot Resources to Initiate Successful Employment, or RISE, is using that rigorous gold standard evaluation 

and a randomized control process. We intend to increase engagement in unsubsidized employment opportunities, increase participant earnings, and reduce reliance on public assistance by using 

comprehensive case management, the ability to attend training, 

and participate in the soft or vocational work skills referred to in 

our state as Strategies for Success, and the opportunity to engage 

in work-based learning opportunities, yet another opportunity for 

927

us to partner with our WIOA service providers in Washington 

State. 

I will finish again with another client story. J.P. entered RISE 

with high barriers: homelessness, chemical dependency, mental 

health, a criminal record, and a lack of a driver’s license, just to 

name a few. With the case management support that we were able 

to provide, and as a result of assistance from an unexpected source; 

the Division of Child Support, J.P. was able to obtain regular visits 

with his son, who he had not had contact with over 5 years. He 

has now secured sobriety housing, reduced the barriers which has 

allowed him to engage in Strategies for Success training, and is on 

his way, this is a work in progress, to earning a chemical dependency professional certification, and engaged in an internship program. 

I invite you to think about what the takeaways are there, with 

true system integration and SNAP E&T at the heart of that service 

delivery. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stillman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID STILLMAN, J.D., ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ECONOMIC

SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH

SERVICES, OLYMPIA, WA 

SNAP E&T, Washington’s Basic Food Employment and Training Program 

and SNAP E&T Pilot, Resources to Initiate Successful Employment 

Program Success Stories 

BFET Success Story I 

Taylor enrolled into the Basic Food Employment and Training (BFET) program 

at Seattle Jobs Initiative (SJI) and Highline College in fall of 2012. Taylor’s pay as 

a Licensed Practical Nurse was barely enough to make ends meet for her and her 

two children. SJI provided Taylor with education, career navigation, and help with 

transportation, required school related items, and utility assistance. Taylor completed her program with a 4.0 GPA in June of 2013. 

Taylor stepped away from the BFET program for 7 months to care for her ailing 

mother and then reengaged with SJI in December 2013. SJI assisted Taylor with 

re ́sume ́’ revision, mock interviews and employer follow ups. She also attended SJI’s 

job seekers club to complete online applications. Taylor was hired in February 2014 

as a registered nurse at Kindred Healthcare in Shoreline. She is working 32 hours 

per week and is earning $26 per hour + full benefits. 

BFET Success Story II 

Alvin, a new Washington resident, was couch surfing and looking for work. He 

attended a resource fair in October 2013 where he enrolled in the BFET program 

at Neighborhood House of Washington (NHWA). Alvin expressed a desire to work 

as a Forklift Operator since he had warehouse work experience, but needed certification. NHWA connected him with Puget Sound Training Center (PSTC), another 

BFET partner, to obtain the necessary training. 

NHWA and PSTC coordinated their employment and training services to assist 

Alvin find employment. While Alvin was completing Forklift Operator training at 

PSTC, NHWA assisted him with re ́sume ́ writing, mock interview and online applications. In addition, NHWA leveraged their Working for Housing Stability program 

to secure permanent, affordable housing for Alvin. In December 2013, Alvin was 

hired by Randstad Staffing as a Forklift Operator full time earning $12.75 per hour. 

Alvin is now self-sufficient paying for his own rent. 

RISE Success Story 

J.P. entered RISE with high barriers; homelessness, chemical dependency, mental 

health, criminal record, and lack of driver’s license just to name a few. The case 

manager outlined a plan to assist with housing, engage the client in mental health 

services, wok on self-empowerment, and connect the client with the Division of 

Child Support’s (DCS) Alternative Solutions program, to assist with driver’s license 

928

1The Basic Food Employment and Training (BFET) program is Washington State’s name for 

the Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and Training 

(E&T) program. 

reinstatement, obtaining a reasonable child support order, and a reduction of outstanding debt. 

As a result of the assistance from DCS, J.P. was able to obtain regular visits with 

his son, who he had not contact with for over 5 years. J.P. secured sobriety housing 

and reduced significant barriers allowing him to engage and complete Strategies for 

Success (SFS) training. During his attendance in SFS training, J.P. developed an 

interest in using his story to give back to others. Following SFS training, J.P. began 

working towards earning Chemical Dependency Professional certification and has 

engaged in an internship program. 

These stories represent the majority of Washington’s E&T participants. Currently, 

over 60 percent of BFET participants enter employment upon completion and will 

receive a ten percent wage increase within a year. 

Basic Food Employment & Training Overview 

The Washington State Basic Food Employment and Training (BFET) program 1 is 

an important part of Washington State’s comprehensive workforce development system serving the needs of low-income individuals, indigent workers, and employers. 

The vision of the BFET program is to assist Basic Food (SNAP) recipients in obtaining livable wage employment and to achieve self-sufficiency. 

BFET offers job search, training, education, and workfare activities to improve 

BFET participant’s employment prospects and wage earning potential. The program 

serves Basic Food recipients, age 16 and older, who are not participating in the 

state’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Participants volunteer to take part in these services to improve skills and self-sufficiency. 

History of BFET 

While the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has had a requirement to 

include an employment and training component since 1998, most states programs 

have consisted of a referral to a job search program. This was the case in Washington until our BFET program started as a pilot in October 2005 in one community 

in Seattle. In this pilot, Washington leveraged the little used 50/50 funding option 

by leveraging community resources to match Federal SNAP E&T funds in order to 

develop a comprehensive job’s-driven program. It began with one community college 

and four community-based organizations (CBOs). Knowing that these organizations 

are already serving low-income populations, the plan was to leverage each agency’s 

current work and strengths to maximize the resources available to the Basic Food 

recipient; this would empower the client to achieve financial independence from 

public assistance. 

Starting small gave Washington the time to prove the concept and develop the 

required plan and tools needed to effectively deliver the BFET services. The partnership held strategic planning meetings to intentionally and thoughtfully scale what 

had become a successful model into a statewide program gradually, as to make the 

service delivery and administration sustainable. Each time the program expanded 

to a new area of the state, infrastructure was built for support. 

In Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2009, the BFET partnership included twelve community and technical colleges and six CBOs in four counties. The program grew to 

encompass all 34 community and technical colleges throughout Washington State 

within 5 years. As of FFY 14 BFET not only included the community and technical 

colleges, but also twenty CBOs in eighteen counties. Today, the BFET program includes all 34 community and technical colleges and 46 CBOs in 30 of the 39 counties 

within Washington State. 

BFET Service Delivery Model 

BFET leverages collaborative partnerships with state, educational and community 

agencies to provide services. These partnerships are formed under contracts between 

the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and numerous agencies including the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC), Employment Security Department (ESD), and several community-based organizations (CBOs). This collaborative partnership leverages each 

partner’s particular strength. Community and technical colleges provide education 

and training to increase an individual’s employability while ESD and CBOs assist 

the job ready individual in entering the job market. Many BFET Participants are 

co-enrolled with multiple agencies to maximize simultaneous BFET services. 

929

The BFET program uses the fifty percent reimbursement model to fund BFET 

services. This reimbursement model helps ensure sustainability because the program is not vulnerable to limited 100 % and allows for growth-based on each community’s capacity to provide match funding. Since it leverages state, local and private funds, it increases existing capacity for colleges and CBOs. Finally, this funding model creates new funding streams for colleges and CBOs to pay for much needed support services while ensuring partnership because everyone has invested in the 

program. 

Each partner agency is a BFET ambassador to the community, recruiting, assessing and placing Basic Food recipients in BFET activities. For example, we have 

many CBO partners who already work with vulnerable populations or homeless individuals and families. These agencies are able to use BFET 50% funds to bolster 

the programs they are already using to serve this population; therefore increasing 

the scope of services and number of participants they can reach and positively impact. This increases the presence of the BFET program and makes the program 

more accessible to all Basic Food recipients. 

Program Highlights for FFY 2013–2015

Program Growth Over Last 3 FFY[s] 

As more colleges and CBOs partnered with BFET, the number of participants 

served increase.

Year Number of Participants 

FFY 2013 16,246

FFY 2014 19,115

FFY 2015 20,583

Employment Outcomes 

Washington State tracks the percentage of BFET participants who enter employment after participating in the BFET program.

Year % Employed 

FFY 2013 58%

FFY 2014 61%

FFY 2015 61%

Wages 

Washington State tracks the average median wage of participants employed after 

participating in the BFET program. Also tracked is the wage progression 1 year 

after participating in the BFET program.

Year Starting Median Wage Median Wage after 1 

year % of Wage increase 

FFY 2013 $11.00 $11.97 9%

FFY 2014 $11.28 $12.37 10%

FFY 2015 $11.63 $12.97 12%

Comparative Study 

Washington State completed a comparative study of 1,165 BFET participants who 

enrolled into the BFET between January and March 2009. This group was compared 

to a similar group of Basic Food recipients eligible for, but not participating in 

BFET. The study evaluated the earnings gain and loss of each group for 5 years. 

The study demonstrated that BFET participants increase their earning potential 

year over year in comparison to the Basic Food only group.

930

Coordinating with Other Employment and Training Programs 

BFET is part of Washington State’s comprehensive workforce development program. As such, BFET services are integrated with other employment and training 

programs throughout the state, such as Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Employment Pipeline, 

Office of Refugee and Immigrant Assistance (ORIA), Limited English Proficiency 

Pathway (LEP), and Refugee Special Employment Needs (RSEN). 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) 

The BFET program is a partner in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 

(WIOA) Combined state plan. At the local level providers integrate our services with 

those they are already providing as both WIOA and BFET service sites. BFET is 

recognized as a WIOA partner due to its increased services provided to Basic Food 

recipients not participating in the state’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF) program. These services include: job search, self-directed job search, job 

search training, educational services, skills training, and post-employment support 

services. BFET collaborates with the Workforce Training Board, ESD, and SBCTC 

to identify target and emerging industries, develop career pathways and credentials 

that will be available to participants. 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

DSHS has developed streamlined pathways for TANF recipients to transition to 

BFET to assist low-income families move toward long-term self-sufficiency. 

Employment Pipeline 

Employment Pipeline is a DSHS administered program available for individuals 

looking to find immediate employment. Employment Pipeline assists DSHS clients 

navigate the various employment and training programs and resources, assess employment need, complete referrals, and provide retention services. BFET and Employment Pipeline collaborate at the same community events to access resources. 

Office of Refugee and Immigrant Assistance (ORIA) 

BFET partners with ORIA to assist refugees and immigrants transition into 

Washington State’s workforce. ORIA works in partnership with the BFET program 

to ensure that refugees access available employment and training services. 

ORIA BFET program helps people receiving Basic Food benefits get jobs through 

voluntary participation in job search, training, education, or workfare activities that 

promote self-sufficiency. 

Limited English Proficient Pathway (LEP) 

LEP program helps refugees and parents receiving Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families benefits to become employed. 

Refugee Special Employment Needs (RSEN) 

The RSEN program helps refugees with substantial barriers to employment receive intensive case management, social adjustment counseling, and employment 

placement services. 


11403156.eps
931

Local Integration 

BFET’s reimbursement model provides program flexibility to adapt BFET services 

into local employment and training initiatives. BFET partners are integrating their 

BFET services with stable housing initiatives and special population needs. 

Sharing Best Practices 

Washington State has had the opportunity to assist other states in developing and 

strengthening their SNAP E&T programs. Other state agencies, nonprofit agencies, 

and educational institutions have visited Washington State to learn how we started 

our BFET program, our service delivery model, our strategic planning group, and 

technology interface. We continue to be happy to provide this technical assistance 

to our peers nationally. 

The BFET program hosts an annual training forum for our BFET partners. This 

venue allows for the sharing of best practices with partners, strengthening our coordination of services, and develops local partnerships. The training forum provides 

an opportunity for other state agencies to learn best practices from our local partners. 

Seattle Jobs Initiative (SJI) through their Center of Excellence (a grant awarded 

recently) is directly assisting state agencies develop their SNAP E&T programs. SJI 

was one of the original four CBOs when Washington State started the BFET program. They have learned first-hand the best practices used in the BFET program 

and therefore well equipped to introduce BFET best practices. 

Washington’s SNAP E&T Pilot 

Washington was one of ten states awarded a grant under the recent farm bill, and 

will be testing innovative approaches for work Registrants receiving SNAP. Washington’s pilot, Resources to Initiate Successful Employment (RISE) will use a rigorous evaluation and randomization process to test effectiveness. The goal of the pilot’s is to increase engagement of Basic Food work registrants in unsubsidized employment opportunities; increasing participant earnings; and reducing reliance on 

public assistance. 

Washington’s BFET program is an effective program, bolstering 70% employment 

outcomes. The pilot was created to focus on the 30% gap experienced by BFET clients who were not successful, due to the multiple barriers impeding their ability to 

obtain employment resulting in self-sufficiency. 

Through the RISE program, we have contracted with 24 Community Based Organizations (CBOs), the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges, the Work 

Force Development Council) in each pilot county, the Division of Child Support, and 

the Employment Security Department. The CBOs and SBCTC will be providing direct services to RISE participants. The WDCs role is to create work-based learning 

opportunities. Lastly, ESD has been contracted to deliver a required training, Strategies for Success, which was created by DSHS, CBOs, the colleges and employers 

identifying various skills needed to be successful in employment and maintain selfsufficiency. 

RISE Program Overview 

The goal of RISE is to enhance Washington’s current BFET program by adding 

a standardized approach to comprehensive case management (CCM), ability to attend training in soft/work skills referred to as Strategies for Success (SFS), and the 

opportunity to engage participants in Work-Based Learning (WBL) opportunities. 

Comprehensive case management includes coaching, navigation and providing or 

referring participants to other services as needed. SFS trainings are instructor-led 

discussions, which include topics such as balancing work and life stress management, problem solving, and critical thinking, which assist with enabling individual’s 

to deal effectively with the demands and challenges of everyday life. Case Managers 

conduct Assessments and create Individual Employment Plans to ensure for a successful pathway for participants. These additional services will assist clients in barrier resolution and gaining experience needed to become self-sufficient. RISE partners with the Division of Child Support, Alternative Solutions Program to ensure 

non-custodial parents are not arbitrarily penalized as they participate, and to reduce child support challenges. 

Work-based learning can include unsubsidized and subsidized employment, preapprenticeships, work-study, internships, career exploration and development of a 

career pathway, and the integration of vocational skills and employability skills 

with on-the-job-training, community jobs, transitional jobs, and employer engagement. 

The pilot operates in four counties: King, Pierce, Spokane, and Yakima and is 

available to SNAP work registrants who identify three or more barriers to employVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00391 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
932

ment and meet the target populations identified for the pilot, which are: homeless, 

veteran, limited English proficiency, the long term unemployed, and non-custodial 

parents owing arrears. 

Washington anticipates providing pilot services to 14,000 participants over the 3 

year grant period. Participants are randomly assigned to receive either RISE (treatment group) or BFET (the comparison group) services on a 50/50 ratio, with youth 

assigned at a 70/30 ratio. RISE is funded 100% for the pilot term, with the requirement that all providers work towards identifying a 50% non-Federal match yearly, 

to ensure sustainability of these services and a smooth transition to operating a 

BFET program. 

RISE Pathway 

The RISE pathway begins with comprehensive case management focusing on barrier reduction. As participants move towards the ability to engage in activities, assessments are completed and participant are registered in SFS training. Comprehensive case management (CCM) plays an integral role in supporting the client 

as they engage on their pathway to success. Once SFS is completed, case managers 

complete an Individual Employment Plan and progress to training, education or 

work-based learning and/or job search activities and co-enrollment in BFET. 

The core services of the program are comprehensive case management, strategies 

for success, and work-based learning services. Secondary services include BFET 

services, to include: service coordination, navigation of financial and academic resources, job readiness training, job search, vocational education, and retention and 

career advancement services. 

RISE Today 

Providers continue to conduct outreach and marketing activities to engage potential participants. The RISE pilot has faced challenges in working with providers 

identifying potential eligible work registrants, initially due to DSHS’s limitations in 

sharing client contact information. Recently, DSHS obtained approval to share a list 

of potential RISE participants. 

With the first year coming to a close, the program has reflected on the importance 

of the CCM throughout the RISE pathway. Preliminary results have shown the effectiveness of the model in providing a solid foundation to assist on the path of selfsufficiency. 

As we enter into year 2 of the RISE pilot, DSHS expects enrollments to increase, 

based on continued and more direct outreach by providers. We anticipate an increase in participants moving through the RISE Pathway and co-enrolling with the 

BFET program to obtain sustainable living wage. 

933

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION


11403157.eps 11403158.eps
934

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Mr. Stillman. 

Mr. Anderson, begin when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF JON ANDERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF FAMILY INDEPENDENCE, GEORGIA DIVISION OF FAMILY 

AND CHILDREN SERVICES, ATLANTA, GA 

Mr. ANDERSON. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, thank 

you for allowing me to speak to you about the receipt and use of 

this employment and training grant. Our Division believes that everyone that can work should work. We developed this grant proposal in coordination with our Georgia Department of Labor and 

local workforce investment agencies. 

In our traditional employment and training program, we focused 

our efforts on able-bodied adults without dependent children, or the 

ABAWD population. Prior to a statewide waiver in 2009, we ran 

our ABAWD Program under the mandatory option. The old 

ABAWD Program was extremely cumbersome to administer. It 

took time to hire staff, train them, and let that staff gain proficiency in their jobs, and that usually coincided with the ending 

of the program in that county. And Georgia has always used the 

county-to-county-based approach. 

These counties that we served were drastically different from 

year to year. This inhibited us from being successful in developing 

long-term relationships with organizations and community partners that could assist us with getting the ABAWDs employed, and 

most importantly, keeping them employed. 

Our ABAWD placement activities at that time consisted mostly 

of in-house functions, such as filing, answering phones, janitorial 

services. Our focus was to get the ABAWDs to meet the work reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00394 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN

11403159.eps
935

quirement, and not get them into long-term employment that led 

to self-sufficiency. With long-term job placement in mind, we applied for this employment and training grant to more comprehensively assist our ABAWD population. We looked at how the medical 

community approaches comprehensive care management to find 

ways to address the source of why an ABAWD was not able to gain 

and sustain employment. We have several levels of assessment for 

each ABAWD, each assessment is validated and expanded upon to 

ensure that we have addressed all the barriers. 

The barriers to employment must be addressed if we are to be 

successful in our goal of getting ABAWDs to self-sufficiency. These 

barriers include, but are not limited to, a lack of education, substance abuse, mental health issues, and others. We understand 

that these individuals need hands-on, coordinated, intensive services to address most or all of their barriers. We also knew that relationship development with other state and private organizations 

was key to the success of our pilot. We have worked diligently to 

develop these relationships within our pilot counties. 

The importance of coordinated case management services to the 

success of an ABAWD cannot be underestimated. On the human 

side, it can be scary for some ABAWDs to make new relationships. 

Our customers develop professional relationships and trust with 

our staff. I receive an e-mail from one grant participant on Friday 

of last week that expressed her thanks to our staff. She described 

her anxiety and uncertainty of attending the program orientation. 

After attending the orientation, she felt inspired and now has a 

sense of hope about her future. 

The grant has allowed us to target market trends and jobs that 

will lead to long-term, successful employment. Coordination with 

our technical schools and certificate programs are included. Initially, our grant was to serve those who have been unemployed for 

12 or more months. We saw very quickly the need to expand that 

to any unemployed ABAWD was essential to our success, so we are 

now serving all ABAWDs that are selected for the pilot. 

With the pilot implementation, we completed a phased rollout. 

As of July 1 of this year, all pilot counties are fully operational, 

and even though we are just a few months in, we are already seeing some great outcomes. We have been able to place 60 ABAWDs 

in a variety of jobs, some of them starting at $12 an hour, and 

some that go up to $20 an hour. One population that we did not 

anticipate to serve in our grant was drug felons. On July 1, 2016, 

Georgia removed the restriction of drug felons from participating in 

the SNAP Program. 

Our Department of Corrections and Pardons and Paroles have 

some valuable re-entry programs, however, coordinating with employers that are willing to take a chance on a felon is problematic, 

leading to ABAWD to a dependency on SNAP. Thus far, we have 

been able to assist at least one parolee to gain a $12 an hour job, 

and is no longer receiving SNAP benefits. 

In closing, I want to thank you again for this opportunity to 

speak to you, and the funding that you made available to states to 

try innovative programs like this, that will help us move more people to long-term employment and self-sufficiency. 

Thank you. 

936

[The prepared statement of Mr. Anderson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JON ANDERSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FAMILY

INDEPENDENCE, GEORGIA DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES, ATLANTA, GA 

Georgia SNAP Works 2.0 

A coordinated multi-agency assessment and case management delivery 

system.

This information is being presented for the purpose of providing testimony to the 

Members of the Agriculture Committee’s Nutrition Subcommittee regarding the 

Past, Present and Future of SNAP: Innovation and Success in Employment and 

Training Programs. 

Pilot Overview 

Georgia was awarded $15 million as a grant recipient of the Fiscal Year 2015 

Pilot Projects to Reduce Dependency and Increase Work Requirements and Work Effort under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Grant Application. The Project, titled Georgia SNAP Works 2.0: A coordinated multi-agency assessment and case management delivery system, was written in partnership with the 

Georgia Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS), the Georgia Department 

of Labor (GDOL) and the Georgia Local Workforce Investment Agency (GLWIA) to 

provide services to Able Bodied Adults without Dependents (ABAWDs) in ten Georgia counties (See Map Attached). 

Through this partnership, 2,500 mandatory participants in Georgia’s Employment 

and Training Program (called SNAP Works) will receive coordinated case management services through an integrated system that is based on a medical HMO. Primary case managers work closely with secondary case managers (specialists in partner organizations), each applying their respective expertise to meeting the needs of 

participants and continuously sharing information and insights via a centralized 

web-based system. 

The ten counties providing pilot services were selected based on their number of 

ABAWDs, and the location of SNAP Works offices relative to the GDOL and GLWIA 

location in the county, so as to limit transportation as a barrier to participation. Diversity of the client population was also a factor in selecting the ten counties. Georgia chose to operate in the second largest urban county in the state, several smaller 

rural counties, as well as three counties in the coastal region. The GDOL also researched the areas for the availability of high-demand jobs as well as proximity to 

a technical school for participants who may need further training before being able 

to accept employment. 

For the purposes of the pilot, it was determined that approximately 2,500 individuals would be selected to be in the pilot services group, and approximately 2,500 

in the control group as indicated by the Independent Evaluator. The target population was selected to be ABAWDs who are 18–49 years old and have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Furthermore, all of the counties selected to provide 

grant services were designated as mandatory for participation for ABAWDs residing 

in the project area. Georgia’s E&T Program operated as a mandatory program until 

the economic downturn in 2008. When the program operated from 2009 to 2013 as 

a voluntary program, the participation rate fell below five percent. Concerns about 

the ability to attract clients to the grant operating as a voluntary program led to 

the decision for the pilot to be a mandatory program. In a mandatory program, clients are contacted by mail to attend an orientation. Those failing to attend are sanctioned from 1 to 6 months depending on the number of violations, if good cause is 

not determined. To successfully engage the numbers of clients needed to participate 

during the 3 year study, this type of outreach to clients, along with consequences 

for failure to participate, were deemed necessary. 

Grant Objectives 

The intent of Georgia’s pilot project was to develop and test methods of employment and training programs, and services specifically designed to increase the number of SNAP work registrants who transition to unsubsidized employment, increase 

the earned income of work registrants, and reduce the reliance of work registrants 

on public assistance. The project design involves a mix of strategies that support 

rapid attachment to employment, including: three-tiered participant assessment and 

employment plan development, education and training, job search, intensive case 

management, community partner support services, rehabilitative services for individuals with barriers to employment, and other necessary services such as subVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00396 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
937

stance abuse treatment. This multiple strategy approach is intended to reach individuals with a variety of barriers related to chronic unemployment, such as low 

skills or limited work experience. 

For the purposes of the grant, the following career pathways were selected: manufacturing, warehousing, transportation, medical, automotive, building maintenance 

and welding. In all of the selected areas, these industries have numerous training 

and job opportunities for a variety of backgrounds, interests and barriers. Many of 

the programs required for entry into the selected industry do not require a GED, 

and some do not require a background check. These career pathways were also selected because they are not exclusively entry-level and most pay above minimum 

wage. The original goal of the grant was to provide opportunities to clients to once 

and for all foster true and meaningful reduction of reliance on public SNAP assistance in the state, therefore the selected career pathways were intended to provide 

participants with a living wage of no less than $12.00 per hour. 

Initially, Georgia DFCS SNAP Works case managers conduct a brief Participant 

Employability Assessment to confirm the participant as a mandatory work registrant as well as to determine whether participants meet the criteria for the grant. 

If selected, the participant will then be referred to GDOL case managers for primary 

case management. Each participant is assigned a GDOL primary case manager who 

guides the participant from beginning to end, while coordinating the efforts and inputs of all partner case management contributions. 

Upon receipt of the referral from DFCS and the results of the initial assessment, 

GDOL staff conduct a second employability readiness assessment of the participant’s skills, experience, education, credentials, work readiness/soft skills, and barriers. The primary case manager develops a customized Individual Employment 

Plan (IEP) for each participant, with the establishment of an occupational goal, a 

career path, potential barriers, and a mitigation plan for those barriers. If the 

GDOL primary case manager determines a participant is immediately employable, 

the customer will receive pre-employment and work readiness services as needed, 

and a staff-assisted and self-directed job search will begin. If the GDOL primary 

case manager determines the participant needs educational or training prerequisites 

prior to employment in the chosen occupation, the participant will be referred to the 

appropriate GLWIA for education and training services. 

The GLWIA case manager guides the participant to successful completion of a 

training program as provided through the Georgia Technical College System and 

other approved Georgia education and training providers. They outline available 

training options within the participant’s preferred career pathway and utilize DFCS 

and GDOL assessment results, including identified barriers, to drive the activities. 

After training is completed, the case manager will refer participants back to GDOL 

for job placement and advisement on employment options. 

Pilot Update 

Shortly after notification of the grant award, DFCS and GDOL project staff began 

meeting to ensure that the pilot was implemented as outlined in the grant application. This included development of participant workshops, hiring grant positions, developing a communication protocol between the agencies, developing training documents, as well as GDOL developing the web-based system used for case management documentation. 

Additionally, we have been working closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its evaluation contractors, Mathematica Policy Research and its 

partner MDRC, to ensure the pilot has a strong study design. Training sessions 

were held for DFCS, GDOL and GLWIA case management staff beginning in November 2015. MDRC conducted training for grant staff on how to conduct random 

assignment in late January 2016. Shortly after receiving OMB approval, random assignments to the grant began in February 2016 in two pilot counties. Additional 

counties were added monthly with all ten counties operational by July 1, 2016. 

Referrals to the pilot begin with DFCS inviting clients in the ten pilot counties 

to attend orientation. A report of mandatory ABAWDs is received weekly in each 

county and orientation letters are generated from this report. Each county has a 

monthly quota of participants required to volunteer for a chance to receive the enhanced services, based on the 5,000 total clients the pilot is to have served after 

a 24 month enrollment period. 

A cornerstone of the evaluation is random assignment to either pilot services, or 

to the control group (regular E&T Program services), which will demonstrate the degree to which the pilot participants are successful in securing good jobs. Participants 

not volunteering for the pilot are still required to participate with the regular SNAP 

Works Program. 

938

Attendance at orientation was initially low, with less than 10% participating, resulting in the majority of the pilot counties failing to meet the random assignment 

goal. This necessitated a request to change the original pilot target (only inviting 

ABAWDs unemployed 12 months or longer to orientation) to include to all ABAWDs 

regardless of the time unemployed. This change, along with implementing some outreach procedures to participants, such as placing phone calls to clients 2 days before 

orientation, has improved outcomes in all ten pilot counties and increased interest 

in the pilot. SNAP eligibility staff is required to discuss the ABAWD status in detail 

with clients at SNAP intake and case renewal as well as to provide information on 

the pilot. 

With all ten counties fully operational and strategies implemented to attract participants and increase participation, in August 2016 DFCS met referral goals. Currently over 1⁄2 of recipients who have been selected to receive pilot services have attended their first GDOL orientation. Of these initial referrals, there are several success stories that would not have been possible without the pilot and the partnership 

of DFCS, GDOL, GLWIA and other pilot partners working together to secure a successful outcome. 

1. Systemic Success Stories 

An essential core of Georgia’s grant is a case management ‘primary care’ approach, where critical community partners coordinate their respective services to address the employability of SNAP recipients. For example:

a. M.K. is a veteran suffering from behavioral and substance abuse issues that 

are negatively impacting his ability to search for—and obtain/hold—employment. Collaborative services from the GDOL, Veterans Services, and community substance abuse treatment are being coordinated by the SNAP program, 

to mitigate barriers to successful employment.

b. C.W. is a young lady with developmental and educational challenges, who has 

no work history. She is currently unable to pass prerequisite tests to enter 

post-secondary training opportunities. Collaborative services from DFCS, 

GDOL, Georgia Vocational Rehabilitative Agency and a local WIOA workforce 

partner are coordinating their efforts to secure a supportive and work-based 

on the job training opportunity.

c. Y.S. is a young man who was released from prison after being incarcerated 

for 7 years. Working with GDOL’s knowledge of employers willing to employ 

people with a criminal background, the client was able to find a job shortly 

after joining the program with EmployBridge, making over $12.00 an hour 

and is no longer receiving benefits. With the network of partners afforded to 

him through this pilot, he is continuing to work on the barriers many prisoners face at re-entry. 

2. Employment Outcomes 

All grant participants receive pre-employment workshops and career guidance assistance from GDOL, and receive assistance creating and posting an on-line re ́sume ́

in the Employ Georgia system. These re ́sume ́s are searchable by employers and provide automatic job matches and alerts to both interested employers and the job 

seeker participant. 

Below are just a few examples of employment outcomes gained through the collaborative efforts of the program. Given the early stages of this evaluation study, 

long-term analysis will continue regarding the wage career laddering growth of 

these and all participants.

a. J.J. obtained employment with Chenga Security at the CDC, working as an 

Asset Protection Officer, earning $20.45 per hour. She is an Army Veteran 

with prior experience in Human Intelligence Collection, a Bachelor’s Degree 

in Criminal Justice and a Master’s Degree in Forensic Psychology, all of 

which support this career path.

b. A.D. obtained employment with the Argos USA Corporation working as a CSR 

Field Technician, earning $15 per hour. She previously had 7 years’ experience as a hospitality clerk, with only a GED certification.

c. C.C. obtained employment at Transportation Security Administration at 

Hartsfield Jackson International Airport working as a Transportation Security Agent, earning $14 per hour. She previously worked as a graphic artist 

instructor, with a Bachelor’s Degree in Media Arts, but was interested in a 

career change.

d. C.W. obtained employment with Chime Solutions working as a Health Plan 

Specialist, earning $14 per hour. He previously worked various jobs as a 

939

warehouse worker, baker and customer service representative, with a Bachelor’s Degree in Culinary Arts. He is now most interested in pursuing a sales 

and customer service career path.

e. O.S. obtained employment with the Coca Cola Bottling Company as a Warehouse Associate/Forklift Operator, earning $13.62 per hour. He previously 

worked as a security officer and customer service representative. Having only 

a high school diploma, he sought a forklift operator’s license to pursue employment in the high demand logistics career path.

f. R.C. obtained employment with Gainesville Fire Protection working as a Fire 

& Sprinkler System Assistant, earning $12.50 per hour. He previously worked 

as a sales representative in telephone communications.

g. D.K. obtained employment with Direct Hit Logistics (DHL) as a materials 

handler, earning @ $5,000 per quarter (@ $11 per hour). Having no high 

school diploma, she hopes to pursue her GED, and then continuing education 

as a forklift operator to progress in the logistics occupational path.

h. V.S. obtained employment with the DeKalb County Sheriff’s Office as a Detention Officer, earning $2,507 per month (@ $14 per hour). 

3. Education & Training 

As envisioned by the grant, participants who are experiencing a credential deficit 

as an employment barrier are obtaining necessary education and training services 

in a demand occupational pathway.

a. A.M. has completed her first two certificates of completion for her Claims and 

Adjuster and Property and Casualty Agent pre-licensing courses, with one 

course remaining in Accident and Sickness Claims. Upon completion, she will 

be taking her State Licensing examinations.

She worked previously as a sales clerk, and has an Associate’s Degree in 

computer systems. 

At the time of this summary, this is a medium to high demand occupation 

in the Metro Atlanta area, with over 500 openings noted in the past year and 

an average annual salary of $46,580–$75,270.

b. O.S. (noted in the Employment Outcomes above), obtained certification as a 

Forklift Operator.

At the time of this summary, this is a medium to high demand occupation 

in the Metro Atlanta area, with over 540 openings noted in the past year and 

an average annual salary of $24,030–$33,710.

c. T.R. is currently attending a state technical college, pursuing Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning technology certification.

He previously worked as a warehouse pallet operator, and possesses a high 

school diploma with no post-secondary education. 

At the time of this summary, this is a medium to high demand occupation 

in the Metro Atlanta area, with over 530 openings noted in the past year and 

an average annual salary of $32,020–$49,160 per year.

d. P.B. is just commencing activities at a local university, pursuing Digital Marketing credentialing.

He previously worked as a warehouse receiving associate and package handler, possesses a high school diploma with no post-secondary education.

With all counties currently operational, the very extensive data provided by the 

grant evaluator, Mathematica, is being used daily to analyze the progress in each 

of the ten counties to determine where the process is working well, where improvements are needed, and to suggest possible solutions. Very early analysis has shown 

that participants in rural areas still struggle with transportation needs despite 

being provided a monthly allowance, necessitating the need to find alternative resources. Grant partners have also met to discuss other ways to lessen the transportation barrier such as providing services in multiple locations as well as giving participants more options in scheduling activities to lessen the need to report to a 

GDOL office several days a week. 

There have also been a few early findings that were not expected when the grant 

was submitted. For example, more than 50% of the participants possess a high 

school diploma or higher, with fewer needing education or a certificate before being 

deemed as work ready. It was anticipated in the grant application that more than 

1⁄2 the pilot’s participants would need to receive further training, adult education/

GED or to obtain a certificate before being work ready. 

940

Challenges 

Georgia was notified in 2015 that several counties would no longer be eligible for 

the waiver exempting ABAWDs from the ABAWD time-limit on the receipt of benefits to three in 36 months if not participating in a work activity. Three of Georgia’s 

159 counties became time-limited, including Gwinnett County, one of the areas selected for the pilot. 

Participation from the ABAWD population in E&T services in Georgia has been 

a challenge for many years leading to a high rate of clients sanctioned for non-participation. The implementation of the time-limit ABAWD program in Gwinnett 

County has necessitated changing the orientation in that county to include an enhanced explanation of rights and responsibilities, with many ABAWDs still not 

aware that participation in the grant will help them remain eligible for benefits 

while working with GDOL on the job search, or while attending an education or 

training activity. Fewer clients are attending orientations in Gwinnett, one of the 

counties that was expected to have a large number of participants seeking further 

training due to a robust technical school presence in the area. 

Anticipating the level of participation per county and staffing appropriately has 

also been a challenge, along with staff turnover. Some of the smaller pilot counties 

have one case manager conducting orientations as well as meeting individually with 

participants. Adjustments had to be made to hire more staff than anticipated in 

some areas and to designate staff as floaters available to assist in multiple counties. 

This has presented an opportunity for information sharing between staff from partner agencies to regularly meet, talk about any issues and participant needs, and 

gain the knowledge needed to assist the partner agency if the need arises. 

Conclusion 

These early outcomes show the promise of this pilot for providing positive outcomes for the Able Bodied Adult without Dependents population in Georgia. In conclusion, this level of information sharing and skill-building among multiple partners 

is unprecedented and is providing lasting solutions needed to address barriers that 

have led to long-term unemployment and reliance on SNAP. Early indicators demonstrate that as the Georgia partners continue to collaborate and communicate, the 

pilot will afford much needed information on how best to serve the ABAWD population. 

Georgia is grateful for the opportunity to participate in this pilot. 

941

SNAP Works FFY 2017 Service Area E&T Pilot Grant Counties

Pilot Study Counties 

Bulloch Douglas 

Chatham Glynn 

Cherokee Gwinnett 

Clayton Henry 

Dekalb Rockdale 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. 

Mr. Weber, please begin when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF PETER WEBER, FOUNDER, FRESNO BRIDGE 

ACADEMY, FRESNO, CA; ACCOMPANIED BY KIM MCCOY 

WADE, J.D., CALFRESH BRANCH CHIEF, CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, SACRAMENTO, CA 

Mr. WEBER. Madam Chair, Ranking Member, Members of the 

Committee, thank you so much for giving us the opportunity to 

provide this testimony. And, Congressman Costa, thank you for 

your kind introduction, and in particular for your devoted support 

of the Fresno Bridge Academy. 


11403160.eps
942

The Fresno Bridge Academy is a program of Reading and Beyond, a nonprofit organization in Fresno County. It has been operating since 2010. In 2012, Reading and Beyond partnered with the 

Fresno County Department of Social Services to focus its attention 

on lifting SNAP beneficiaries out of poverty, and to do so in a way 

that generates positive returns for taxpayers. 

Prior to the start of the E&T pilot in January of this year, the 

Fresno Bridge Academy had enrolled more than 1,200 families in 

the program, and by the end of last year, we had graduated more 

than 800 of those families. About 75 percent of those families entered the program unemployed. The rest of them were underemployed. About 81 percent of academy graduates have achieved 

success, meaning that they either obtained employment or significantly increased their wage income if they entered the program unemployed. Eighty-five percent of those placed in employment retained their jobs a year later, and importantly, within 18 months 

of enrollment, 30 percent of those enrolled had achieved full selfreliance, meaning that they had over-incomed. 

The Fresno Bridge Academy is a unique two-generation program 

that works with all members of a family to overcome any and all 

barriers to employment. I want to acknowledge that self-selection 

contributes to the success of the program. The Bridge Academy is 

an all-voluntary program. People don’t have to enroll. They don’t 

have to remain enrolled for the 18 month duration of the program. 

They do so because they are motivated to improve the prospects for 

themselves and their families. 

Let me give you an example to help illustrate how the program 

works. When USDA Under Secretary, Kevin Concannon, visited the 

Fresno Bridge Academy in December of 2015, he met a family that 

was comprised of a man, for confidentiality purposes we will call 

him Jose ́, his wife, who we will call Maria, and two teenage sons. 

They were both unemployed, they both had criminal records. They 

had one car. Jose ́ had to come to the Fresno Bridge Academy for 

the most part using his bicycle. Their children were struggling academically. By the time the Under Secretary met with them, the 

Bridge Academy had worked with Jose ́ to get him trained as a 

warehouse technician, and helped him land a job as a forklift driver in a manufacturing company. We had worked with Maria to help 

get her criminal record expunged. We had worked with the two 

children. Both of the parents had undergone a number of life skills 

workshops, including how to manage a household budget while 

their public assistance dollars were diminishing. Now, that was 20 

months ago. Today, Jose ́ is still employed by the same company. He 

has received two promotions. He is now receiving a wage of $15 

and change per hour in a county where the average wage is about 

$21 an hour. This is a job with benefits. The family is completely 

off public assistance. The oldest son just graduated from high 

school and has joined the Navy, and the youngest son has a 3.6 

GPA. 

We have 800 more success stories like that. And as Paul Harvey 

would have said, ‘‘And here is the rest of the story.’’ For every taxpayer dollar invested in the Fresno Bridge Academy, the program 

is returning $5.50 back to the taxpayers. We know that because 

Fresno County contracted for the development of a cost-benefit 

943

model that measures the economic impact of the program, not only 

on families but also on taxpayers. We call it the Fresno Bridge 

Academy ROI model. A document that describes the methodology 

used to do the ROI calculation has been delivered to your Committee staff. 

And I realize I am running out of time, and so I am going to tell 

you more about the E&T pilot during the Q&A portion of the hearing. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Weber and Ms. McCoy Wade 

follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER WEBER, FOUNDER, FRESNO BRIDGE ACADEMY, 

FRESNO, CA 

Reading and Beyond’s Fresno Bridge Academy has demonstrated its ability to 

help families move from public assistance to self-reliance since 2010. In 2012, it 

partnered with the Fresno County Department of Social Services to focus primarily 

on SNAP beneficiaries (formerly food stamps, a.k.a. CalFresh in California). The 

need for services as described in this document has increased significantly since the 

start of the Great Recession. The SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) program 

has served as our primary source of funding for delivery of services to help SNAP 

beneficiaries obtain employment, boost wages and transition to self-sufficiency. 

Between May 2010 and December 2015, the Bridge Academy enrolled almost 

1,200 families. As a result of being awarded a USDA grant to become one of ten 

nationwide SNAP E&T pilots to help inform public policy on how to increase wage 

income and self-sufficiency, recruitment has significantly accelerated. More than 

1,500 families have already been enrolled in 2016 to participate in the pilot. 

The Fresno Bridge Academy has been effective in employment placement and job 

retention among adults who are most in need. Since the Bridge Academy’s launch 

in May 2010, more than 80 percent of participants have attained and retained new 

employment and/or significant wage progression. This success rate allows about 30 

percent of families to achieve self-reliance by the time of graduation from the 18 

month program. 

The Fresno Bridge Academy has achieved high cost-effectiveness by partnering 

with organizations that provide an array of services needed by families to overcome 

barriers. The model is based on eight core principles:

➢ Dual-Generation Theory of Change. The entire family is enrolled—all the 

adults and children living in the home.

➢ Comprehensive Wrap-Around Services. In addition to job training, assistance obtaining a GED and help with job placement, adults in the family are 

provided a wide range of life skills, and children in the family are mentored and 

tutored.

➢ Mentorship. Every family is assigned a Career and Family Navigator who 

stays with the family from date of enrollment until program completion.

➢ Place-Based. Bridge academies are located in neighborhoods of concentrated 

poverty to deliver services where people live.

➢ Integrated. The FBA has achieved high cost-effectiveness by partnering with 

organizations that provide an array of services needed by families to overcome 

barriers. The FBA has a network of more than 175 service providers that offer 

a wide range of services to participating families. It has helped place its graduates with more than 200 employers.

➢ Jobs With Upward Mobility. The FBA subscribes to what it calls an ‘‘A–B–

C’’ approach, helping heads-of-household obtain the education, training and life 

skills needed to get A job, then a Better job, then a Career.

➢ Evidence-Based. The effectiveness of FBA interventions has been validated 

by respected researchers from across the nation.

➢ Outcomes-Based. The FBA rigorously measures income gains, job retention 

and attainment of self-reliance for its participating families, as well as program 

ROI for taxpayers.

The Fresno Bridge Academy is the first E&T Program in the nation to build a 

cost-benefit model that monetizes the social benefits of the interventions provided. 

A document providing a detailed description of the methodology used to determine 

944

1 ROI assumptions (including Causal Percentage and Fadeout Factor) were determined based 

upon the review of ROI models and research studies which employed similar methods. 

ROI has been delivered to staff of the House Agricultural Committee. The model 

uses standard economic discount rate techniques; cohort comparison analysis; publicly available data on the benefits of certain interventions; and, reasoned assumptions about the causal effects of improved outcomes and how long impacts are expected to persist.1 As an illustration, for the FBA Class that graduated in March 2014, every $1 spent on the program generated total benefit of $22.28, with $16.78 

of the benefits going to the participating families and $5.50 going to taxpayers. 

The Fresno Bridge Academy is successful because of its commitment to researchbased and evidence-based practices. The Fresno Bridge Academy components have 

been validated by researchers from Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago (2012). 

Four specific characteristics of successful workforce development programs were uncovered by these researchers, including the following: (1) providing support services 

and case management; (2) flexible programming and service delivery; (3) family engagement in programs; and (4) focusing on the quality of job placement. 

Research conducted by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities also supports 

the Fresno Bridge Academy model. These researchers conducted a scan of common 

characteristics across effective E&T programs or approaches, which include providing education or remediation to allow individuals with low educational levels to 

access industry-specific training programs; individualized, hands-on-work to build 

life-skills (setting goals, time management, making good decisions, stress management, etc.); and, provision of supportive services (transportation and flexible funds 

to help purchase items to help individuals work or look for work). All of these elements are embedded within the Fresno Bridge Academy model. 

In a more recent study by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (2014), researchers investigated the effectiveness of a ‘‘two-generation approach’’ (also known as ‘‘dual 

generation approach’’) in helping families achieve economic self-reliance, which is 

the basis of the Fresno Bridge Academy model. Researchers discovered that some 

of the Federal and state programs designed to help low-income families overcome 

their daily challenges operate in isolation from one another; and that these programs focused on either the children or parents, but not both. This study details 

the three key components of a two-generation strategy, all embedded within the 

Fresno Bridge Academy model: ‘‘(1) Provide parents with multiple pathways to get 

family-supporting jobs and achieve financial stability; (2) Ensure access to highquality early childhood education and enriching elementary school experiences; and, 

(3) Equip parents to better support their children socially and emotionally and to 

advocate for their kids’ education.’’

Due to the success of the model, the Fresno Bridge Academy was selected as one 

of ten national SNAP E&T pilots to significantly scale-up services and test innovative strategies that may speed the process of families attaining self-reliance. The 

Fresno Bridge Academy has been expanded from three to nine sites and will now 

be able to serve more than 2,000 additional families. The Pilot Program targets 

work registrants in specific urban and rural populations of Fresno County that are 

comparable to those of the neediest counties in California; moreover, these areas exhibit both a high rate of poverty (more than 20%) and unemployment (more than 

8%). 

The Fresno Bridge Academy’s SNAP E&T Pilot Program builds on the traditional 

Bridge Academy Model, adding the following interventions:

1. Wage subsidies. Although we only offer wage subsidies for employers willing 

to hire the hardest to employ, or to employers offering premium wages, we 

thought the program would benefit by having some ability to compete with 

the TANF program, which offers wage subsidies.

2. Education Navigators. Many of the people we serve do not have high school 

diplomas or GED’s. We have found that traditional GED programs are too 

slow and impersonal. We have an in-house, highly individualized program 

that enables our participants to get their GED’s much faster. And those same 

navigators help support the vocational training of our participants.

2. Incentives. The Bridge Academy is an entirely voluntary program. SNAP 

beneficiaries are not required to enroll and don’t have to remain enrolled for 

18 months. We find that participants will sometimes want to drop out of the 

program after they have been placed in a job. We want them to stay enrolled, 

so we offer them a small cash benefit payable only if they complete the 18 

month program. And we offer them a small cash benefit for every unit of instruction they complete to continue to upgrade their skills after they have 

been placed in employment.

945

The program conducts an in-depth assessment to determine the participant’s appropriate ‘‘pathway’’ or case plan and potential family needs that may be a barrier 

to sustained employment. Once the participant’s case plan has been developed they 

will be placed in one or more (typically more) of the following activities: 

1. Education 

a. Academic support geared to assist participants in obtaining their GED or 

High School Diploma and/or Associate’s or Bachelor’s Degree.

b. Structured activities designed to improve language proficiency, math and 

reading skills, digital literacy, test taking skills, and other subjects depending 

on the needs of the participants. 

2. Job Training 

a. Following an assessment process, participants are enrolled in vocational training suited to their aptitudes and interests and for jobs that are available in 

the local economy. 

3. Job Search 

a. Group and one-on-one soft skills development including re ́sume ́ preparation, 

cover letter writing, interviewing strategies, up-to-date job search techniques, 

etc.;

b. Direct assistance with job search and applications including identifying best 

company and positions matches based on their hard skills and interests. 

4. Wraparound Services 

a. On-going case management conducted by Career/Family Navigators.

b. Additional topics to be addressed: nutrition, health, civic engagement, parenting, housing, Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), financial literacy, and financial management.

c. Resolution of various employment barriers including; childcare, transportation, 

clothing, tools, work licenses, housing, and enrollment among others.

d. Mentoring and tutoring of children, particularly to help them read and do 

math at grade level, get exposure to the arts, and show up for class. 

5. Subsidized Employment 

a. Subsidized employment will be provided to approximately 1⁄3 of participants 

to encourage employers to hire the hardest to hire SNAP recipients, or to employers offering premium wages.

In order to enhance upward mobility of participants, the pilot program will partner with training organizations to offer more career ladder programs in the evenings 

and weekends. A partnership with the Fresno County Economic Development Corporation is in place to assist in placing participants in high-wage, high-demand occupations in high-growth industry clusters. Participants will be offered incentives to 

continue to upgrade their skills after first employment. The program will provide 

1 year retention monitoring to ensure sustainability of outcomes and participants 

will be provided incentives to retain contact with Career & Family Navigators. 

The Pilot participants are being recruited and enrolled over a period of 18 months 

that started in late January 2016, and families will remain enrolled for approximately 18 months, with total Pilot duration of 36 months. In accordance with a protocol developed with Mathematica, the program evaluator contracted by the USDA 

Food and Nutrition Services Agency, participants are assigned to one of three 

groups:

➢ One group will receive the standard Bridge Academy services;

➢ The second group will receive the enhanced services described above; and

➢ The third group will receive no services.

Outcomes will be evaluated against a similarly sized control group with comparable demographic characteristics. The Fresno Bridge Academy’s SNAP E&T Pilot 

Program is aimed at overcoming past obstacles to attainment of self-reliance and 

at heightening the program’s ability to achieve two overarching goals: (1) Participants are self-reliant and no longer receiving SNAP benefits, and (2) Family quality 

of life has improved. Specifically, the primary goals of the pilot program are as follows:

• Replicability will be demonstrated by expanding to six urban neighborhoods and 

three rural communities in Fresno County.

946

• At least 75% of the participants in the program will obtain and retain employment or receive wage increases at least 50% higher than the then-current rate 

of inflation;

• At least 45% of the participants will achieve self-reliance and will no longer be 

eligible for receipt of SNAP benefits; and

• The pilot will produce a minimum 4 to 1 return on investment to taxpayers, 

i.e., for every $1 of taxpayer funds expended, the pilot will produce a verifiable 

reduction of $4 in taxpayer outlays for SNAP benefits and an increase in the 

income taxes paid by the program participants. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KIM MCCOY WADE, J.D., CALFRESH BRANCH CHIEF, 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, SACRAMENTO, CA 

California is moving to significantly expand both the quantity and quality of Employment & Training (E&T) services offered by the 58 county human services agencies to the 4.4 million participants in SNAP (known as CalFresh). The state, the 

counties, private service providers, employers and other workforce stakeholders are 

working in partnership to assist more participants than ever before in obtaining 

good jobs, securing better wages, and attaining careers that lead to self-sufficiency. 

SNAP E&T Priorities: A total of 33 of California’s 58 county human services 

agencies, serving the majority of the state’s SNAP E&T eligible population, plan to 

offer a voluntary SNAP E&T program in the upcoming Federal fiscal year, up from 

25 counties in the current year. The California Department of Social Services 

(CDSS) is prioritizing three strategies to support and strengthen California counties’ 

SNAP E&T programs:

1. Outcomes. CDSS is focused on measuring outcomes for participants by 

strengthening reporting systems throughout the state. To this end, CDSS will 

facilitate the collection of employment and wage data for SNAP E&T programs through a new data sharing agreement with the California Employment Development Department (EDD). This agreement is in part a result of 

the existing outcome measurement efforts of counties like San Francisco, 

which in tracking 752 participants found that: 46% have earnings 18 months 

after exiting E&T; 53% are no longer receiving SNAP benefits at that point; 

and overall, there is a 123% increase in earnings from 6 months pre- and 6 

months post-E&T participation. CDSS is also exploring the possibility of joining a centralized, statewide data-matching workforce hub that may be 

accessed by local and regional workforce boards, SNAP E&T programs, and 

other workforce programs to support accurate, comprehensive data collection 

across this sector.

2. Comprehensive Job-Driven Approach. California counties are weaving together job training, especially vocational and certificate programs; barrier removal; and case management to deliver effective workforce services to SNAP 

participants that lead to better jobs, wages, and careers. As an example of 

this effort, CDSS and our county partners are forging a new partnership with 

the state’s workforce development system, as many priority populations, services and outcomes align with SNAP E&T. CDSS also has been chosen as one 

of ten states to participate in the ‘‘SNAP to Skills’’ program administered by 

the USDA Food and Nutrition Service. SNAP to Skills provides multifaceted 

technical assistance in the design and development of better and stronger jobdriven SNAP E&T programs. These models provide for tailoring to the local 

and regional job-market—both to the employment sectors and to the employee 

population, including special populations like veterans, those recently released from prison, and first generation college students.

3. Public-Private Partnerships to Deliver E&T Services. Next fiscal year, 

California’s 33 SNAP E&T counties will contract with more than 40 organizations across the state, most of which are nonprofit agencies. Over 20% of 

county E&T budgets are for these contractual services, an increase of $7.8 

million over the current fiscal year. Many contracts are for third-party reimbursement programs, which are programs operated by non-government providers that self-fund at least 1⁄2 of their costs to serve the SNAP population 

and receive the available Federal match. Under this model, Fresno County is 

participating in the national, ten site pilot with Reading and Beyond’s 

Bridges Academy. Other counties are piloting an innovative third-party intermediary model known as ‘‘Fresh Success:’’ under this model, Sacramento and 

Santa Clara counties are partnering with their local community colleges and 

947

Contra Costa County with a local nonprofit organization to deliver E&T services.

Recommendations: Based on the experiences of CDSS and the counties operating and expanding SNAP E&T, we respectfully recommend for the Committee’s 

consideration:

1. Further Alignment between Workforce Investments, such as those funded through SNAP, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and the 

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), to deliver unified services 

to our families and streamline administration, reporting, and service delivery.

2. Allow E&T Wage Subsidies to Engage More Employers, especially to encourage taking a chance on more vulnerable employees. San Francisco County’s JOBS NOW! uses local funds to partner with private employers to great 

success. Allowing SNAP E&T funds to be used for subsidized wages would 

allow more counties and more employers to participate.

3. Continue 100% and 50/50 Match Funding to ensure high-quality services, 

rigorous outcome measurement, and effective oversight.

Work Success Stories: The state, counties, private service providers, employers, 

and other stakeholders are working together with USDA to provide rigorous outcome data. Equally compelling are the individual stories of graduates of SNAP E&T 

programs, like this one from San Francisco:

Hello, my name is Denise Baker and I’m fifty years old. I was born and 

raised in Oklahoma City. I came from a middle class family of six. I didn’t 

have it rough growing up. I came from a family who valued morals and ethics. But when I became an adult, I chose the wrong path in life chasing the 

cares of this world and going down the wrong path knowing right from 

wrong. And yet, I chose to be a part of the wrong crowd. 

Because I chose wrong ways, it took me to places I didn’t want to be in 

like jails and prison and that became my way of life for the next 27 years. 

It was then when I hit rock bottom because of the vicious cycle of drug use 

that I couldn’t seem to change my life in an atmosphere that was unhealthy 

for me that I became suicidal. And before I could carry it out, I heard a 

voice inside me saying, ‘‘Call your daughter who lives in California!’’ So I 

did. I told her what was going on in my life and I needed to change. She 

sent for me and from that very moment, my life changed forever! She 

brought me to a place in San Francisco in hopes to find help for me, and 

she did. Here is where hope became possible. 

I applied for General Assistance and SNAP benefits and the job resources 

became unlimited! I started participating in SNAP E&T activities and 

heard about the JOBS NOW! program. The UCSF EXCEL internship program is part of the wage subsidy tier of JOBS NOW! After being accepted 

to the program I participated in a 10 week classroom skills training with 

one of the E&T training providers, and learned how to use Microsoft Office, 

professional communication, and improved my public speaking skills by presenting on topics to my classmates. 

After completing the skills training, I started a 4 month subsidized employment internship with the UCSF Medical Center. After completing my internship I was offered a full-time temporary position with the UCSF Medical 

Center Human Resources department. I am responsible for turning paper 

into digital and I love my job and the people I work for and with. It has 

been very rewarding for me to be a part of a society of working people. 

Through this experience I have a new-found respect for people who work 

hard every day to provide for their families while also helping others improve their work skills. Thanks to programs like SNAP E&T and JOBS 

NOW!, I now believe in myself and know that I am employable and can become a productive member of society by doing the right thing because it’s the 

right thing to do! 

Thank you for taking a chance on someone like me who didn’t believe that 

I could be a success story. I am doing great and I’m still employed with 

UCSF Medical Center to this very day. There are so many people who have 

not been given this opportunity for change. I feel programs like SNAP E&T 

in San Francisco help a lot of people come out of their rut and low to no 

income situations.

Thank you for including the California Department of Social Services, our counties, our clients, and our partners in this important discussion of Employment and 

948

Training opportunities, so more participants in SNAP can achieve better jobs, 

wages, and careers.

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. Thank you, panel. 

We understand that each state operates a SNAP employment 

and training program. Can you three just quickly talk about each 

of your states’ core E&T program, and what services are offered 

across the state, including how you engage recipients to begin 

with? Mr. Stillman, I will just start with you, if you could quickly 

summarize that. 

Mr. STILLMAN. Thank you very much for the question, Madam 

Chair. 

The core of the program really is focused through a partnership 

with community-based organizations and community colleges. In 

Washington State, we were very fortunate in the mid-1990s to have 

some very creative folks who came together in the Seattle area to 

build a relationship between the nonprofits, community-based organizations and the community college, to meet a need for clients who 

were leaving TANF, still on food assistance, and our mantra is, 

‘‘Get a job, keep a job, earn more money.’’ In that context, they 

were leaving public assistance but not really succeeding in terms 

of having a livable wage job. So our legislature and, of course, with 

the support of Federal funding, we took the opportunity to spread 

that across the entire state. The core of our program is in each and 

every community college with foundational relationships, and with 

the community-based organizations and nonprofits. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. And, Mr. Anderson, and, specifically, how do you engage recipients? 

Mr. ANDERSON. We engage our recipients, we send out letters to 

them, and we have orientation that they come in and we explain 

the workfare program and how to comply with that. We have one 

county where we have a contract with our Goodwill that has ten 

certificate programs that can help employees get to jobs that can 

help them gain good, long-term employment. It is voluntary, so 

participation in the voluntary program is disappointing to us. We 

started, for example, in the beginning of January 2016, we had 

6,100 ABAWDs participating in the three counties that we were operating in, and at the expiration of the 3 month time limit we were 

down to 2,590 that were actually participating in jobs or workfare 

that could allow them to continue to receive benefits. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. I appreciate it. Mr. Weber, can you also discuss your core program and how you engage recipients? 

Mr. WEBER. Sure. We are place-based. We have nine academies 

within Fresno County. The county Department of Social Services 

gives us the contact information for every single SNAP beneficiary 

within those neighborhoods. We then call them, invite them in to 

a meeting in which we discuss the program with them, and then 

enroll those who are interested in signing up for what is an 18 

month program. 

The core services are comprehensive. We provide everything from 

education support to employment training, to life skills training, 

and we also engage the children. We have a separate source of 

funding to engage the children so that we are addressing the family holistically. 

949

The CHAIRWOMAN. I appreciate it. Mr. Anderson, just a real 

quick follow-up. We know that each state can require mandatory 

participation of SNAP recipients subject to the work requirements, 

however, the majority of states offer voluntary participation. What 

factors did Georgia consider when implementing mandatory participation in both the core E&T program, as well as to test mandatory 

participation in the pilot projects? Can you speak about that? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Sure, I would be happy to. Traditionally, we ran 

the program pilot in 2009 as a mandatory program, and participation even at that time our success rates were fairly low, just because we didn’t have those coordinated services to address all the 

barriers that the ABAWDs may need. In 2009, we switched over to 

a voluntary program as all states received a waiver with that, and 

we are beginning to see in those areas that there was a need to 

change our focus to not just helping get to the work requirement 

to more helping them become self-sufficient, find jobs that could become self-sufficient. As part of our grant, we were able to look with 

our other partner agencies that focused on work to try to find ways 

in emerging market trends and jobs that would be coming available 

for these types of individuals that don’t have college degrees, to get 

certificate programs or some vocational training that can help them 

get into good-paying jobs. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. And then just quickly, how do you interface, 

Mr. Anderson, with TANF, for example? 

Mr. ANDERSON. With the TANF Program, we currently separate, 

we have siloed thinking on that. Our TANF Program focuses more 

on families with small children, and trying to help the pregnant 

women and parents with small children get employment. And then 

on the E&T grant, we have always focused on the other side of the 

population; those adults that don’t have children, to try to focus in 

that area. They have had siloed thinking in the past. We have 

started thinking more about, as we look at the employment services side of it, a lot of the basic job responsibilities and functions 

are similar on developing resources, and trying to help individuals 

address barriers. 

In one of our pilot counties, we have started looking at combining 

the supervision, not mixing the responsibilities of the actual employee, but combining the supervision of the TANF employment 

services staff with the pilot county employment and training staff 

so that we are maximizing our resources in both programs. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Okay. I appreciate it. 

I will have to stop you there. I now recognize Ranking Member 

McGovern, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you. This is to Ms. McCoy Wade or Mr. 

Weber. As you know, SNAP has a 3 month time limit for adults 

not raising minor children. If those individuals cannot find a job or 

a qualifying job training program within 3 months of receiving 

SNAP then they are cut off. States can waive the time limit in 

areas with high unemployment. California is currently taking advantage of the waiver. Presumably, that has been important, since 

some parts of your state continue to have unemployment that exceeds ten percent. 

Now, some in Congress have called to end the waivers altogether. 

What would that mean for California? Do we provide you with 

950

enough funding to create qualifying work slots for this group, and 

can they find them elsewhere, or would some individuals who are 

willing to work be cut off from food assistance? 

Ms. MCCOY WADE. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. 

Yes, in California, we are anticipating the end of the waiver in 

parts of the state in about 18 months, and we are engaged in a lot 

of planning on that because we do think the rule would be very 

harshly felt by families. And it is very complicated, frankly, to administer and administer accurately. 

No, we do not have enough jobs and enough job training and 

enough job slots. We are currently very excited that about 1⁄2 of our 

counties currently have a voluntary E&T program, and as of October, eight more are coming on. So we are growing our capacity, but 

not nearly enough to meet the hundreds of thousands of folks in 

California who are working and are looking to improve their skills. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Now, some of my colleagues have called for 

TANF-style work requirements in SNAP. Could we accomplish the 

kinds of innovative programming that you provide under a TANF 

work requirement framework in SNAP, what do you think of that 

approach for the SNAP Program? 

Ms. MCCOY WADE. Well, we are learning from our colleagues in 

Washington that the best approach really is to put skills and training at the front of the line, and give folks that work experience that 

allow them to have a long-term, life-changing path to better wages 

and a better career. So that is the model that we are going for. 

What is the assessment up-front, that case management, that barrier reduction that puts them on a path to sustainability. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. If I may add to that, Congressman. And this is a 

perspective from a businessperson. I am a retired CEO of a couple 

of companies. 

I would rather hire somebody who wants to work, rather than 

somebody who is being forced to work. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Yes. 

Mr. WEBER. I would also suggest from a taxpayer perspective 

that an investment in developing the skills and capacities so that 

people can get a job and sustain that job over time, is a very important consideration for this Committee. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you. Let me ask another question. Ms. 

McCoy Wade, Mr. Weber, or Mr. Stillman. Low-income adults can 

face a lot of challenges to finding a job, or finding a job with advancement opportunities. Two of the biggest problems I hear that 

people have are with transportation and affordable child care. 

Without those in place, even skilled workers can find it hard to 

take and keep a job. Can you tell me if these are real concerns for 

your clients, and give us some examples. And SNAP E&T gives 

states Federal matching funds to provide transportation and child 

care for people in job training programs. Is that important and 

could we do more? What would you recommend to Congress on that 

front? 

Mr. STILLMAN. I could not recommend more highly the utilization 

of resources to address transportation issues. After housing, transportation is really the second highest cost barrier to a struggling 

family living in poverty or living on low wages. And it is really 

951

critically important that we consider those challenges. Even in a 

place like Seattle which has some wonderful public transportation, 

going north and south is great, going east and west is not. And so 

we have to take into consideration, even in a community like that 

where we can see the benefits of mass transportation, that there 

are transportation challenges that exist for our clients. 

I will finish by saying I was remiss in not talking about how 

many clients we have: 21,000 clients avail themselves in Washington State, and one of the ways we do address that is through 

having an integrated service delivery system. So the child care, for 

example, that you referenced, I completely agree that it is necessary for families to have access to child care, along with all the 

other supports. Fortunately, in Washington State, we deliver those 

services relatively seamlessly in an intake process that includes 

TANF, SNAP, child care, and even some of our Medicaid Programs. 

So we have the opportunity to interface with our clients in a single 

setting, and then plant the seed, if you are on TANF but leave 

TANF, don’t forget there is SNAP E&T in your future. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Weber, Ms. McCoy Wade? 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, thank you. I would concur with that. Let me explain that in Fresno, we have nine sites; six of them urban, three 

of them rural. Particularly, in the rural communities, transportation is really, really critical because the availability of jobs is constrained. 

As to child care, it is the single funding issue that we struggle 

with the most. It is a real problem. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you. Thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. Congressman Benishek, you are 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Weber, I was kind of interested in this multigenerational 

thing of how you engage the whole family. What are you doing with 

the kids? 

That is the first thing that popped into my mind. 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. When a family is enrolled with the Fresno 

Bridge Academy, we do two assessments. One assessment is of the 

head of household, to see what kind of vocational training, what 

kind of education they need. A lot of these people don’t have high 

school degrees, so we have to do GEDs, and so on and so forth. 

Then we try to connect that to jobs that are available in the current economy. What are their aptitudes, interests, what vocational 

training can we deliver to them. The second assessment is of the 

family as a unit. What are the family’s issues and needs? And with 

regards specifically to the children in the family, our focus is primarily on four indicators. Are they reading at grade level, are they 

doing math at grade level, are they getting exposure to the arts, 

are they showing up for class? If they are not, then we will work 

with them. We’ll refer them. We have referrals. We work with 175 

different service providers in Fresno County to deliver all kinds of 

services to adults as well as to children. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Like making sure the kids get to school? 

Mr. WEBER. We work to make sure that kids get to school. Let 

me explain, Congressman, that our first conversation with a family 

that has children is always about the children. It is about the chilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00411 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
952

dren and how they are doing, because in the end, we have to motivate the adults in the family to want to work. And if you are going 

to motivate them to work, the best way to do that is by encouraging them to think about the future of their kids. And then you 

turn the conversation to how do we help you become the best possible role model for your children. That is our approach. 

Mr. BENISHEK. And that seems to work then? 

Mr. WEBER. It works very well. More than 80 percent of our families are finding success. 

Mr. BENISHEK. These are the people that come to you though. 

They pretty much have to come to you? 

Mr. WEBER. We call them and then invite them to an orientation 

meeting, and then explain what the program is. We ask them to 

make a commitment for 18 months. Now, we generally place them 

in jobs, most of them, within the first 6 months, but we stay with 

them because we want to make sure that the outcomes are sustained. 

Mr. BENISHEK. How many people, that you contact, end up participating in the program? 

Mr. WEBER. It is a difficult question to answer because we get 

the contact information from the county. We make the calls and 

then oftentimes the numbers are no longer good, the people aren’t 

there——

Mr. BENISHEK. What about the people that actually show up for 

one visit, how many of those people end up participating in the program? 

Mr. WEBER. About 77 percent of the people who come to our orientation meetings signed up. 

Mr. BENISHEK. Well, no, I appreciate your work in this, and, 

frankly, having a private-public partnership, to me, is really the 

way to go because with most of these comprehensive services, there 

are people in the community that are better attuned to helping 

those folks than the feds, frankly. So I really appreciate the work 

that you are doing, and the opportunity to learn more about it. 

So what is the obstacle for doing this more widely through the 

state? Is it simply the funding? Is most of your funding then coming from the E&T funds that are provided? 

Mr. WEBER. We are funding-constrained. We think that we ought 

to be able to do what we are doing. We are currently expanding, 

well, we have expanded into a second county. We are going to expand into two more counties in October of this year. 

Mr. BENISHEK. So how much money exactly are you spending 

then in Fresno? What is the amount of your spending to do this 

program you are talking about? 

Mr. WEBER. This is going to be probably a little extraordinary, 

but our cost per family is $1,800 per family over 18 months. The 

reason we are so cost-effective is because we access every possible 

service available to families through other organizations, through 

community colleges, through the ROP Programs, through the 

WIOA, through countless nonprofit organizations. One of our eight 

core principles is we don’t duplicate anything that already exists. 

So we are very, very cost-effective, and that is the reason we are 

able to produce such a high return for taxpayers on the investment 

of taxpayer dollars. 

953

Mr. BENISHEK. All right, thank you very much, all of you, for 

your testimony today. And, Mr. Weber, I am out of time. Thanks. 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. I recognize Congresswoman 

DelBene, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to all of 

you for being with us today. 

I get to brag a little bit about my state today because Washington State has really been a true leader in E&T programs. In 

May 2013, I introduced the Enhancing Employment and Training 

Through Education Act, a 3 year competitive grant fund to encourage states to provide targeted employment and training programs, 

similar to what we have had in Washington State. We had a very 

successful program called Basic Food Employment and Training, 

what we call BFET, and this bill was the basis for the SNAP E&T 

pilots that were in the farm bill. 

As many know, E&T programs differ widely in participation and 

success, and even at the height of the recession, 60 percent of those 

enrolled in Washington’s BFET Program found employment, and in 

one study less than 1⁄2 remained on government assistance 2 years 

after the program. This is the kind of success that Washington 

State has produced, and the kind of success we are all hoping to 

see in these pilots. Helping people find good-paying, long-term employment in a high-demand industry is the best way to ensure that 

everyone has access to economic opportunities. 

And these investments we make not only have an incredible effect on our economy, but also on people’s lives, so I thank you so 

much for all of the work that you are doing. 

Mr. Stillman, you talked a little bit in your testimony about this, 

but can you expand on what we have learned from the BFET Program, the original program, that informed the new pilot program 

that we have, RISE, and what you look forward to learning from 

RISE that we can use, going forward? 

Mr. STILLMAN. To reiterate just a bit, what we have learned from 

the original program is that community engagement matters, and 

the phrase that I used earlier, ‘‘Having skin in the game,’’ matters. 

So those are things that bring together that alchemical combination of local partnership, local educational partnership, local community-based organization partnership, employers and industries 

in a way that is completely different than a top-down-administered 

program. And it is really that opportunity that we are trying to leverage as we look at the experience of our clients in that prior program. Just because we are super proud of what we did before 

doesn’t mean that we didn’t take note of the, let’s say, 35 percent 

or so of the clients who were still struggling within the program. 

And we looked at things like housing, we looked at the criminal 

justice involvement, we looked at transportation, and recognized 

that there are some things in common that we really need to focus 

our attention on if we are going to lift everyone up through that 

process. 

Just as a closing note, as your comments referenced, even during 

the post-recession time, we had some wonderful success. The last 

slide that I provided all of you shows a cohort of progression from 

that 2009 timeframe forward. And it is really building on that exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00413 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
954

perience, building on what we have learned about the needs of families, the needs of individuals, whether they are ABAWDs or families, how do we deliver tailored and unique services that also align 

with sector needs, business needs, in a way that can help grow the 

entire economy and grow families. 

Ms. DELBENE. And why do you think some states fail to make 

use of all their E&T funds, and what difference has this made for 

Washington State? 

Mr. STILLMAN. Boy, commenting on why other states won’t take 

advantage of that is a challenge for me. Perhaps I should start by 

saying thank you, because in some odd way, the failure of other 

states to take advantage of that has meant that we have had more 

opportunity in some instances to draw down some additional resources. That is a sad commentary in terms of a loss. I would say, 

if I were trying to put on the hat of a state that hadn’t done this, 

it is that sometimes we get caught up in simply trying to deliver 

services within a silo. We are going to do TANF, we are going to 

do SNAP, we are going to do child care, we are going to do Medicaid, we are going to do all of these things together, and we fail 

to have a view of the client across that set of systems, and really 

understand that life does happen to our clients and we need to be 

able to deliver those services in a much more braided way. But 

day-to-day demands of a bureaucracy and service delivery can be 

extremely challenging and it can be very difficult to pull back and 

see that big picture. 

Ms. DELBENE. Yes. Thank you so much. I am running out of time 

and so I yield back. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. Mr. Crawford, you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. 

The culture today, we put an awful lot of emphasis on a need for 

a 4 year degree to be successful in this country, and unfortunately, 

we do that to the detriment of our youth. But we have a huge gap 

as a result in technical and vocational jobs that are good-paying 

jobs that aren’t being filled. I am wondering how you, and this is 

to all of you, I am wondering how you are using E&T programs to 

meet the job needs within your state and communities in light of 

the gap in skills in vocational occupations. Anybody want to weighin on that? 

Mr. STILLMAN. So if I may, I would be happy to jump in. In my 

role at the Department of Social and Health Services, I have the 

advantage of sitting on the Washington State Workforce Board. As 

part of the Workforce Board, we have adopted not just collegeready but career-ready as part of our thinking, and it really speaks 

to that point that you brought up about vocational readiness, community college certificates, and other gateways or doorways to employment and to success. We need to be less narrow-minded, if you 

will, about how we prepare our students in middle school, high 

school, and even into apprenticeships and other non-4 year college 

settings. That is a critical part of what we need to do. 

Once again, by being part of a larger system and talking about 

this from the perspective of the individual and the family, we can 

see those opportunities and see where a single focus on a 4 year 

955

college education is really a disadvantage to this larger group of 

people. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Anybody else want to weigh-in on that? 

Ms. MCCOY WADE. Sure. Just three comments, in California, certainly, one of the fastest growing components for us is vocational 

training and certificate training. That is absolutely a growth area 

for us. Second, we have a new agreement with the community college system in California to make sure the community colleges and 

E&T are a bridge. And third, by joining our WIOA folks at the 

table, the WIOA plan in California specifically says tailor to the 

local and regional job market. It is not a job to nowhere, it is a job 

to a job in your community. That is very much a core part of our 

planning. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. I appreciate that. One of the other 

things that we hear repeatedly, at least in my district, is the decline of soft skills in the workplace. I wonder if you might weighin on soft skills development possibly as a pre-employment type of 

a workshop or something along those lines, because we hear that 

repeatedly from our employers because they feel like we can train 

this individual ourselves, but the soft skills are not being modeled 

appropriately. When we talk about mentorship programs or preemployment, can you comment on that? 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. You are absolutely right, we hear that repeatedly from employers in our area: we can train the hard skills, just 

give us people who will show up for work and so on. And they love 

people coming out of the Fresno Bridge Academy because they have 

already shown that they will show up for training, that they will 

have some motivation. And so that is why our people are sought 

after. 

Let me also address your earlier question. One of our eight principles at the Fresno Bridge Academy is what we call our ABC approach, and the ABC approach is get a job, then get a better job, 

and then get a career. We are talking about people often who don’t 

have high school degrees, so they are not going to get 4 year degrees before they get employed. We want to get them into a job at 

a job that has upward mobility, and then continue to upgrade their 

skills so they get a better job, and all of this aimed towards a career. So we start from the family up. We start with what are their 

interests and aptitudes, and so on, so that this is going to stick and 

they are going to want to continue to advance their skills. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Excellent. Mr. Anderson, did you want to comment on that? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. In Georgia, we have never focused on a 4 

year degree. We understand a lot of these folks, and as Mr. Weber 

said, they don’t have high school diplomas. So we developed a contract with our North Georgia Goodwill Association, and they have 

helped with ten career pathways that help people get certificates, 

and some of those include advanced manufacturing operations, production technicians, electronic assembly and soldering, floor installation, custodial, forklift training, general construction, and highway safety, those types of jobs that people don’t have to have degrees for. So we haven’t ever focused on 4 year degrees because we 

believe there are jobs out there, if they are the right kind of job, 

that can get them self-sufficient quickly. 

956

Mr. CRAWFORD. Excellent. 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. I appreciate it. And, Mr. Stillman, I will give you 

the last 20 seconds. 

Mr. STILLMAN. Thank you. Well, I would like to point out that 

we sometimes think of things as being sequential: get a job, I don’t 

need any more help. And so in relation to your question about soft 

skills, one of the things that we try to focus on is problem resolution, even after employment, so that we can offer that sort of coaching, that, ‘‘Hey, you didn’t show up to work today;’’ ‘‘Hey, you are 

not getting along with a coworker today; how can we help you,’’ 

how can we help you keep that job. It isn’t just getting a job, it is 

keeping that job, and then building on that success in order to 

achieve that long-term career goal. So you are exactly right to wonder about the need for it, and it is important that we then support 

the resources we need to make that happen. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. I appreciate it. I yield back. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. Mr. Costa, you are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much. Again, I want to thank the 

Subcommittee because we are really talking about setting the 

groundwork here for the next farm bill, and how we try, hopefully, 

to come together in a bipartisan effort as we look at reauthorization of the SNAP Program and the WIC Program, and this testimony is important to setting that stage. 

When we first looked at reforming welfare in the mid-1990s, I remember very clearly in California that we were struck on the issue 

of employment and training, and how many of the folks that we 

were trying to help didn’t have the necessary educational standards. They didn’t have the high school diploma. And so we had to 

spend the time providing that education so that they could then 

step into the training, so that they could then have the opportunity 

for meaningful job placement. 

To Mr. Weber and Ms. McCoy Wade, I know that the complete 

evaluation of the employment and training program will not be finalized before the next farm bill, but we will have some preliminary data that we can refer to and look to expand the program. But 

given that you are already producing these very good, positive, significant outcomes, shouldn’t we be investing now in programs that 

have been shown to generate such positive social and fiscal benefits? 

Mr. WEBER. Well, Congressman Costa, the answer in short is 

yes. Most of us have read Moneyball in Government, and we want 

the rigorous kind of analysis that is being made available through 

the E&T pilots, but those results are not going to be reported in 

full until 2021. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, and that is part of the challenge because we 

are going to be putting together, we hope, in the next year, 18 

months, the farm bill, and a lot of predeterminations are going to 

be made. 

Mr. WEBER. So we know that there are lots, lots of people out 

there who want the kind of assistance that we can provide, and so 

anything that can be done to provide added funding, we are not 

957

constrained by people’s interest in this program we are constrained 

by funding. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. 

Yes. Ms. McCoy Wade, because a couple of other questions I 

want to ask before my time expires. No, go ahead. 

Ms. MCCOY WADE. I was just going to add that we do——

Mr. COSTA. Did you want to comment on this? 

Ms. MCCOY WADE. We do know something about what works in 

job training, both from the Bridge’s Academy work before the pilot, 

but also from our TANF Programs and from the Recovery Act funding of subsidized employment, in particular, giving employers extra 

incentive to take a chance on some of these employees with limited 

history, more barriers, maybe some soft skills challenges. There are 

things we do know and can invest in before. 

Mr. COSTA. In your department, looking at the Fresno Bridge 

Academy and doing evaluation, obviously, it is a very extraordinary 

program that improves lives and gives an opportunity to become 

independent. Based on your calculations that the $5.50 is being returned to the taxpayers for every taxpayer dollar invested, how 

much of that savings do you think in the outlays for SNAP benefits 

takes place? 

Mr. WEBER. The direct benefits out of the $5.50 to the SNAP 

Program is $1.51: $1.83 is attributable to the fact that people are 

now paying income taxes, whereas before they were not. And the 

rest of it is a combination of a number of different factors, including, for example, the benefit of having a GED and what that means 

in terms of lifetime earnings and taxes paid, and so on. 

Mr. COSTA. We obviously think that you are doing a terrific job, 

but when we look at, clearly, in Washington State, you have done 

some very groundbreaking work, I believe, but how much of this 

is, in terms of the firsthand evidence on the program and improving lives of some of the poorer families in our communities, is this 

program being able to be replicated? 

Mr. WEBER. Well, we started, as you know, Congressman, in two 

locations in Fresno. We are now in nine locations within Fresno 

County, one in San Joaquin County, two coming up, one in Napa 

County, and one in Madera County. So it is very replicable. It is 

very scalable. We just started the E&T pilot in January of this 

year. We have already enrolled 1,563 participants in the E&T pilot 

this year. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Stillman and Mr. Anderson, there is a little bit 

of time left, but what advice would you give the Members of this 

Subcommittee and the full Committee as we look towards reauthorization next year in the farm bill as it relates to the SNAP Program and the WIC Program? 

Mr. STILLMAN. Well, I would keep it simple. Let’s not break what 

is working. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Mr. STILLMAN. Let’s focus our attention on some additional outcome-type orientation. I know there were questions asked earlier 

about things like a work participation rate. As the TANF side of 

the house, it makes me cringe to think about the output measures 

that are associated with that, but I do understand the need for 

public accountability. So let’s identify some outcome measures that 

958

we can all agree to. Further integration with the workforce system, 

particularly where we can rely on intermediaries, whether it is the 

Fresno Bridge Academy, Seattle Jobs Initiative, where we can use 

intermediaries that are at the community level to emphasize how 

we deliver those services. If you can help build an infrastructure 

that influences us, motivates us, pushes us in that direction, and 

still leaves us some room for local creativity, that is what I would 

urge you all to consider as you move forward. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Mr. Anderson, can you answer that in 10 seconds? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I agree with Mr. Stillman. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Perfect. There you go. 

Mr. COSTA. My time has expired. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Yoho, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate everybody 

being here. This is such an important topic, as we know, as we go 

into the next farm bill. And we need to take what is working well, 

refine it, and make it work better. 

Mr. Weber, the Fresno Bridge Academy said it is an 18 month 

program, it is self-enrollment. How do people sort themselves out? 

Is it by want? 

Mr. WEBER. I am sorry, I didn’t get the last part of your question. 

Mr. YOHO. How do they determine to go into that? Are they encouraged to go into that——

Mr. WEBER. Yes. We basically recruit them and we sell the program to them. In the end, they have to decide that they want to 

make this difficult transition. It is very clear to us that we don’t 

have to do the difficult work of navigating the hard pathway from 

where they are to where they can be. 

Mr. YOHO. So these are the more motivated people that want to 

improve their lives. 

Mr. WEBER. There is a self-selection process that is involved in 

this thing, yes. 

Mr. YOHO. Are you finding a certain age group demographic? Is 

it younger families, is it a family, per se, a nuclear family? And I 

don’t want to define a nuclear family for anybody, but it is a family 

structure that works for them, or is it a single individual, male or 

female? 

Mr. WEBER. I would suggest to you that it is all over the place. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. 

Mr. WEBER. It is all over the place. The average age of our participant is 35 years, but it ranges all the way from very young——

Mr. YOHO. As you are screening people to go into the program, 

or that decide to go into that program, what traits are you finding 

people are looking for? Do they have certain people skills or technical skills, or is it just a strong desire or want to change their life? 

Mr. WEBER. I think it is motivation. It is a strong desire to 

change their life. Now, I should tell you that a lot of the people 

that we talk to are people who are deeply depressed, they don’t like 

the conditions of their lives. And so it is not like they are chomping 

at the bit to do something, they are desperate. This is the last line 

of assistance that they have and they are desperate to try to 

959

change their lives. Primarily, that is true where they have children. And it is mostly——

Mr. YOHO. I can remember those days because I was in that lot, 

and I didn’t want to stay there. 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. 

Mr. YOHO. You have 30 percent of the people that come out of 

that, 30 percent become self-sufficient in an 18 month period of 

time. 

Mr. WEBER. That is correct. 

Mr. YOHO. That seems incredibly successful. 

Mr. WEBER. It is. 

Mr. YOHO. And then you have expanded to how many different 

locations, nine, did you say? 

Mr. WEBER. We have nine sites in Fresno County. We are opening up three sites in other counties: one we have already opened, 

two are opening in October. 

Mr. YOHO. And when you say it costs you $1,800 per graduate, 

that is the cost in your program. Where does that funding come 

from? 

Mr. WEBER. That is SNAP E&T funding 100 percent funding, as 

well as some 50/50 funding. 

Mr. YOHO. SNAP E&T. 

Okay, and then, let’s see, blow this up here. You were talking 

about, Mr. Weber, I wanted to ask you another question here. In 

your testimony, you mentioned the Bridge Academy offers a wage 

subsidy for the employers. Can you go into more detail about how 

and why Academy is doing this, and I guess the big thing is, is providing subsidies sustainable long-term? 

Mr. WEBER. Yes. Good question. So let me first point out that the 

results that I have reported today are for the traditional Bridge 

Academy services that did not include wage subsidies. Under the 

E&T pilot, we have requested authorization to offer wage subsidies. 

We have requested that because, particularly with some of the 

hardest to hire people, we have to compete with TANF people who 

do offer subsidies. And so that was an issue for us. Having said 

that, the wage subsidies that we are offering are much lower than 

those of TANF because, quite frankly, we are highly motivated by 

the notion of doing a program that is very cost-effective, and that 

produces good returns for taxpayers, and so we are driven by costeffectiveness. 

Mr. YOHO. Right. Boy, and it sounds like you are doing a good 

job on that. And at 18 months, I assume those subsidies are gone 

or they are starting to wean off. 

Mr. WEBER. The subsidies are gone with 6 months. 

Mr. YOHO. Okay. And I think that is a good investment. 

Mr. Anderson, out of the 6,100 people that applied for your program, and it went down to 2,100, what accounted for only the 30 

percent, roughly, participation? Again, is it the motivation of the 

individual? 

Mr. ANDERSON. It is the motivation of the individual. We do try 

multiple times to get the individual to come in for an orientation 

and talk with them. Three letters, several phone calls to try to get 

them in. And those that just don’t respond are the numbers that 

we reflected. 

960

Mr. YOHO. And then so many times you get in a meeting like this 

or you hear in the news that one group wants to take benefits from 

somebody else. We don’t want to do that, we want to empower the 

people to let them know they are needed. We need people. Everybody working, we want to empower their lives so that they have 

the quality life that they can achieve in this country. As you guys 

have already given us a lot of information as we talk to people, 

that is really where we want to go and empower people to get in, 

move up, and get out. 

And so I appreciate you all being here. Thank you for your time. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. Mr. Ashford, you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. 

I agree, and thank you for being here. This is incredibly important. I spent a number of years as an executive director of the 

Housing Authority in Omaha. We faced these issues every day, and 

I applaud all of you for what you are doing. 

We discussed, in this Committee, on various occasions the idea 

that how far we take people to a certain point, the cliff occurs, and 

they are afraid to jump off because of fear of losing security, food 

or housing, or child care, whatever it is. And that seems to be the 

challenge we all face on the Federal level is what can we do to 

mould Federal law. 

I have spent some time in Washington State and in my years in 

the Nebraska Legislature, I worked quite a bit on juvenile justice 

reform, and have been incredibly impressed by the holistic approach that Washington State takes to evidence-based remedies for 

some of these juvenile justice issues. I apologize if this has been 

asked or answered, but I guess I would like to know, again, can 

we just go down the line, starting with Mr. Stillman. If you were 

to say to me what changes in Federal law and the farm bill should 

we make to make this more commonplace, this attitude of breaking 

down the silos, make it more commonplace and incent states, because certainly our State of Nebraska, we should be accessing the 

Federal funds that are available to get into to make these programmatic changes. We are not doing that. So in some sense, Nebraska needs to take the initiative. But what changes in Federal 

law would you, or could you see the Federal Government doing to 

ease this process? 

Mr. STILLMAN. One thing I would say immediately, and that 

should be structurally obvious from the answers that we have 

given up until now, has to do with the challenge that we face when 

we are working within our silos. We are having to, as the Bridge 

Academy does, reach out and talk to people after they have been 

to one place and another place and another place. And although 

the term data sharing is overused these days, what we need to 

focus on are the barriers to a common intake process where our clients, our customers, are not expected to go from place to place to 

place to place in order to participate in these programs. That onus 

is on us, but I would say it is also on you to identify those places 

where, because of the funding strains, because of the private information restrictions that are built into Federal law, we are really 

hampered by the opportunity to seize the moment when the clients 

are in front of us. So that would be one thing that I urge you to 

961

think about carefully, and would be happy to talk about more indepth at some other time. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Thanks, Mr. Stillman. Mr. Anderson? 

Mr. ANDERSON. Yes, Congressman, thank you. One of the most 

important things for us is that we don’t make changes to Federal 

law that will ultimately hamper the states’ effort to do this. Georgia, specifically, is working with the Seattle Jobs Initiative Group, 

I don’t know if you are familiar with them, to try to find ways to 

get non-state and non-Federal dollars to support the 50/50 match 

on moving the employment and training program forward, to try to 

put more people into jobs and long-term self-sufficiency. So we are 

already moving in that direction in Georgia to try to look at that. 

But, the biggest thing, and I want to bring up what Mr. Stillman 

had said before, it is extremely important to try not to mirror the 

work participation rate that is in the TANF Program and the E&T 

Program because if you look at what is going on, even though it 

is a great goal and it is a great objective, there are a lot of states 

that have trouble meeting those goals because each individual is 

different, each individual’s needs are different. They have different 

barriers that may have to be addressed, and those are kind of hard 

to get to in a statewide number. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Thank you. Mr. Weber? 

Mr. WEBER. Congressman, as you know better than I, there is no 

absence of antipoverty programs in the Federal Government. The 

problem is that most of those programs are very siloed. They are 

very fragmented. And so anything that can be done that encourages innovation, that is driven from the family up, that is to say 

where public-private partnerships can collaborate on outcomes-oriented approaches such as have been described today, would be a 

tremendously beneficial thing to do. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Thank you. Ms. McCoy Wade. 

Ms. MCCOY WADE. And I would echo what has been said about 

alignment between programs, and the right kind of outcomes and 

the right kind of public-private partnerships, but just really add 

that subsidized employment is a missing piece here because we 

want people to be in real jobs with real work experience. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Right. Thank you. This is very helpful. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Gibbs, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for 

being here today, supporting good people finding meaningful work, 

and supporting their families, and self-respect, and all that. 

Recently, in my district I held a roundtable discussion on possible SNAP reforms, and we had all different types of entities in 

there, and one thing that came out that was people that work with 

SNAP recipients, they talked about the trouble that a lot of their 

constituents have with literacy programs, budgeting benefits, and 

handling their finances in general. Does any of your state E&T 

Programs include financial literacy training? If so, what kind of results have you seen? So that is open to anybody who wants to answer. Mr. Weber, I see you getting ready. 

Mr. WEBER. Yes, absolutely. It is critically important. A lot of the 

people that we deal with don’t even have bank accounts. So we 

962

have partnerships, for example, a partnership with Wells Fargo in 

Fresno County where they provide financial literacy. And, of 

course, it is in their best interests because then they are encouraging people to set up bank accounts with them. Maybe shouldn’t 

have mentioned that in light of the recent history with Wells 

Fargo, but nevertheless, there it is. 

Mr. GIBBS. Anybody else want to comment, Mr. Stillman? 

Mr. STILLMAN. I would just echo what was said before. It really 

is life skills, whether they are about literacy or financial literacy, 

are really critical to that. It is about building the foundational 

skills that you need to move ahead, to plan, and to have enough 

bandwidth to withstand some crisis down the road. And so talking 

about building that is really important. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. Mr. Stillman, there are a lot more organizations which seem to work in this area. As to duplication, with all 

the different organizations that you deal with, how do you coordinate the co-enrollment with various programs so you don’t have duplicating services? And we have heard a little bit about the silo 

issue, how do you coordinate so that we get the most bang for our 

buck and the most efficiencies? 

Mr. STILLMAN. Well, we are very fortunate in Washington to 

have a fairly robust information technology backbone, and don’t 

ask me what it stands for, eJAS, and it is an IT backbone that allows multiple participants in the process, meaning our Labor Department, our State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, 

our own staff, to essentially communicate across the system. So 

first we start with a comprehensive evaluation to understand what 

our clients need. We do that evaluation on a routine basis to try 

to update what is needed for that family or individual, and then 

have this backbone system to be able to properly communicate. 

And that is really critical among all these silos that we do more 

than just an every-now-and-then interaction. 

Mr. GIBBS. So we want to make sure that we have programs in 

place, the incentives there, so that we don’t have the duplication 

when we look at the next farm bill, I guess. 

Mr. STILLMAN. Yes. And if we are all using the same measures 

and the same system to communicate with, we can drive out some 

of that duplication. 

Mr. GIBBS. Also, Mr. Stillman, in your testimony, employment 

rates have increased to 61 percent over the last 2 years. What accounts for the 40 percent of the participants that didn’t gain employment? What is keeping them from getting a job? 

Mr. STILLMAN. Well, the many tens of thousands of people who 

participate are all throughout the state. And so our communities 

are not all the same. There were questions earlier and testimony 

referencing areas of high unemployment, so Washington is blessed 

to have mountains and oceans and really good stuff, but we also 

have big urban settings and then many more rural settings where 

we have high unemployment rates. So some of that lack of job attachment is really due to the fact that there aren’t as many opportunities out there for individuals to——

Mr. GIBBS. That leads me to my next question. My next question 

was, in rural counties there might not be the job opportunities, and 

you just stated that. How does it look when we are looking at availVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00422 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
963

ability of opportunities to help these recipients in job training programs? Do you kind of look in their area, in their locale, what is 

available and try to tailor those job training programs to what is 

available? Because it would be different in Washington State, I 

know there is a big difference between the eastern part of the state 

and the western part of the state, so do you kind of look at that, 

at what is available, and tailor those job training programs to that 

locale? 

Mr. STILLMAN. We do. And, in fact, that is one of the reasons 

that the utilization of the community-based organizations and the 

community colleges is so critical, because each of those colleges in 

Washington are centers of excellence around particular industries 

or particular sectors. Focusing on the need of that particular area, 

whether it is water issues, salmon restoration, aircraft and other 

manufacturing, we have these different centers where we are really 

trying to build the capacity not only of the individuals, but build 

the capacity of the community to support the employers that have 

made a decision to invest in that local community. 

Mr. GIBBS. Good. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. The chair recognizes Ms. Lujan 

Grisham, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to 

thank the panel. I hope it is clear that this Committee, in a bipartisan effort, really wants to make these benefits work in a way that 

assists people to move out of poverty. I am in the unfortunate situation at every one of these hearings to, if you don’t already know, 

remind the panel that New Mexico finds itself in a really difficult 

situation where we have some of the highest poverty rates, highest 

food insecurity rates, highest unemployment rates now in the country. And given that oil and gas continues to be unstable and low, 

which is, in addition to ag, one of our large economic sectors, it has 

been really challenging. 

I used to work in state government, and one of the most successful programs that we ran at the time was an employment program 

for older folks. So it is the Older Workers’ Program, we sort of reinvented it, much in the way, Mr. Stillman, that you describe your 

partnerships and the successes in Washington. The key is that we 

were very careful about mandates versus voluntary aspects, recruitment and training of participation, and a real productive relationship with the economic sector and the business sector. Now, that 

has fallen apart in the state, but I am interested really, do you 

have advice, twofold, first, for states that find themselves in the 

situation that New Mexico is in, and second, add to that overarching challenge that it is clear and public knowledge that New 

Mexico has been mismanaging its SNAP Program for decades, that 

is has taken decades to get a Federal investigation, that a district 

court has now required an independent advisor, and the states’ real 

effort here with the threats of losing the administrative match for 

SNAP is still to go after beneficiaries. And there is no doubt in my 

mind that there are some issues with beneficiaries and fraud, 

small, but they pale in comparison to mandatory work requirements, no investment in education, employment training, no incentives, no policies in the farm bill that really put states both in a 

964

proactive and an accountable mechanism to move people off poverty. What advice do you have for me and my state? 

Mr. STILLMAN. That is a tall order. Let me start with that. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. That is why they have a tall Congresswoman. 

Mr. STILLMAN. I want to go back to the client. I think that is 

where we all need to begin. We need to go back to the family, go 

back to the individual and understand where they are coming from, 

and ask ourselves whether the service delivery that we have today 

is meeting them where they are at, as opposed to trying to, I don’t 

know, put that proverbial square peg in a round hole. So that 

would be the place where I would begin. 

I also referenced earlier how important it is in Washington that 

we do integrated service delivery, meaning that we are, again, looking at the entire client. As they present themselves to us, we are 

not trying to look at this piece of data or that piece of data, we are 

really trying to dig a little bit deeper. Yes, we need your demographic information, but we need to understand the circumstances 

of your children, whether there are mental health or developmental 

issues that are brought to bear, and the design an intervention 

that is about that need, about that need at that time, and then follow through. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. I actually completely agree with you. How 

would you envision that getting into policymaking that creates the 

right balance so that, for example, if you have mandatory participation in these programs, sounds great, right? If you say you will lose 

a benefit, that is an accountability measure, if you don’t come to 

an appointment, but I have two developmentally disabled children, 

twins, with an under-funded special education component, a 10 

year wait on the DD waiver, and they are sick, and I can’t get to 

that appointment because I am constrained, and my choices are 

leaving those developmentally disabled children alone at home sick, 

or meeting that missed appointment requirement, and the fact that 

most states do not have integrated systems for universal applications, triggers to make sure that if you are eligible, even though 

we have said that in Federal law, if you are eligible for this Medicaid benefit, then you are eligible for these other benefits. And yet 

we are fighting. And there are many court actions around the country saying, is your state really doing that. What is the right incentive to make sure that states are moving in the direction that 

Washington is? I mean what can this Committee do to assure that 

that becomes the standard bearer in the farm bill? 

Mr. STILLMAN. Well, you mentioned earlier that you are not a fan 

of coercive actions against clients. At least I interpreted your opening statement in that regard. And trying to coerce states to do 

things is equally as challenging. It is an organic system. We are 

people too. So forcing us to do something is not the right answer. 

Incenting us to do things, for example, that family that you referenced, they probably have a medical home. Those kinds may 

have the opportunity to go to an education location or a child care, 

a respite location. And if there are places where that family is 

going already, then let’s look at that opportunity to bring in and 

bridge service deliver there, and not expect Mom to do ten things 

when she can hardly do one thing to help make sure those kids are 

965

safe. That is how I would go about trying to address that problem 

in your state. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. And I am out of time and I really appreciate that. And I know that the Chairwoman has really worked on 

cliff issues, but you have just described that you would have to 

choose between those benefits in most states. Thank you. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. The chair recognizes Mr. Thompson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam Chair, thank you so much for hosting 

this hearing. Thanks to each member of the panel for bringing your 

expertise here. 

I wanted to follow back around on the employment and training 

components of SNAP. We have so many families, so many people 

who are living in poverty and find themselves in need of support. 

And, quite frankly, I see employment and training as an exit ramp, 

an exit ramp out of poverty. Many of our poverty programs have 

almost been like anesthesia; it is meant to make you feel more 

comfortable living in poverty versus providing an off ramp. 

And so I am pretty pleased that later today, this afternoon, we 

will have on the floor a bill that I have been working on for a number of years, it is H.R. 5587, Strengthening Career and Technical 

Education Training for the 21st Century Act. I wanted to share 

with you just a couple of the bullets of that and get your assessment, what you think about whether this is an improvement, it is 

a reauthorization, but it is really a modernization of the Perkins 

Act. I think it is a transformation of it. Whether, in your assessment, whether this will help the types of people who you are working with each and every day, in terms of employment and training 

related to SNAP. This change provides a workforce alignment. It 

actually brings business and industry to the table so that when we 

provide training, at the end of the day it is not just completing education, it is a family-sustaining job that is there. It is really focused 

on high-wage, high-demand positions that we know are out there 

in every community, but there is a skills gap between folks who 

need a job or a better job, and those employers that need that number one asset that they have, which is a qualified and trained 

worker. 

There is easier access to the dollars for states and for the districts, for the providers of this training. Quite frankly, it reduces 

the application bureaucracy and requirements to facilitate that. I 

will be honest with you, there is less Washington and there is more 

state and local level, closer to the people who have the need, in 

terms of authority and decision-making. And it does push career 

awareness down into the early middle schools, which I know we 

have a lot of kids that are being served, but this is an investment 

for the future, I guess. 

I appreciate, in the time I have left, hearing from you of, does 

this sound like we are on the right course for this vote this afternoon? 

Mr. STILLMAN. So I have to say that I am not as familiar with 

the specifics of the bill, but the principles that you have laid out 

seem very sound to me. I think that any time I can help you solve 

a problem, that helps me solve my problem, it is that classic winwin. And so with employers and industry at the table, articulating 

966

their needs in a way that we can advance the interest of our clients 

to fulfill those needs, clearly, that is a win-win. 

I will say that high-wage and high-demand jobs are relatively 

few in number in contrast to the very large number of individuals 

that participate in SNAP, even in our TANF Program. So sometimes that seems like the nirvana of where we want our families 

to go, and we have to remember that we have a large number of 

families in our communities that need some very basic attention 

before they get to the top. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Right. 

And the hope is this restores all the wrongs on the ladder of opportunity, that we all start at the bottom and climb our way up. 

Mr. STILLMAN. I couldn’t agree with you more. 

Mr. WEBER. Congressman, from what I have heard, and again, 

I am not familiar with the bill, but I would strongly support the 

principles. We all have to understand that addressing poverty 

starts with the families, and it starts with connecting them to employment opportunities that are available in their local community. 

This is something that we don’t know sitting in Washington. We 

know it locally. And then there is a question of connecting those 

two pieces. What is the training that we need to provide to these 

people, both in hard kills and soft skills, to get them from here to 

there. And so what you are describing, would be very helpful in 

that direction. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Anderson? 

Mr. ANDERSON. I agree with both of my fellow panelists on this 

one, but as a principle, the more you allow states to provide input 

and what works for their state is certainly welcome news for our 

state. 

Mr. THOMPSON. All right. Thank you everybody. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. The chair recognizes Congressman Moolenaar, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank 

all of you for being here and your testimony. And I came in at the 

tail end. I had another committee meeting. But I know that you 

had spoken about some of the work you do partnering with different community organizations, community colleges, the privatesector, and I just wondered if you could be more specific in terms 

of how those partnerships work. Is it something where you provide 

the funding, they provide a service, is there a shared responsibility, 

and how do you reach out to the different organizations? I would 

welcome any of your input. 

Mr. WEBER. Sure. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Mr. Weber. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Congressman. We started the Fresno 

Bridge Academy in 2010 with 14 service providers, all of which had 

their own sources of funding to provide some of the services the 

families needed. Today, we are at 175 service providers. With one 

exception, they all have their own sources of funding. 

What has happened in the war on poverty in the last 52 years 

is we have all of these siloed programs. They come down on silos 

from Federal Government. They tend to remain in silos coming 

down from the state government, and frankly, even at the local 

967

agency level, at the local government, they tend to be complianceoriented. 

What needs to happen is you need to start from the family up, 

figuring out what it is that is needed and then making the connections to these families. 

So the single most important role that we play in the Fresno 

Bridge Academy is we have what we call a career and family navigator that is assigned to a family from the day that they enroll in 

the program until they graduate from the program 18 months 

later. The role is to help them develop an individualized family 

plan, connect them to service providers, and then support them as 

they get on the on ramps to the pathway that they have to traverse, and very, very importantly, help bolster their confidence as 

they traverse the pathway, because for a lot of them poverty is 

hard. They have been beat down pretty hard. And so, it is amazing 

to see their self-confidence grow as they get their GEDs, and as 

they complete their vocational training, as they get into their first 

job, and so on. So that is the way we do it. The one exception is 

we have a contract with our economic development corporation to 

help us place our graduates with companies that have 50 or more 

employees, because they have the relationships with those companies. 

Mr. STILLMAN. And——

Ms. MCCOY WADE. Let me just briefly telescope out. So the hub 

of the program is with the SNAP Program, and in our case in California, the county and some cases with the state, and in those 

counties to respond to the needs of the employer market and the 

employee population, you often engage a range of contracts with 

your community college, with your Office of Adult Ed., with Goodwill industries, with a prisoner re-entry program that is targeted, 

and all of those folks are bringing matched dollars to the table to 

match with the SNAP E&T. But you have a diverse portfolio of 

services to serve, again, match your employees with your employers. So that is how we absolutely rely on the public-private partnership to be locally tailored. 

Mr. STILLMAN. And in our state, one of the things that I think 

we have done a little bit differently is through our employment 

pipeline, identified medium and large employers that have high 

turnover and moderate and high jobs. So I won’t name names, I 

didn’t ask them ahead of time about that, but essentially, look at 

turnover, and look at that cost center that employers are experiencing. It is expensive to hire, train, hire, train, hire, train. So how 

might we help screen, how might we help train in a way that we 

use Federal and state resources, local community resources, to help 

that employer with their sustained need for employment, and then 

deliver job-ready employees, and then stay with them as their employment continues so that they can not only get that first job, but 

get a better job. 

And we have to look at some unique industries. People might not 

think of call centers as an industry, but there really is an industry 

sector there that goes all the way up to the Federal Government, 

having some pretty decent jobs in call center-like settings where, 

if we can help a person start out at a low level and work their way 

968

through that, developing good customer service skills, good problem-solving skills, they will have a career that is meaningful. 

Ms. MCCOY WADE. And one example to add is a major hospital, 

which also has a nice administrative ladder, a lot of clerical entry, 

but then a real career ladder there for folks, and a lot of slots. 

Mr. ANDERSON. And in Georgia, part of what we have done with 

this grant is look at job forecasting and job marketing across the 

state to see what jobs are coming up and available, and we are actually doing assessments of the individual to see if they might fit 

that criteria for any of those jobs, and actually going through and 

asking them the questions and doing a systemic way of finding out 

what job will be best for them. So that is part of what we are looking forward to in the outcomes of our grant. 

Mr. MOOELNAAR. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

The CHAIRWOMAN. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for 

being here today. I think that this was an amazing amount of information that continues to point us in the direction of moving forward and continuing to always look for ways, even outside of the 

box, to continue to shape and mould these models that we are looking at. I have learned so much listening to you all today, and I 

really appreciate it. And I think that it also gives us, for the first 

time, good evidence-based research coming right out of your areas, 

the states that you represent, which is going to be incredible for 

the days ahead. So I just want to thank you for your remarks. 

Thank you so much for indulging us today. 

Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional material and supplementary written responses from the witnesses to 

any question posed by a Member. 

This hearing of the Subcommittee on Nutrition is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(969)

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE 

PROGRAM 

(THE PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE OF SNAP: 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING ACCESS TO FOOD) 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. K. Michael 

Conaway [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Conaway, Neugebauer, Lucas, 

Thompson, Gibbs, Crawford, Gibson, Benishek, Walorski, Allen, 

Bost, Abraham, Moolenaar, Kelly, Peterson, David Scott of Georgia, 

Costa, Walz, McGovern, DelBene, Vela, Lujan Grisham, Kuster, 

Nolan, Bustos, Aguilar, Plaskett, Adams, Graham, and Ashford. 

Staff present: Caleb Crosswhite, Callie McAdams, Haley Graves, 

Jadi Chapman, Matt Schertz, Paul Balzano, Scott C. Graves, 

Stephanie Addison, John Konya, Lisa Shelton, Liz Friedlander, 

Matthew MacKenzie, Nicole Scott, and Carly Reedholm. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS 

The CHAIRMAN. Again, Rob, thank you for those long years of 

service to our Committee, to Congress, and to the people. We appreciate it. 

So with that, this hearing on the Committee on Agriculture, entitled, Past, Present, and Future of SNAP: Opportunities for Improving Access to Food, will come to order. 

Mr. Neugebauer, will you open us with a prayer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you. 

Father, we just come before you today, and to praise you and 

thank you for the gracious and loving God that you are. Father, we 

thank you for the opportunity that you give us to live in this 

United States of America. Father, there are so many challenges, 

both here in our country and around the world, and I pray for wisdom for all of those that are in authority, that you have put in authority, that they would have the wisdom and the courage and the 

strength to make the decisions that make this world and make this 

country better. We thank you for the families represented here 

today, and we ask that you continue to bless our great nation. In 

your son’s precious name we pray. Amen. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you. 

970

Over the course of the 114th Congress, we have heard from 55 

witnesses at 15 different hearings in our series on the Past, 

Present, and Future of SNAP. We have heard from witnesses discussing their experiences as SNAP recipients, from state agencies 

implementing SNAP across the country, from charitable partners 

that work with SNAP recipients, from innovative organizations receiving SNAP funding to help improve and target SNAP programs, 

from retailers who sell food and provide access to healthy foods in 

their local communities, and from a wide range of partners, implementers, government agencies, and stakeholders. 

These witnesses have expressed an array of opinions on the successes and failures of SNAP at serving people in need of nutritious, 

wholesome food. They have shared great accomplishments, but 

have also pointed out that there is room for improvement. The findings of our 2 year review are being compiled into a comprehensive 

report that we plan to release next month. 

As we begin the 16th and final hearing of our series, the individuals we have with us today represent organizations at the forefront 

of improving access to healthy food. At this point, we have all 

heard about food deserts and concerns about whether those receiving SNAP benefits can actually make healthy purchases with the 

benefits they receive. The organizations represented here today are 

working to address those concerns in unique and innovative ways. 

It is my hope that some of the ideas discussed in this hearing can 

be applied more broadly throughout the SNAP programs to enhance program delivery. 

As we have discussed time and again, SNAP is not a one-sizefits-all program. Different communities have different needs, and 

there are different gaps in SNAP delivery. So I am looking forward 

to hearing how the steps that today’s witnesses have taken target 

the unique needs of the communities they each serve. 

As the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am especially cognizant of the challenges that many who live in rural 

America face in accessing healthy food. Online purchases, whether 

or not they are made through SNAP, can increase access to fresh 

foods for customers in rural and urban communities alike who are 

not near, or able to travel to, a fresh-food retailer. Companies like 

Amazon are well known for their online presence, and our other 

witnesses, while perhaps less well known, are in some cases already delivering groceries to customers through online purchases. 

While these online platforms certainly increase access to food, online sales also raise implementation questions related to shipping, 

product freshness, product availability, and cost. It is my hope that 

some of these questions can be answered, or at least explored, in 

this hearing. 

As a taxpayer and a steward of taxpayer dollars, I want the dollars that go toward SNAP to be well spent. SNAP dollars that are 

used inefficiently are SNAP dollars that are not feeding people, or 

helping them learn about healthy eating, or helping them find 

work and are lifting them off the programs that they are on. SNAP 

dollars should provide the greatest benefit possible and allow for 

the maximum improvement in nutrition for the households that 

need them. Hopefully, innovations in how customers make their 

971

* The document referred to is retained in Committee file. 

food purchases will prove to be one such way that these efficiencies 

can be gained. 

Before I conclude, I would like to recognize my good friend and 

colleague and neighbor, Randy Neugebauer. Randy was first elected in 2013, a special election, an election I am not unfamiliar with. 

Over the past 13+ years, Randy has served on this Committee, as 

well as Financial Services and, I guess, Science, Space, and Technology. He has been a good friend, a good neighbor, he has served 

well, and he is leaving us at the end of this Congress to pursue 

other issues. Let this be a full warning to the rainbow trout populations across all of North America that Randy will have more fly 

fishing time available as a result of his turning this page in his 

life, and I couldn’t wish him anything but the best. And God speed, 

Randy, on whatever chapters are ahead of you, going forward. I appreciate your service to the constituents of District 19, and by extension, your work here in Congress as well. So thank you, buddy. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. God speed. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, well, it has 

been a great honor. I come from an area where agriculture is extremely important, but agriculture is important to the entire nation. I have gotten to serve with a bunch of great folks in this 

room, and every Chairman I have served with is still on the Committee, and which says a lot about this Committee. 

I think one of the things, having served on other committees, is 

I have always appreciated the bipartisan way that this Committee 

works to make sure that Americans can continue to enjoy the 

safest, cheapest food in the world, and the best fiber, and so I am 

thankful for that. And, Mr. Chairman, I have certainly enjoyed 

serving with you, and thank you for asking me to be your Vice 

Chairman. And, it is a great Committee, and this is an important 

Committee to our country, and I am going to miss the friendships 

and the relationships that we have been able to make here. But the 

other people that I want to thank is those hundreds of farmers and 

ranchers over the years that have come before this Committee, gotten off their tractor or gotten off their horse, or left their company 

to come up here and make sure that we understand how important 

the things and the decisions that we make in this Committee impact those farm families across our country. So our thanks go out 

to them. And thank you for the time for allowing me to speak. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, God speed. 

I would also like to recognize Dan Benishek and Christopher P. 

Gibson, who are also concluding their service in Congress. Those 

two have also served for 4 years now. And, Dan, I appreciate your 

work on our Committee. And on the other side we have Gwen Graham and Brad Ashford and Ann Kirkpatrick, we also recognize and 

appreciate their service. They joined us in the 114th Congress and 

will be moving on. I appreciate their work, and as the letter to Rob 

said,* ‘‘this is a bipartisan group of folks who work together to try 

to improve food and how that food is grown, all those things are 

our responsibility.’’

972

So with that, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here. 

We will recognize them in a minute. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conaway follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM TEXAS

Over the course of the 114th Congress, we have heard from 55 witnesses at 15 

different hearings in our series on the Past, Present and Future of SNAP. We have 

heard from witnesses discussing their experiences as SNAP recipients, from state 

agencies implementing SNAP across the country, from charitable partners that 

work with SNAP recipients, from innovative organizations receiving SNAP funding 

to help improve and target SNAP programs, from retailers who sell food and provide 

access to healthy foods in their local communities, and from a wide range of other 

partners, implementers, government agencies, and stakeholders. 

These witnesses have expressed an array of opinions on the successes and failures 

of SNAP at serving people in need of nutritious, wholesome food. They have shared 

great accomplishments, but have also pointed out that there is room for improvement. The findings of our 2 year review are being compiled into a comprehensive 

report that we plan to release next month. 

As we begin the 16th and final hearing of our series, the individuals we have with 

us today represent organizations at the forefront of improving access to healthy 

food. At this point, we have all heard about ‘‘food deserts’’ and concerns about 

whether those who receive SNAP benefits can actually make healthy purchases with 

the benefits they receive. The organizations represented here today are working to 

address those concerns in unique and innovative ways. It is my hope that some of 

the ideas discussed in this hearing can be applied more broadly throughout SNAP 

to enhance program delivery. 

As we have discussed time and again, SNAP is not a one-size-fits-all program. Different communities have different needs, and there are different gaps in SNAP delivery. So I am looking forward to hearing how the steps that today’s witnesses have 

taken target the unique needs of the communities they each serve. 

As the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am especially cognizant 

of the challenges that many who live in rural America face in accessing healthy 

food. Online purchases, whether or not they are made through SNAP, can increase 

access to fresh foods for customers in rural and urban communities alike who are 

not near—or able to travel to—a fresh food retailer. Companies like Amazon are 

well known for their online presence and our other witnesses, while perhaps less 

well known, are in some cases already delivering groceries to customers through online purchases. 

While these online platforms certainly increase access to food, online sales also 

raise implementation questions related to shipping, product freshness, product 

availability, and cost. It is my hope that some of these questions can be answered, 

or at least explored, in this hearing. 

As a taxpayer myself, and as a steward of taxpayer dollars, I want the dollars 

that go toward SNAP to be well spent. SNAP dollars that are used inefficiently are 

SNAP dollars that are not feeding people, or helping them learn about healthy eating, or helping them find work and ultimately lifting them off of the program. SNAP 

dollars should provide the greatest benefit possible and allow for the maximum improvement in nutrition for the households that need them. Hopefully, innovations 

in how customers make their food purchases will prove to be one such way those 

efficiencies can be gained. 

Before I conclude, I would like to take a moment to thank my friend Randy 

Neugebauer for his service as the Vice Chairman of this Committee. Over the past 

13 years, he has faithfully served this Committee and the people of West Texas, and 

I wish him nothing but the best as he enters this new chapter. Randy, you will be 

missed. 

I would also like to recognize the other Agriculture Committee Members leaving 

at the end of this Congress. Dan Benishek and Christopher P. Gibson have served 

on the Committee for the past 4 years. Gwen Graham, Brad Ashford, and Ann Kirkpatrick all joined the Committee for the 114th Congress. I appreciate the time and 

effort that each of you have given to this Committee. You all have been great colleagues to work with, and you will be missed. 

With that, I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I recognize Ranking 

Member Peterson for any comments he would like to make.

973

The CHAIRMAN. I will turn now to Mr. Peterson for any comments that he would like to make. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to also 

give my best to Randy. I remember when you first were elected, 

and were we in Amarillo or Lubbock? Amarillo? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Amarillo. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. We went to dinner, I think it was, the first 

time I met you way back when. So Randy has done a great job. 

And the other Members that are leaving the Committee, their service is appreciated because they have been part of the reason we 

have been successful and been able to work in a way that is constructive for the American people. We look forward to doing that 

into the future, and wish everybody well in whatever they are 

going to be doing in the next chapter of their lives. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to be back, and I welcome 

everybody to the Agriculture Committee today. 

We are continuing the Committee’s review of SNAP by looking 

at what food providers are doing to improve access to food. There 

are a lot of different approaches to this, and I am looking forward 

to hearing testimony today from our witnesses. 

Maybe I am wrong, and my staff says this is our 18th SNAP review. Whatever it is. And I believe that this is the final hearing 

this year. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. PETERSON. So we have covered a lot of issues, but the overwhelming theme of the testimony has shown that while there are 

some areas for improvement, SNAP works. We have also heard testimony opposing efforts to block grant SNAP, and on the importance of keeping SNAP within the farm bill. So I hope that we can 

keep these themes in mind as we start work on the farm bill next 

year. 

And again, I welcome the witnesses and look forward to their 

testimony, and I thank the chair for holding today’s hearing. I yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I also want to brag on Jackie Walorski and James P. McGovern. 

They have been the Chairwoman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Nutrition. They have shepherded this work for 2 

years. And I now turn to Mrs. Walorski for comments that she 

might have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JACKIE WALORSKI, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM INDIANA 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you point out, I 

guess we are debating, I think it is the 16th hearing in the series 

examining the Past, Present, and Future of SNAP, but who is 

counting, right, James? I want to thank you for your leadership 

and commitment to giving this program such a comprehensive review. I also want to thank my Ranking Member on the Nutrition 

Subcommittee, Mr. James P. McGovern. I have learned, James, so 

much, and I so much appreciate your friendship during this time. 

974

When I took the gavel of the Subcommittee, it was clear that you 

were a dedicated and admired leader in the fight against hunger, 

and it has been an absolute pleasure to work alongside of you. And 

I will never forget the event we did together in the beltway here, 

when James walked in, he was like a rock star icon, and I will 

never forget it. While we have our differences, we share the common goal of working together against poverty and hunger in this 

country. We have been able to accomplish a lot on a bipartisan 

basis in the last 2 years. 

This series of hearings has been an eye-opener for me. I have 

learned so much. I hope it has been for the other Members of the 

Committee as well. We have heard from the broadest range of 

stakeholders possible; from SNAP recipients themselves, to government agencies, to those who are on the frontline of the fight 

against poverty. We have found successes and innovative solutions, 

and we have identified gaps in the system and areas for improvement. 

As I have said before, no one program will end hunger or poverty. Everyone; Federal, state, and local governments, not-for-profits, and the private-sector, academia, and recipients themselves, 

has a role to play in this fight. SNAP is only one part of our country’s safety net, but this Committee’s job is to make it as effective 

and efficient as possible, and ensure that it works in tandem with 

other Federal, state, and private-sector programs. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today as we explore 

opportunities to improve access to food. The future of SNAP is full 

of promising innovations in food delivery, purchasing, and other 

areas. These are innovations we cannot ignore, but we must balance innovation with program integrity to ensure that taxpayer 

dollars are spent effectively. 

I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here and lending 

your expertise. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady yields back. Any comments, Mr. 

McGovern, you might make? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to thank 

my colleague, Congresswoman Jackie Walorski. I have the privilege 

of serving with her on the Nutrition Subcommittee, and she is a 

great friend and a great leader, and I look forward to continuing 

to work with her on these issues. 

So after 18 hearings what have we learned? We have learned 

that the SNAP Program is a powerful tool for improving nutrition, 

insulating families against hardship, and lifting people out of poverty. It is effective, and it is efficiently run. The very modest benefit, which averages about $1.40 per person, per meal, helped to 

keep over ten million people out of poverty in 2012, including almost five million kids. So when I reflect on the lessons learned 

from our hearings on SNAP during the 114th Congress, I think 

about the overwhelming support of testimony that we have heard 

from witnesses about the structure of the SNAP Program, and its 

975

ability to reduce food insecurity among our most vulnerable constituents. 

We have learned that charities do great work, but they can’t do 

it alone. We have learned that it is a bad idea to radically change 

the SNAP Program. It is working as intended. Not once have we 

heard from our witnesses that block granting SNAP will reduce 

hunger or strengthen this program. In fact, we have heard the opposite. And if we want to talk about improving access to food, we 

should be discussing ways to increase SNAP benefits. If anything, 

the average benefit of $1.40 per person, per meal, is too low. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 temporarily increased SNAP benefits, and we saw an increase in food expenditures by low-income households, a reduction of food insecurity, and improvements in diet quality, especially amongst children. 

We ought to find ways to increase access to food by piloting the use 

of SNAP benefits online, strengthening employment and training 

programs, expanding SNAP education, incentivizing the purchase 

of more nutritious foods. We ought to address the issue of the cliff, 

among many other things. All of that would require an increased 

investment, but I think the return on that investment would be 

enormous. 

Now, I have no idea what a Trump Administration, coupled with 

a Republican Congress, means for the future of SNAP or other 

safety net programs. I am worried. Quite frankly, I am terrified. 

But I spend a lot of time on this stuff. I spend a lot of time with 

people on SNAP. They don’t fit a stereotype. Many aren’t employed, 

and most of them work. The majority who benefit from SNAP are 

kids and senior citizens. These are good people. They are our 

neighbors. And yet too often they are ridiculed, and their plight is 

belittled in the halls of this Congress. That is wrong. 

So after 18 hearings, we have learned from both Majority and 

Minority witnesses that SNAP is not only a good program, but a 

very good program. It works. And if next year, the Republican leadership wants to block grant or cut the program, or put more hurdles in place to deny people a benefit to put food on their table, be 

prepared for one hell of a fight, because this is a fight worth having. No one, and I mean no one, should go hungry in the United 

States of America. 

I thank the Chairman. I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Now, we will turn to our witnesses, finally. I thank each and 

every one of you for being here. We have Mr. Eric French, who is 

Director of Grocery at Amazon, Seattle, Washington. We have Mr. 

Gunnar Lovelace, Founder/Co-CEO, Thrive Market, Marina del 

Ray, California. We have Mr. Michael Beal, Chief Operating Officer 

for Balls Food Stores in Kansas City, Kansas. Ms. Pamela Hess, 

Executive Director of Arcadia Center for Sustainable Food and Agriculture in Alexandria, Virginia. And I would like to ask Mr. 

Lucas to introduce our final witness. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce 

Melinda Newport, the Director of the WIC/Child Nutrition Programs for the Chickasaw Nation’s Department of Health, this 

morning. She has been with the Chickasaw Nation since 1990, and 

lives in Stonewall, Oklahoma. I would note for the record, from the 

976

perspective of both herself and myself as good Okies, this is Statehood Day in Oklahoma, 109th anniversary of Oklahoma joining the 

Union. So for all of you who are not familiar with that, you know 

something extra now. 

Again, Melinda, thank you for joining us this morning, and we 

look forward to hearing about the great work going on in Oklahoma. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I thank the gentleman. I was not aware 

that today is Statehood Day for Oklahoma, so good stuff there. 

Mr. LUCAS. It wasn’t Republic Day, but Statehood Day. 

The CHAIRMAN. I got you. 

All right, with that, Mr. French, the floor is yours for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC FRENCH, DIRECTOR OF GROCERY, 

AMAZON, SEATTLE, WA 

Mr. FRENCH. Thank you, Chairman Conaway, Ranking Member 

Peterson, and Committee Members. My name is Eric French, and 

I am Amazon’s Director of Grocery. 

Amazon’s mission is to be Earth’s most customer-centric company. That isn’t just a motto; rather, it is how we approach every 

product or service we design. We start with the customer and work 

backwards. This approach has served our customers and Amazon 

well. This is also the approach we take as we envision the future 

of the SNAP Program. 

We are very excited about the prospect of bringing SNAP into the 

21st century. The benefits of doing so are quite clear. SNAP recipients would have access to value, selection, and convenience that 

isn’t always available in their own community. Not every community is home to a grocery store, let alone multiple stores, that carry 

a broader selection of foods and provide the opportunity to comparison shop. 

For the elderly and individuals with disabilities, even a nearby 

grocery store can be difficult to access due to mobility challenges. 

In single-parent families, and those lacking transportation, they 

still confront challenges in getting to the grocery store, even if 

there is one nearby. Access to online grocery shopping can mitigate 

all of these challenges and more. 

E-commerce provides value by enabling consumers to choose the 

most affordable options when making purchase decisions; allowing 

them to stretch limited budgets further. Amazon’s customers expect 

to find the lowest prices across our vast selection, so we do the 

hard work for them. We monitor prices both off-line and online in 

order to make sure we offer the lowest prices available. And just 

as we have throughout the history of e-commerce, we will invent 

new ways of delivering products to our customers in a secure manner. 

We also know that SNAP payment security is top-of-mind for policymakers. Current SNAP regulations require the use of a customer PIN at checkout. The capability to accept PINs for online 

debit transactions is not widespread, largely because technology exists to more effectively secure transactions and authenticate customers. As a technology company and e-commerce retailer, Amazon 

977

continues to innovate around security and authentication to protect 

our customers. 

I would like to share two principle recommendations with the 

Committee as you continue to examine what the future of SNAP 

should look like. 

First, we believe that the SNAP regulations should be modernized to take into account e-commerce. The current SNAP regulations were written for a brick-and-mortar SNAP Program, yet there 

are unique opportunities and challenges associated with the SNAP 

Program in the e-commerce space. The Committee and USDA 

should consider modernizing the SNAP Program regulations to 

take into account the many lessons-to-learn expected from the online pilot. Amazon stands ready to share our expertise and be part 

of this process. 

Second, we believe that the regulations around payments should 

not be technology-specific, but should provide flexibility for innovation, and to take into account e-commerce transactions. Amazon 

shares the goal of ensuring online SNAP payments are secure. 

PINs may make sense in a brick-and-mortar setting, but they are 

expensive to implement online, and are not the best available technology. Regulations should provide some flexibility for innovation 

around security to better protect SNAP recipients, and mitigate 

new security risks that may emerge. Congress and the USDA 

should develop a framework that ensures the security of these 

transactions without prescribing a specific technology with can 

quickly become obsolete. 

In conclusion, Amazon is very excited about the interest of Congress in exploring the benefits of expanding the SNAP Program to 

e-commerce. We are excited about this prospect and stand ready to 

assist Congress and the USDA during the upcoming pilot program 

and beyond. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC FRENCH, DIRECTOR OF GROCERY, AMAZON, SEATTLE, 

WA 

Thank you, Chairman Conaway and Ranking Member Peterson. My name is Eric 

French, and I am Amazon’s Director of Grocery. 

Amazon’s mission is to be Earth’s most customer-centric company. In everything 

we do—every product or service we design—we start with the customer and work 

backwards. This approach has served our customers—and Amazon—well, and this 

is also the approach we’re taking as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) explores opening the SNAP program to e-commerce. Given our extensive experience 

in e-commerce, our demonstrated commitment to excellent customer service, and our 

more recent investment in e-commerce grocery delivery, Amazon looks forward to 

the opportunity to work with the USDA to ensure a successful expansion of the 

SNAP program into e-commerce, which we believe can improve access to nutritious 

foods, selection, and value for SNAP households. 

I. The Benefits of SNAP E-Commerce Grocery Delivery 

The current SNAP program is limited to traditional brick-and-mortar channels, 

which can create significant limitations and challenges for the individuals and families the SNAP program is intended to support. Not every community is home to a 

grocery store, let alone multiple stores that drive competitive pricing and selection. 

For the elderly, and individuals with disabilities, even a nearby grocery store can 

be difficult to access due to mobility challenges. In addition, single parent families 

978

and those lacking access to reliable transportation also may struggle to get to a grocery store. 

The current restriction on redeeming SNAP benefits online limits the ability of 

those with food insecurity to stretch their SNAP dollars by comparison shopping and 

allocating SNAP dollars where they can provide the most benefit. Those with special 

dietary needs (e.g., gluten intolerance, diabetes) also face limited options and selection when they have access to only what their nearest grocery store carries. 

The promise for extending the SNAP program to e-commerce is that those with 

food insecurity can benefit from the same access to value, selection, and convenience 

that many of us enjoy. 

A. Value 

E-Commerce allows consumers the unprecedented ability to choose the most affordable options in making purchase decisions, allowing them to stretch limited food 

budgets further. This option should be accessible to those with food insecurity, who 

could benefit the most. 

Amazon’s customers expect to come to Amazon and find the lowest prices across 

our vast selection, so we do the hard work for them. Amazon monitors prices—both 

offline and online—in order to make sure we offer the lowest prices available. 

B. Selection 

E-commerce retailers have the ability to offer massive selection to customers by 

leveraging fulfillment networks and sophisticated logistics systems that can determine where best to store items to ensure the quickest, most efficient delivery to customers. Knowing how to leverage such resources is something Amazon not only excels at, but has also developed significant technology to accomplish. The 2 day, 1 

day, and same day shipping Amazon has become famous for has been enabled by 

this technology and our fulfillment network, and has fostered our expansion into 

grocery retailing and delivery. As a result, we can offer SNAP recipients access to 

a broad selection of SNAP-eligible foods to meet their dietary needs and preferences. 

C. Convenience 

By allowing for doorstep delivery, e-commerce also provides SNAP recipients with 

a new level of convenience. This is particularly important for those with mobility 

challenges, lack of easy access to reliable transportation, and working and parenting 

schedules that make getting to the grocery store a challenge, as well as those in 

food deserts. 

II. Potential Challenges 

While Amazon already carries an extensive selection of SNAP-eligible healthy, 

staple foods, we’re constantly innovating around the challenge of delivering perishable foods cost-effectively so that the savings can continue to be passed on to our 

customers. We leverage our significant logistics tools and fulfillment network to accomplish this, and this will become easier as we continue to scale our grocery delivery. We continue to iterate and learn, and hope to have the opportunity to apply 

our extensive knowledge to the SNAP space and enable a successful expansion of 

the program to e-commerce, which would provide tremendous benefits to SNAP recipients. 

A. Potential Challenges and Opportunities with Delivery 

Theft of grocery deliveries has been raised as a concern by Committee staff, and 

this challenge is not limited to the SNAP e-commerce delivery space; this is a challenge the e-commerce model has confronted more broadly, but one that has been 

largely mitigated over the years. Amazon is constantly inventing on behalf of customers, including inventing new ways to deliver products. Two examples of recent 

innovations include Amazon Fresh attended delivery and Amazon Lockers. In the 

unlikely event a package is stolen, Amazon has a longstanding record of offering 

customers refunds or replacements for missing deliveries, and this would extend to 

customers using SNAP benefits should the program be expanded to e-commerce. 

B. Online EBT Payments 

Current SNAP regulations require the use of a customer PIN at check-out, and 

this requirement extends to the online redemption of SNAP benefits under the 

USDA online demonstration project. The capability to accept PINs for online debit 

transactions is not widespread, largely because alternative technology exists to more 

effectively secure transactions and authenticate customers. For example, Amazon allows for PIN-less debit because the PIN does not necessarily provide better security 

or authentication than other tools and technology currently available. As a techVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00438 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
979

nology company and an e-commerce retailer, Amazon continues to innovate around 

security and authentication to protect our customers and maintain their trust. 

III. Recommendations 

The USDA’s current SNAP regulations were written for a brick-and-mortar SNAP 

program. While Amazon is encouraged by the willingness of Congress and the 

USDA to explore the benefits of the online redemption of SNAP benefits, we also 

urge consideration of the unique opportunities and challenges of e-commerce. Rather 

than simply extending the existing SNAP regulations to e-commerce (assuming a 

successful pilot), there should be some consideration of the unique characteristics of 

e-commerce retail and grocery delivery. Modernizing the SNAP program should also 

include modernization of the regulations, taking into account the many learnings expected from the online demonstration project. Amazon stands ready to share our expertise and be a part of this process. 

Amazon agrees the goal of online SNAP benefit redemption should be for doorstep delivery; after all, this is one of the largest value propositions of e-commerce 

and has been offered by Amazon since our founding in 1995. While Amazon offers 

customers flexible options for grocery delivery, such as attended delivery, the USDA 

should explore additional options for food delivery under the SNAP program. Amazon is aware of food delivery programs in communities like Baltimore that employ 

a neighborhood-based pick-up option as a way to mitigate the potential challenges 

with door-step delivery. 

Amazon shares the goal of ensuring online SNAP payments are secure. Security 

and customer trust are central to everything Amazon does and creates, and we invest heavily in protecting our customers and securing payments. As outlined earlier, 

more effective tools and technology currently exist to secure online transactions and 

authenticate customers. PINs should be a floor rather than a ceiling in securing online payments, and the SNAP program should provide some flexibility for innovation 

around security to better protect SNAP recipients and mitigate new security risks 

that may emerge. Amazon would like to work with Congress and the USDA to develop a framework that ensures the security of these transactions without prescribing specific technologies that could quickly become outdated. Furthermore, allowing for flexibility in meeting security standards could allow for broader participation of e-commerce grocery retailers, which would benefit SNAP recipients by offering them greater selection in online retailers. 

IV. Conclusion 

Amazon is excited that Congress and the USDA support the exploration of online 

SNAP benefit redemption. 

By enabling online redemption of SNAP benefits, recipients would have access to 

Amazon’s wide variety of SNAP-eligible food options available for home delivery. 

This would open up new options for millions of SNAP recipients, while providing 

our existing customers who are SNAP recipients with the ability to stretch their 

SNAP dollars and choose the payment type that is best for them. We are excited 

about this prospect and stand ready to assist Congress and the USDA during the 

upcoming pilot program and beyond. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I look forward to your questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record reflect he ended his statement 

with an extra minute left. Thank you, Mr. French. 

Mr. Lovelace, your 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF GUNNAR LOVELACE, FOUNDER AND CO-CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THRIVE MARKET, MARINA DEL RAY, CA 

Mr. LOVELACE. Chairman Conaway and distinguished Members 

of the Committee, it is an honor to be here with you all today, to 

be able to testify about how technology and expanding access to 

healthy food has the potential to save billions of dollars in downstream medical costs in our economy. 

My name is Gunnar Lovelace. I am the founder and co-CEO of 

Thrive Market. Our mission is to make healthy living easy and affordable to everybody. The way that we do that is we buy directly 

from brands and cut out all the middlemen, offering the highest 

quality organic groceries that you would get at a normal health 

980

food store, but at 25 to 50 percent off. Instead of making money on 

the product sales themselves, we charge a $60 annual membership 

fee, which allows members all over the country to be able to order 

online and be able to get those groceries shipped to their home. For 

every paid membership, we give a membership away to a low-income family, a veteran, a teacher, or a student. 

The mission of making healthy living affordable and accessible to 

everybody is something that is deeply personal to me. I grew up 

very poor, with a single mom, saw how hard she worked to make 

healthy choices. And when my mother remarried, my stepfather 

was running a food co-op out of a farm, where I got to see firsthand 

the power of group buying as a way to make food more affordable 

and build community. 

As I progressed in my entrepreneur career, starting and selling 

a couple of software companies, I felt like there was an incredible 

opportunity to disrupt access to healthy food with technology. In 

the last 2 years, we have been able to do that with our investors, 

our co-founders, our hardworking employees, and our members. We 

have gone from one employee working out of my house, to working 

out of the backroom of a church, to now more than 600 employees 

nationally. This is a vision that we care about very, very deeply. 

We have raised over $140 million from 350 investors, and it is 

something that we are excited to continue. 

As we know, we face huge health epidemics in this country that 

are really systemic from pervasive lifestyle diseases. More than 70 

percent of our population is overweight or obese. We spend $245 

billion a year on diabetes-related illnesses, $444 billion a year on 

heart-related illnesses. These are just two examples of lifestyle diseases that are largely driven by dietary habits. The numbers are 

only increasing in a negative trend, and they disproportionately affect low-income communities. 

Today, you can buy almost anything online, but you cannot use 

your SNAP benefits to use e-commerce to get healthy food for less. 

This is a classic example of the digital divide, and it is something 

that we have been focused on, because 50 percent of the families 

that are in our giving program that receive free memberships are 

on SNAP. 

One of the biggest concerns that we have heard about bringing 

SNAP online is the potential for fraud and abuse. We understand 

the concern, yet e-commerce is a fundamentally database-driven 

technology that allows for extreme precision and classification of 

reporting, meaning that 100 percent of the funds that go towards 

purchasing online can go towards 100 percent approved SNAP 

products. Not only that, we are able to provide incredibly precise, 

transparent, and real-time reporting to the USDA on aggregate 

purchasing behavior in a way that doesn’t exist amongst current 

national retailers who accept SNAP. 

On June 27 of this year, we launched a national campaign in 

support of the USDA committing to a firm timeline to bring SNAP 

online. We assembled a broad coalition of influencers, bloggers, 

nonprofits, and brands that we work with, to have a synchronized 

conversation around this that drove over 325,000 petitions, 400 

million media impressions around this issue. And we understand 

that SNAP is a very complex, often controversial program, and we 

981

applaud the USDA and their efforts to have a thorough, deliberate, 

and transparent process. 

Partially in response to our campaign, the USDA committed to 

a specific timetable of launching a pilot program in a few key 

states in the first half of 2017. We have obviously applied for this 

program. We are excited to be part of it, but even if we don’t get 

into the pilot in the first wave, we are excited to see that SNAP 

is coming into the 21st century. 

Philosophically speaking, one of the things that is so gratifying 

about the work that we do, and I know that you guys can all relate 

to this, is that helping people access healthy food, helping people 

live a healthier lifestyle, is a hyper-scalable organizing principle 

that transcends ideology. It doesn’t matter who you are, where you 

live, what the color of your skin is, everybody wants to feel good 

in their bodies, everybody wants the same thing for their children. 

And when we help people access healthy food for less, we are empowering families across this country, we are empowering communities, but we are also dealing with major macroeconomic issues 

with spiraling medical costs. 

It is an honor to be here to discuss how technology can drive innovation. We are excited to be part of that with SNAP in the longterm. We are building all sorts of other health incentive programs. 

So we look forward to the opportunity to collaborate, and we look 

forward to your questions. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lovelace follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GUNNAR LOVELACE, FOUNDER AND CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER, THRIVE MARKET, MARINA DEL RAY, CA 

Chairman Conaway and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for 

having me here today to testify regarding how technology can expand access to 

healthy food in a way that can save billions of dollars in downstream medical expenses. 

My name is Gunnar Lovelace and I’m the Founder and Co-CEO of Thrive Market, 

the fastest growing health food e-commerce company in history. 

Thrive Market’s mission is to make healthy living easy and affordable for everyone. We do that by buying from health food brands directly, cutting out the middlemen and passing those savings along to our members, who pay $60 a year for access 

to the club. For every paying member we give away a free membership to a lowincome family, a veteran, a teacher or a student, through our Giving program. 

The desire to make healthy living affordable to everyone is something that is informed by personal experience. I grew up poor with a single mom and saw how hard 

she worked to make healthy choices for our family. When my mother remarried, my 

stepfather was running a food co-op on an organic farm, where I got to see firsthand 

the power of group buying as a way to make food more affordable and build community. 

Later, as I progressed in my entrepreneurial career—starting and selling two 

technology companies—I always felt like there was an opportunity and responsibility to disrupt access to healthy food with technology. Together with my co-founders, our investors, employees and members, we have brought this vision to life at 

Thrive Market. Since launching the business in 2014, we have grown from one employee working out of my house, to more than 600 employees nationally working out 

of multiple locations in three states. We have raised over $160 million in investment 

capital from over 350 value-aligned investors. 

Through our Giving program, we partner with NGOs nationally to distribute free 

memberships and also accept applications on our site. Earlier this year we rolled 

out a program called Spread The Health, where our members may contribute a portion of their grocery savings directly to Thrive Gives members, offsetting the cost 

of their first few purchases through stipends. This helps people who are struggling 

with the affordability of healthy food, or don’t have geographic access to grocery 

982

stores selling healthy food in their community. We also try to break down the educational barriers that some face by providing recipes, starter kits, and other content 

that helps make healthy living more accessible. 

This is all critically important right now, because our country is facing a health 

crisis. The emergence of lifestyle diseases is an epidemic ravaging our economy and 

our communities. More than 70% of our population is overweight or obese: 29.1 million Americans have diabetes. We spend $245 billion on diabetes and $444 billion 

on heart disease each year. These are just two examples of lifestyle diseases partly 

caused by dietary habits. And these numbers are only increasing. These lifestyle diseases disproportionately affect low income individuals, and we need to do something 

to help the 46 million Americans who are depending on SNAP benefits to feed their 

families and themselves. 

My testimony will briefly discuss how technology can help break down barriers 

for low income families in the United States, many of whom lack access to healthy 

food. I will then discuss some of the gaps, including the fact that SNAP benefits 

still cannot be used online, and will propose some solutions to help address these 

barriers. 

The proliferation of technology, specifically information technology, has increased 

in ways that no one could have predicted. Presently, 75% of individuals living in 

poverty have a smartphone. Through their smartphone, they can now order goods 

and services that may have previously been out of reach to them, either geographically, or in some cases, financially. Some goods and services benefit from the directto-consumer channel that the Internet has made possible, in that brands can reach 

their consumer directly instead of operating through a middleman, and can reduce 

their prices accordingly. For example, Amazon sells books at about 50% less than 

they could be purchased for at bookstores, because they don’t have the retail costs 

and markups that a bookstore charges. Thrive Market is able to achieve cost savings of approximately 25–50% off retail prices, by buying directly from our suppliers, 

bypassing traditional distribution channels, stripping out all intermediary costs, and 

passing those cost savings directly to our members. 

The Internet, then, makes goods more financially affordable, and more geographically accessible, which is especially relevant as it relates to food, as 23 million people around the country live in food deserts, areas without access to healthy food. 

One in five children are classified as food-insecure. Another fact of note is that only 

30% of families living in poverty own a car, which means that their mobility is severely limited when it comes to purchasing groceries. For years, people have only 

been able to buy the food that is in their neighborhood, and have been dependent 

on the decisions of grocers and farmer[s’] markets to open in their areas, variables 

that are out of their control. 

Now all that is changing, thanks to the Internet and the proliferation of 

smartphones, even for those living in poverty. At Thrive Market, we have given 

away tens of thousands of free memberships to families all over the country, many 

of whom are buying healthy, natural products for the first time. We have also given 

away hundreds of thousands of dollars in stipends to help our lowest-income members afford to buy the food on our site, which is priced to be in line with the retail 

prices of conventional equivalents. 

It’s amazing that in the 21st century you still can’t use SNAP benefits online, but 

one can buy almost anything else online. This example of the digital divide has been 

a focal point for us because more than 50% of the families in our Giving program 

are on government assistance. We know that 83% of all SNAP benefits go to a 

household with a child, senior or disabled person, lifting 4.7 million Americans out 

of poverty each year. Every $1 spent on SNAP results in $1.73 of economic activity. 

Given increased levels of Internet connectivity, if SNAP were brought online nationally, the positive effect on our nation’s most vulnerable populations would be immediate and dramatic. 

The biggest concern we’ve heard about bringing SNAP online from various stakeholders were questions about how fraud was going to be managed. There was a concern that funds would be used to buy products that are not SNAP approved. The 

power of e-commerce is that it is fundamentally a database driven technology that 

allows for precision in classification and reporting. This means we can easily categorize the grocery products in our database which are SNAP approved. Not only 

do we have full control of what recipients can spend their money on, we also can 

provide extremely precise and transparent reporting to the USDA on purchasing behavior in a way that doesn’t easily exist amongst current retailers accepting SNAP. 

On June 27th of this year, we launched a national campaign in support of the 

USDA bringing SNAP online. We assembled a broad coalition of influencers, brands, 

media partners, NGOs, celebrities and bloggers to drive a synchronized conversation 

nationally around this issue. By utilizing our network to spread the word about the 

983

need to bring SNAP online, we galvanized a coalition, gathered 325,000 signatures 

in support, and generated 400 million media impressions, all in just 3 months. 

In response to our campaign, the USDA has committed to a specific timetable for 

launching an online SNAP pilot program in a few key states in the first half of 

2017. We are in the process of applying to be a part of that pilot, and regardless 

of whether we as a company are a part of the pilot, we are encouraged that tangible 

steps are being taken to bring SNAP into the 21st century. 

We would strongly encourage the USDA to roll out the pilot more quickly, and 

then to expand the pilot nationally in a rapid time frame, so that all American families across the country can access healthy food. 

Innovation in the SNAP program is vital. From a pure economic perspective, if 

we are going to have a $74 billion annual SNAP program, we need to make sure 

that the food we are giving families isn’t causing them to get sick, resulting in increased taxpayer costs to the medical system downstream via ballooning lifestyle 

diseases. 

Conclusion: Helping people to get healthy is a hyper-scalable organizing principle 

that transcends ideology. It doesn’t matter who you are, where you live, what the 

color of your skin is, or whether you are a liberal or conservative. Everyone wants 

to be healthy and everyone wants the same thing for their children. A robust Federal effort to push forward innovation in the SNAP program and expand the program quickly, so that all SNAP participants can participate, will help save billions 

of dollars in health care spending in the long run, and will help low-income families 

in our country live healthier, happier lives.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lovelace. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Beal, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. BEAL, J.D., VICE PRESIDENT,

SECRETARY, AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, BALLS FOOD 

STORES, KANSAS CITY, KS; ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL

GROCERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BEAL. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the Committee. 

My name is Mike Beal, and I am the Chief Operating Officer of 

Balls Food Stores. It is an honor and privilege to be here with you 

today. 

Balls Food Stores is a locally owned, third generation, familyowned company, started by Mollie and Sidney Ball in 1923. We 

currently own and operate 27 retail grocery stores in the greater 

Kansas City metropolitan area under a few different banners, but 

primarily Hen House and Price Chopper Foods. Our stores are fullservice supermarkets, and have accepted SNAP as a form of tender, essentially since each location opened. 

Balls Food Stores provides jobs in our local community for approximately 3,200 teammates. We operate a small distribution center that operates primarily to allow us to buy large quantities of 

merchandise, and to purchase and distribute local produce for our 

stores. Balls Food Stores is one of the early adopters of the buy 

local produce movement nationally; so much so that we worked 

with the Kellogg Foundation in their efforts to develop a distribution model to bring fresh, nutritious, and affordable food to consumers around the country. 

Balls Food Stores is a member of the National Grocers Association, and I was honored when NGA asked me to share our story 

and successes with the Double Up Food Bucks Program with this 

Committee. I believe our success with the program has been fantastic for the communities, our stores served, and our SNAP customers who are now able to stretch their benefits further, while 

984

purchasing local produce and supporting local farmers in our communities. 

The Double Up program operated by Balls Food is a result of a 

collaboration between Balls Food and five other entities. The primary goals of the program are: first, provide access to and increase 

affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables for recipients of SNAP 

benefits; second, provide greater opportunities for local farmers to 

increase their income by selling more produce locally; and third, 

provide more dollars to the local community. 

In 2015, we launched a pilot Double Up program in four of our 

Price Chopper stores. A fifth Price Chopper was added in late 2015. 

Because of our success, we were able to convert the pilot to a yearround program, operating in all 14 of our Price Chopper stores in 

2016. 

The premise of the Double Up program is very simple: for each 

dollar a SNAP customer spends on local produce, using an EBT 

card to pay, that customer earns a dollar to spend on fresh produce 

on a future shopping trip, up to $25 per day in earnings. The earnings by the SNAP customer are accumulated throughout the year 

until that customer notifies our cashier that they want to spend 

some or all of their earnings on any type of produce on a later 

shopping trip. 

The execution of the Double Up program relies primarily on technology currently being used by many grocers. First, we designate 

local produce items using a simple product code for each locally 

grown item. Second, our point-of-sale system is programmed to look 

for transactions in which local produce items are purchased using 

an EBT benefit card for payment. And last, when customers shop 

at our Price Chopper stores using their loyalty card, that customer’s earnings from the purchase of local produce items is then 

accumulated by our loyalty software system for future produce 

spending by that customer, whether or not an EBT card is used on 

the future purchase. This allows our SNAP customers to purchase 

healthy produce items throughout the year. 

Additional components of the program are properly identifying 

local produce items using specific signage in the produce department, properly training store produce teammates, management 

teammates, and cashiers, and establishing relationships with local 

farmers. A solid distribution system for local products is crucial to 

having a strong program, as this adds to the local produce variety. 

If there isn’t a fairly good selection of locally grown produce items 

that are well marked in the produce department, customers get 

frustrated and are less likely to use the program. 

Much of the success of our program can be attributed to our 

cashiers, who have been tasked with the job of explaining the program to SNAP customers. Many customers believed there was a 

catch, because no one gets something for free for doing something 

they would like to do if they had the financial resources to purchase healthier food products. The pilot was designed so that the 

purchase history of SNAP customers could be measured over time 

to determine if the program has led to the purchase of healthier 

food items by SNAP customers. Our program partners are currently analyzing our massive data collection to confirm healthier 

purchase habits by SNAP customers. 

985

There were 9,874 different unique customers that participated in 

our pilot program, and those customers accounted for over 23,400 

Double Up transactions. Over 60 percent of the Double Up dollars 

earned were redeemed; a very high redemption rate, according to 

other grocers. The high redemption rate in our stores has actually 

increased to over 70 percent as of May 2016. 

We at Balls Food Stores strongly believe that the Double Up program has encouraged our customers to eat healthier, and to try 

new fruits and vegetables. We believe the Double Up program is 

very feasible and can be replicated by most grocers around the 

country. In just a few months, thousands of SNAP families were 

able to take part in the Double Up pilot program. Programs like 

Double Up are important in that they incentivize customers, without mandating a purchase of healthy food. In my opinion, a free 

market-based program is always preferable to a mandated government program. 

Thank you, and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beal follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. BEAL, J.D., VICE PRESIDENT, SECRETARY, AND

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, BALLS FOOD STORES, KANSAS CITY, KS; ON BEHALF

OF NATIONAL GROCERS ASSOCIATION

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peterson, and Members of the 

Committee. My name is Mike Beal, and I am the Chief Operating Officer of Balls 

Food Stores. It is an honor and a privilege to be here with you today. 

Balls Food Stores is a locally owned, third generation, family owned company 

started by Mollie and Sidney Ball in 1923. Our company is currently led by David 

Ball, who follows his father, Fred Ball, a person who was known nationally in the 

grocery industry for his innovation, character and charity to our community. Balls 

Food Stores currently owns and operates 27 retail grocery stores in the greater Kansas City, Kansas and Missouri metropolitan area under a few different banners, but 

primarily Price Chopper and Hen House. Our stores are all full service supermarkets and have accepted SNAP as a form of tender essentially since each location 

opened. 

I started working with our company during my senior year in college. After receiving my Bachelor degree in Civil Engineering at the University of Kansas in 1979, 

I returned to the University of Kansas to earn a Masters in Business Administration, all the while working with the company in our stores. After completing my 

Masters in 1981, I worked in our stores until returning to school to earn a Juris 

Doctorate degree from the University of Missouri at Kansas City. I practiced law 

for 9 years in the areas of corporate mergers and acquisitions, general corporate law 

and corporate finance, before returning to Balls Food Stores in 1998 to become its 

Chief Financial Officer. In 2012, I assumed the position as the Chief Operating Officer of Balls Food Stores. 

Balls Food Stores provides jobs in our local community for approximately 3,200 

teammates, including a subsidiary that produces some of the best pies in the country for many grocers around the country. We have hundreds of teammates that have 

worked for us longer than 20 years and we operate a small distribution center that 

operates primarily to allow us to buy large quantities of merchandise at discount 

and to purchase and distribute local produce to our stores and other local grocers. 

Balls Food Stores was one of the early adopters of the buy local produce movement 

nationally, so much so that we worked with the Kellogg Foundation in their efforts 

to develop a distribution model to bring fresh, nutritious and affordable food to consumers around the country. Our company was a founding member of our grocery 

wholesaler, Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. (AWG), a member cooperative supplying over 3,800 stores in 35 states. 

The Price Chopper banner or trade name we operate is licensed to us by AWG. 

There are 37 other retail grocery stores in the Kansas City metropolitan area that 

also use the Price Chopper trade name in their business. Those 38 stores are owned 

and operated by four other families who are also members of AWG. 

Balls Food Stores is a member of the National Grocers Association (NGA), and 

I was honored when NGA asked me to share our story and successes with the DouVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00445 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
986

ble Up Food Bucks (DUFB) program with this Committee. I believe our success with 

the program has been fantastic for the communities our stores serve and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) customers who are now able to 

stretch their benefits further while purchasing local produce and supporting local 

farmers in our communities. 

The DUFB program operated by Balls Food Stores is the result of a collaboration 

of a number of entities: Good Natured Farms, Inc., the Fair Food Network, the University of Kansas Medical Center, the Mid-America Regional Council, and the 

Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City. The primary goals of the program 

are to: (1) provide access to and increase affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables 

for recipients of SNAP benefits, (2) provide greater opportunities for local farmers 

to increase their income by selling more produce locally and (3) provide more dollars 

to the local community. 

The idea for the DUFB program was brought to us by Diana Endicott, the owner 

of Good Natured Family Farms. Diana has partnered with our company for the better part of 15 years and has introduced to us over 150 family owned local farmers 

operating within 200 miles of Kansas City. Ms. Endicott is well known nationally 

for her work with local farmers, local farm initiatives and healthy eating initiatives. 

It was while working with the Kellogg Foundation and their healthy, affordable, 

local food initiative that Diana was introduced to Dr. Oran Hesterman, the President of the Fair Food Network. Dr. Hesterman had some creative ideas to increase 

markets for local farmers and provide healthier food options for people. Initially, the 

DUFB program was piloted by the Fair Food Network in Michigan at local farmers’ 

markets. While successful, there was a realization that offering the program at retail grocery stores would reach more SNAP customers and provide an opportunity 

to better evaluate SNAP recipients’ purchasing habits over time because grocers 

have the capacity to retain customer purchase data. Local farmers’ markets typically do not utilize technology that will permit anyone to analyze customer purchase 

data. 

In 2015, we launched a pilot of DUFB in four of our Price Chopper stores in the 

Kansas City area. Because of the initial success of the program, a fifth Price Chopper store was added late in the summer of 2015. We experienced tremendous success with the pilot and were able to convert the pilot to a year-round program operating in all 14 of our Price Chopper stores in 2016. It is the goal of Balls Food 

Stores and the other partners in the DUFB program to extend the DUFB program 

to the remaining 37 Price Chopper stores in the Kansas City area in 2017. 

The premise of DUFB is very simple: for every dollar a customer spends on local 

produce using an EBT card to pay, that customer earns a dollar to spend on produce 

from any source on a future shopping trip, up to $25 per day in earnings. The ‘‘earnings’’ by the SNAP customer are accumulated throughout the year until that customer notifies our cashier that they want to spend some or all of their earnings on 

any type of produce on a later shopping trip. 

The execution of the DUFB program relies primarily on technology currently 

being used by many grocers: (1) we designate local produce items using a unique 

product code for each locally grown item, (2) our point of sale system (POS) is programmed to look for transactions in which local produce items are purchased using 

an EBT benefit card for payment and (3) when customers shop at our Price Chopper 

stores using their loyalty card (which is free to customers), that customer’s earnings 

from the purchase of local produce items is then accumulated by our loyalty software system for future spending by that customer, whether or not an EBT card is 

used on the future purchase and whether or not local produce is purchased in the 

future. This allows our SNAP customers to purchase healthy produce items throughout the year (even at times when locally grown items are not as plentiful because 

of growing seasons) and to purchase all of their produce for their holiday family 

meals, if desired. 

The beauty of the DUFB program we operate is its simplicity—our SNAP customers shop like they normally do using their loyalty cards (which also provide discounts off of many other grocery items sold in our stores) and pay using their EBT 

card, with the only difference being that the purchase of locally grown produce items 

with their EBT card earns them incentive dollars to buy more nutritious fruits and 

vegetables. A SNAP customer doesn’t have to enroll in our DUFB program and they 

don’t need to remember to bring anything back to the store to redeem their incentives. 

Additional components of the DUFB program that contribute to its success are 

properly identifying local produce items to customers using specific signage in the 

produce department, properly training store produce teammates, management teammates and cashiers and establishing relationships with local farmers to purchase 

their products. Many grocers around the country have relationships with local farmVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00446 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
987

ers in place; however a solid distribution system for those products is crucial to having a strong DUFB program as this adds to the local produce variety available to 

SNAP customers. If there isn’t a fairly good selection of locally grown items that 

are well marked in the produce department, customers get frustrated and are less 

likely to use the program. 

Our cashiers inform SNAP participants of the money they’ve earned by purchasing local produce. We have seen SNAP customers purchase enough local 

produce that their entire produce order during their next trip is given to them free 

of charge, which is fantastic. 

Much of the success of our program can be attributed to our cashiers. Our cashiers have been tasked with the job of explaining the program to SNAP customers, 

and they have done an excellent job making sure our customers understand the program, which items are eligible for the Double Up match, and most importantly, why 

they are receiving these benefits to redeem in the store. One thing we learned very 

early in the program was that many customers didn’t use the program initially because they thought it was too good to be true. Many customers believed there was 

a ‘‘catch’’ because ‘‘no one gets something for free’’ from doing something they would 

otherwise like to do if they had the financial resources to purchase healthier food 

products for their family. It was only because of our cashiers that our customers 

understood that ‘‘free’’ really meant free as a result of purchasing local produce. 

As I have previously mentioned, this program has seen tremendous success in our 

stores. The pilot was designed so that the purchase history of SNAP customers could 

be measured over time to determine if the DUFB program has led to the purchase 

of healthier food products by those customers. Our program partners are currently 

analyzing our massive collection of purchase data history in our POS system to confirm healthier purchase habits by SNAP customers. In addition, during the pilot, 

one of our program partners interviewed both SNAP and non-SNAP customers, 

along with some of our store teammates, to learn their thoughts about the DUFB 

program. In total, 1,422 customers were interviewed: 104 of whom were DUFB participants, 332 SNAP customers who did not participate in the DUFB program and 

986 non-SNAP customers. Fifty five store teammates also were interviewed about 

their experience with the program and the value it provides to customers. 

The DUFB participants surveyed reported that they generally had increased their 

purchase and consumption of fruits and vegetables, which we would all agree are 

healthy food choices. In addition, those same customers reported that they were 

budgeting differently for groceries because of the DUFB program. 

Of the 332 SNAP customers not participating in the DUFB program, most of them 

stated that they were very or somewhat likely to participate in the DUFB program 

on their next visit. The consensus of the 986 customers surveyed who were nonSNAP customers was that the DUFB program helps SNAP customers save money, 

encourages healthier eating habits and supports local farmers. 

The survey of our 55 teammates reported that our cashiers found the DUFB program was easy to implement, our cashiers expressed appreciation for a program 

that helps lower income families eat healthier (more than a few of our cashiers were 

once SNAP recipients themselves), our store directors felt that our produce departments had a greater focus on locally grown produce as a result of the DUFB program and our store directors expressed appreciation for participating in the DUFB 

program and would welcome the opportunity to participate in the program in the 

future. 

There were 9,874 different customers that participated in the pilot program and 

those customers accounted for over 23,400 DUFB transactions starting in June of 

2015. On average, our pilot stores saw 2,670 SNAP customers per month during the 

pilot program. The stores in the pilot program had between 8.7% and 14.5% EBT 

business as a part of their regular business. We were very pleased that, between 

June and the end of December 2015, over 60% of the DUFB dollars earned were 

redeemed, representing over $42,200 in produce purchases by those customers. That 

is a very high percentage of redemption according to all the grocers we have talked 

to about redemption of any store incentive program. The high redemption rate in 

our stores has actually increased to over 70% as of the end of May 2016. In addition, 

Balls Food Stores experienced over a 12% increase in sales of local produce items 

at the pilot stores compared to the prior year. 

We at Balls Food Stores believe strongly that the DUFB program has encouraged 

our customers to eat healthier and try new fruits and vegetables. We believe the 

DUFB program is very feasible and can be replicated by most grocers around the 

country as long as those grocers have a loyalty system to accumulate earning incentives. Most non-SNAP customers were supportive of the DUFB program and most 

SNAP customers who hadn’t used the program were likely to use the program in 

the future. DUFB customers reported that the program is easy to use and helped 

988

them save money while eating healthier. Importantly, the potential reach of the 

DUFB program in grocery stores is immense. In just a few months, thousands of 

SNAP families were able to take part in the DUFB pilot program. 

Although there is compelling evidence that diets rich in fruits and vegetables can 

lower the risk of many chronic diseases, cost has been a major barrier to purchasing 

fresh produce. Programs like DUFB are important in that they incentivize customers without mandating the purchase of healthy food. In my opinion, a free market based program is always preferable to a mandated government program. Providing a program like DUFB in our stores has allowed our SNAP customers to learn 

more about healthy eating, to try new produce, and to stretch their SNAP dollars 

further, without spending more out of their pockets. We are helping customers and 

their families afford fresh produce and are working to improve their health by offering this program. 

ATTACHMENT

Double Up Food Bucks Kansas City Pilot Program 

May 2016

Cheryl A. Gibson, Ph.D., Heather Valentine, M.S., R.D., Sarah Liljegren, B.S., The 

University of Kansas Medical Center 

Table of Contents 

Figures 

Tables 

Acknowledgements 

Executive Summary 

Introduction 

Methodology 

Customer Survey Data

Non-SNAP Customers 

SNAP Customers not using DUFB 

SNAP Customers using DUFB 

Grocery Store Assessments

Price Chopper Employee Interviews

Cashiers 

Store Directors

Transaction Data 

Recommendations 

Discussion 

Summary 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Survey for Non-SNAP Customers 

Appendix B: Survey for SNAP Customers not using DUFB 

Appendix C: Survey for SNAP Customers using DUFB 

Appendix D: Grocery Store Assessment 

Appendix E: Cashier Interview Instrument 

Appendix F: Store Director Interview Instrument 

Figures 

Figure 1. Pilot DUFB Price Chopper Locations

Figure 2. Locations of Surveys Completed by Non-SNAP Customers

Figure 3. Age of Non-SNAP Customers

Figure 4. Sources of Information about DUFB

Figure 5. Level of Support from Non-SNAP Customers

Figure 6. Locations of Surveys Completed by SNAP Customers not using DUFB

Figure 7. Age of SNAP Customers not using DUFB

Figure 8. Sources of Information about DUFB

Figure 9. Likelihood of DUFB Participation During Next Grocery Store Visit

Figure 10. Locations of Surveys Completed by DUFB Participants

Figure 11. Age of DUFB Participants

Figure 12. Sources of Information about DUFB

Figure 13. Level of Difficulty to Identify Fruits and Vegetables

Figure 14.Time Spent to Purchase Fruits and Vegetables

Figure 15. Overall Ease of Program Use

Figure 16. Amount of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Bought

Figure 17. Amount of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Consumed

Figure 18. Amount of Potato Chips, Candy, and Cookies Consumed

989

Figure 19. Ease of Program Implementation According to Cashiers

Figure 20. Length of Time to Complete DUFB Transaction

Figure 21. Cashier Readiness after Training

Figure 22. DUFB Earned

Figure 23. DUFB Redeemed

Tables 

Table 1. Most Commonly Reported [ZIP] Codes of Non-SNAP Customers 

Table 2. Most Commonly Reported [ZIP] Codes of SNAP Customers Not Participating in DUFB 

Table 3. Most Commonly Reported [ZIP] Codes of DUFB Participants 

Table 4. Top Local Products Purchased with DUFB 

Table 5. Top Products Purchased with DUFB Rewards 

Acknowledgements 

Special acknowledgements are extended to the many individuals and organizations for their contribution to the development and fulfillment of this evaluation report. We thank the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City and the Franciscan Sisters of St. Mary, which provided funding to support the pilot evaluation 

project. We are grateful to Oran Hesterman, Fair Food Network, for supporting the 

expansion of the Double Up Food Bucks program into the metropolitan area. We express our gratitude to Price Chopper, especially David Ball, for agreeing to pilot the 

nutrition incentive program in his Kansas City stores. We are grateful for Diana 

Endicott, Good Natured Family Farms, who pushed for a grocery store pilot project 

to be implemented and evaluated in Kansas City. 

The evaluation team also thanks the individuals who took the time out of their 

demanding schedules to participate in the interviews. These individuals provided insight into how to enhance the Double Up Food Bucks program, providing suggestions on implementation, training, operations, and continued maintenance. Additionally, we thank the following individuals at Price Chopper who were instrumental 

in the evaluation project. We thank Bill Esch for his help in facilitating the interview process with cashiers. We also express gratitude for Scott Bayne’s help in understanding units of locally grown produce sold and sales figures. Appreciation is 

also extended to Lindy Zimmerman, who shared volumes of transaction data with 

us so that we could track purchasing habits and redemptions. 

The evaluation team acknowledges Donna Martin, Mid-America Regional Council, 

for her thoughtful review of the findings, and her input during the drafting of the 

final evaluation report. Finally, we thank the many research assistants who contributed to the completion of the evaluation project: Ahnna Nanoski, Katie Green, Leslie 

Gedminas, Rebecca Mount, Scott Misamore, Taylor Craven, and Zach Boal.

Executive Summary 

Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) is a program designed to increase access to and 

affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables for beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The DUFB program was launched at four Price 

Chopper locations in the Kansas City metropolitan area in the summer of 2015. A 

research team at the University of Kansas Medical Center conducted a mixed-methods evaluation to assess the program’s impact as well as benefits and challenges to 

the program. Overall, feedback gained about the program was positive and supportive. 

Customer Surveys

• Non-SNAP customers were supportive of the program and thought it provided 

benefits for SNAP customers, including saving money and eating healthier.


11403161.eps
990

• SNAP customers who had not used the program reported they were likely to 

utilize the program during their next visit to the store.

• DUFB participants reported that the program was easy to use and was helping 

them eat healthier as well as save money. 

Price Chopper Employee Interviews 

• Price Chopper employees enjoyed helping a portion of their customers eat 

healthier and save money.

• Employees reported that the program was easy to implement and did not add 

a burden on the time to process transactions.

• Store directors were satisfied with their participation in the program and reported they would choose to implement the program again. 

Transaction Data 

• Transaction data displayed a redemption rate of 61% through the end of 2015.

• A total of over 8,600 unduplicated customers participated in the program from 

June through December.

• An increase of local produce sold was seen across the pilot stores. 

Recommendations 

• Recommendations for enhancing implementation of the program emphasize increased communication and awareness of the program, for both grocery store 

employees and program customers. 

Introduction 

The Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) grocery store pilot program was launched in 

the Kansas City metropolitan area in the summer of 2015. Four Price Chopper 

stores were included in the pilot program, with stores located in both Kansas and 

Missouri. See Figure 1 for these Price Chopper locations that piloted the DUFB program. The Price Chopper store on Roe Boulevard launched the DUFB program on 

June 11, 2015, while the other three stores launched the program on July 1, 2015. 

Although not included in the evaluation plan, a fifth store (located on State Avenue) 

began implementing the program in September due to customer requests. 

Figure 1. Pilot DUFB Price Chopper Locations

Store Location 

1 4301 State Ave, Kansas City, KS 

2 4950 Roe Blvd, Mission, KS 

3 9550 Blue Ridge Blvd, Kansas City, MO 

4 12220 S. U.S. Hwy. 71, Grandview, MO 

The goal of the DUFB program is to increase access to and affordability of fresh, 

nutritious fruits and vegetables for beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Additionally, the program aims to support local farmers 

and the local economy. To achieve these goals, the program provides a match of $1 


11403162.eps
991

that can be spent on any fruits or vegetables when customers purchase $1 of local 

produce using their SNAP benefits on their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card. 

The program utilizes Chopper Shopper loyalty cards to track the local produce purchases and the earned incentives. Earned Double Up Food Bucks can be used that 

same day or saved for future use. The DUFB program has previously been implemented successfully in several areas nationwide, including Michigan, Arizona, New 

Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah. 

Mid America Regional Council (MARC) in collaboration with Fair Food Network 

(FFN) contracted with the University of Kansas Medical Center to evaluate the incentive program at the four Price Chopper pilot locations. The primary objective of 

the evaluation was to track the implementation process of DUFB and provide insight for methods to improve this process for potential replication at other grocery 

stores. The evaluation sought to meet this objective by assessing customer viewpoints through the administration of intercept surveys, in-depth interviews with 

cashiers and store managers, environmental scans of the store environment and assessment of transaction data. 

Methodology 

Evaluation of the Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) program involved a mixed-methods approach including customer surveys, Price Chopper employee interviews, and 

analysis of transaction data. 

Feedback from Price Chopper customers on the DUFB program was garnered 

using surveys conducted by trained research assistants at the participating grocery 

stores. The survey sampling plan and schedule was developed and implemented 

based on times SNAP customers most frequently shopped at the stores. Surveys 

were conducted on weekdays and weekends as well as during daytime and evening 

hours to help capture customers who may shop at different times and days of the 

week. 

In addition to conducting customer surveys, interviews were completed with Price 

Chopper employees to gain feedback about their experiences with implementation 

of the program. Interviewers met with Price Chopper cashiers, produce managers 

and store directors, utilizing standardized interview instruments. Interviews were 

digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes across all responses. 

Program transaction data was shared by Price Chopper and used to examine purchasing trends by program customers. Excel was used for data analysis. 

Customer Survey Data 

To evaluate the perceptions of Price Chopper customers about the Double Up Food 

Bucks (DUFB) program in the Kansas City metropolitan area, trained research assistants from the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) surveyed individuals at the four pilot grocery stores. The administration of intercept surveys took 

place over the span of 4 months, from July through October of 2015. Surveyed individuals included: (1) non-SNAP customers, (2) SNAP customers who had not used 

the DUFB program, and (3) SNAP customers who had used the DUFB program. 

As the survey data was collected, responses were entered into a database. Once 

surveying was completed, the responses were verified against the hard copies and 

analyzed. 

The following section provides a summary of responses gathered from the three 

customer groups. 

Non-SNAP Customers 

Nine hundred eighty six (n=986) surveys were completed by non-SNAP customers. 

Of the store locations, 229 (23%) non-SNAP customer surveys were completed at 

Blue Ridge, 215 (22%) were completed at Grandview, 151 (15%) were completed at 

State Avenue, and 391 (40%) were completed at Roeland Park (see Figure 2). See 

Appendix A for the survey instrument utilized for non-SNAP customers. 

992

Figure 2. Locations of Surveys Completed by Non-SNAP Customers

When asked in what [ZIP C]ode they resided, respondents gave answers representing 83 different [ZIP C]odes. Many participants indicated that they live in 

Wyandotte County (KS) or Jackson County (MO). See Table 1 for the five most commonly reported [ZIP C]odes of non-SNAP customers.

Table 1. Most Commonly Reported [ZIP] Codes of Non-SNAP Customers 

[ZIP] Code Number of

Respondents City County State 

64134 144 (15%) Kansas City Jackson MO 

64030 109 (11%) Grandview Jackson MO 

66103 85 (9%) Kansas City Wyandotte KS 

66102 82 (8%) Kansas City Wyandotte KS 

66205 65 (7%) Mission Johnson KS 

Additionally, participants were asked to share the year they were born, which was 

used to calculate their approximate age. As shown in Figure 3, respondents represented a variety of age ranges with the largest portions of individuals indicating 

that they were either in their 50s (n=199, 20%) or in their 60s (n=199, 20%). 

Figure 3. Age of Non-SNAP Customers

When asked if they had heard of the DUFB program before shopping that day, 

a majority indicated that they had not heard of the program (n=821, 83%). As displayed in Figure 4, of those who had heard about it, the most common sources of 

information included the grocery store (n=116) and a flyer/brochure (n=20). Other 

sources of information listed include TV, word of mouth, and social media. 


11403163.eps 11403164.eps
993

Figure 4. Sources of Information about DUFB

Those who had heard of DUFB before shopping that day were asked to share 

what they knew about the program. Many respondents commented that the DUFB 

program is meant to save people money on groceries (n=88) as well as that the program involves buying produce and/or local produce (n=54). 

Individuals who had not heard of the program were asked if they had learned 

about DUFB while in the store that day, perhaps seeing within-store signage, talking with produce staff, cashiers sharing information about DUFB, etc. A majority 

responded that they had not received any information (n=774 out of 851, 91%) while 

the remaining 9% of respondents (n=77) reported that they heard of the program 

that day while shopping in the store. 

When asked if they thought there were any benefits to the program, a majority 

(n=773 out of 874, 88%) responded affirmatively, stating there were benefits to 

DUFB participation. Of those who reported benefits, the most common perceived 

benefits of the DUFB program include that it helps people save money (n=389), encourages individuals to eat healthier or eat more fruits and vegetables (n=256), and 

that it supports local farmers or the local economy (n=105). Some respondents were 

unsure if there were benefits to the program (n=59, 7%) and 42 (5%) indicated that 

they did not think there were benefits to the program. 

Finally, non-SNAP customers were asked about their level of support for a program that provides small amounts of extra money to low-income families to buy 

more locally grown fresh fruits and vegetables. About 75% of respondents indicated 

that they were very supportive of DUFB (see Figure 5 for the distribution of responses to this particular question). 

Figure 5. Level of Support from Non-SNAP Customers


11403165.eps 11403166.eps
994

SNAP Customers Not Using DUFB 

Three hundred thirty two surveys (n=332) were completed by SNAP customers 

that had not participated in DUFB. Of the four store locations, 71 (21%) surveys 

were completed at Blue Ridge, 48 (14%) were completed at Grandview, 114 (34%) 

were completed at State Avenue, and 99 (30%) were completed at Roeland Park (see 

Figure 6). See Appendix B for the survey instrument utilized for SNAP customers 

that had not participated in DUFB. 

Figure 6. Locations of Surveys Completed by SNAP Customers not using 

DUFB

When asked to indicate the [ZIP C]ode in which they reside, respondents gave answers representing 49 different [ZIP C]odes. Similar to the non-SNAP respondents, 

a majority of participants indicated that they live in Wyandotte County (KS) or 

Jackson County (MO). See Table 2 for the five most commonly reported [ZIP C]odes 

of SNAP respondents not using DUFB.

Table 2. Most Commonly Reported [ZIP] Codes of SNAP Customers Not 

Participating in DUFB 

[ZIP] Code Number of

Respondents City County State 

66104 54 (16%) Kansas City Wyandotte KS 

66102 49 (15%) Kansas City Wyandotte KS 

64134 32 (10%) Kansas City Jackson MO 

64030 26 (8%) Grandview Jackson MO 

66101 22 (7%) Kansas City Wyandotte KS 

Additionally, participants were asked to share the year they were born, which was 

used to calculate their approximate age. Many respondents were either in their 30s 

(n=100, 30%) or in their 20s (n=89, 27%). Figure 7 displays the distribution of ages 

of SNAP customers not using DUFB. 

Figure 7. Age of SNAP Customers not using DUFB


11403167.eps 11403168.eps
995

When asked if they had heard of DUFB before shopping that day, a majority indicated that they had not heard of the program (n=235, 71%). Of those who had heard 

about it, the most common sources of information included the grocery store (n=56), 

a flyer/brochure (n=19), or a friend or family member (n=9). Other sources of information listed included cashiers and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 

Women, Infants and Children (WIC). Figure 8 summarizes sources of information 

about DUFB reported by survey respondents. 

Figure 8. Sources of Information about DUFB

Those who had heard of DUFB before shopping that day were asked to share 

what they knew about the program. The most common responses include that the 

program helps people save money (n=25) as well as that the program involves buying produce (n=32). 

When asked their reasoning for not using the DUFB program that day, the most 

commonly reported reasons were that they did not know about the program (n=64), 

that they weren’t buying produce that day (n=21), or that they did not have money 

on their EBT card (n=21). 

Finally, respondents were asked how likely they were to participate in the program the next time they were shopping at the store. A majority (n=232, 70%) indicated that they were very likely to participate in DUFB during their next store visit. 

Only 3% (n=10) reported that they were not very or not at all likely to participate. 

See Figure 9 for the distribution of responses to this question. 


11403169.eps
996

Figure 9. Likelihood of DUFB Participation During Next Grocery Store 

Visit

SNAP Customers Using DUFB 

One hundred four surveys (n=104) were completed by SNAP customers who had 

participated in the Double Up Food Bucks program. Of the four store locations, 17 

(16%) DUFB customer surveys were completed at Blue Ridge, 27 (26%) were completed at Grandview, 34 (33%) were completed at State Avenue, and 26 (25%) were 

completed at Roeland Park. Figure 10 graphically displays the distribution of responses by store. The survey instrument used with SNAP users who had used 

DUFB can be found in Appendix C.

Figure 10. Locations of Surveys Completed by DUFB Participants

When asked the [ZIP C]ode in which they reside, participants reported 23 different [ZIP C]odes. A majority of respondents indicated that they lived in either Wyandotte County (KS) or Jackson County (MO). See Table 3 for the five most commonly reported [ZIP C]odes of surveyed DUFB participants.

Table 3. Most Commonly Reported [ZIP] Codes of DUFB Participants 

[ZIP] Code Number of

Respondents City County State 

66102 20 (19%) Kansas City Wyandotte KS 

66104 12 (12%) Kansas City Wyandotte KS 

64134 11 (11%) Kansas City Jackson MO 

64030 11 (11%) Grandview Jackson MO 

66101 8 (8%) Kansas City Wyandotte KS 

Survey respondents also were asked in what year they were born. Individuals 

were most commonly in their 30s (n=33, 32%) followed by their 20s (n=25, 24%). 

See Figure 11 for a distribution of age ranges of survey respondents. 


11403170.eps 11403171.eps
997

Figure 11. Age of DUFB Participants

When asked if the SNAP customer had heard of DUFB before that day, 20% of 

respondents (n=20) reported that they had not while 80 respondents (80%) reported 

that they had received some information about the program. Those who had heard 

of DUFB before that day indicated learning of the program from a variety of 

sources. The most commonly reported sources included the grocery store (n=58), followed by a flyer/brochure (n=12). Of those who had heard about DUFB from an unlisted source, the most commonly reported response was information gained from a 

cashier or a Price Chopper employee working in the produce section. See Figure 12

for the distribution of responses to this question. 

Figure 12. Sources of Information about DUFB

When asked if they had used the program to purchase fruits and vegetables that 

day, 48 (46%) responded that they had. Of those who had not (n=56, 54%), their 

reasons for not using the program that day include that they did not need produce 

(n=24), they did not have money on their EBT card (n=8), or they just did not understand the program (n=6). 

For those SNAP customers who had used the program that day, the most commonly reported fruits they purchased that day include apples, peaches, and bananas. Additionally, the vegetables most commonly reported as purchased that day 

include tomatoes, onions, and cucumbers. 

SNAP customers who had used the program that day were asked questions about 

the ease of use. A majority of respondents (n=43, 88%) indicated that it was very 

or somewhat easy to identify which fruits and vegetables were eligible for DUFB 

incentives. Only five respondents reported it was somewhat difficult while one respondent reported it was very difficult (see Figure 13). 


11403172.eps 11403173.eps
998

Figure 13. Level of Difficulty to Identify Fruits and Vegetables

SNAP participants also were asked about the point of sale and how long it took 

to purchase the fruits and vegetables eligible for the DUFB incentives while at the 

register. As displayed in Figure 14, a majority of respondents reported that it took 

about the amount of time that they might have expected. Four individuals responded that it took a little longer than they expected but none of the respondents 

reported that it took a lot longer than they expected. 

Figure 14.Time Spent to Purchase Fruits and Vegetables

Additionally, survey respondents were asked how easy it was to use the program 

overall that day. A majority of respondents indicated it was very or somewhat easy 

to use the program. Two participants responded that it was somewhat difficult to 

use the program but none responded that it was very difficult. See Figure 15 below. 


11403174.eps 11403175.eps
999

Figure 15. Overall Ease of Program Use

Most participants responded that the program was clear and there were no confusing aspects. Only a few individuals commented on the need for more or better 

produce signage to indicate what produce was eligible for the DUFB incentives. 

Of those surveyed DUFB customers who had used the program that day, a large 

portion reported that it was their first time using the program (n=29, 63%). Of the 

respondents who indicated it was not their first time using the program, 22% reported that they had used Double SNAP at a farmers’ market. Eighteen percent 

(18%) of individuals responded that it was their first time using DUFB in a grocery 

store while 82% indicated they had used DUFB during a previous visit. 

Only 15 survey participants gave a response for how many times they had used 

DUFB within the past year. Of these individuals, most reported using the program 

two to three times in the past year. 

Of the 20 SNAP recipients who responded to being asked about how participation 

in DUFB might have affected their eating habits, 12 participants reported the 

amount of fresh fruits and vegetables that they buy has increased because of the 

DUFB program. As shown in Figure 16, surprisingly, one individual indicated a decrease in the amount of fruits and vegetables purchased. 

Figure 16. Amount of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Bought

Additionally, participants were asked if the amount of fresh fruits and vegetables 

that they eat has changed due to the DUFB program. As shown in Figure 17, more 

than 1⁄2 of respondents (55%) reported that this amount had increased. 


11403176.eps 11403177.eps
1000

Figure 17. Amount of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Consumed

Respondents also were asked about their consumption of potato chips, candy, and 

cookies and if participation in DUFB might have altered their eating habits of those 

items. As displayed in Figure 18, about 70% of respondents (n=14) indicated their 

consumption of these items had remained the same while 25% (n=5) reported that 

it had decreased. 

Figure 18. Amount of Potato Chips, Candy, and Cookies Consumed

Importantly, about 50% (n=8) of survey respondents that were asked if they had 

found themselves budgeting differently since participating in the DUFB program indicated that they had. 

For those who responded that they were budgeting differently, they were then 

were asked to describe how DUFB is affecting the way they budget. Most commented that it helps them save money and helps them afford fruits and vegetables 

more easily. For example, one respondent replied, ‘‘I have extra money to spend on 

fruits and vegetables’’ and another commented that due to being able to budget for 

groceries differently, ‘‘My kids eat more fruits and veggies.’’

Finally, survey respondents were asked if they had any recommendations for improving the DUFB program. Many respondents indicated that they did not have any 

recommendations or they thought the program is great as it is. A few individuals 

suggested developing more awareness and better communication about the program, 

particularly from the store cashiers. Others suggested having more local produce options. One respondent commented about the need for the DUFB program to be in 

every Price Chopper store throughout the metropolitan area. 

Grocery Store Assessments 

In addition to conducting customer surveys, KUMC research assistants completed 

grocery store evaluation checklists during their visits to each of the Price Chopper 


11403178.eps 11403179.eps
1001

locations. This checklist served as an environmental scan of the store’s produce section (see Appendix D). The assistants evaluated the quantity and quality of available produce and confirmed the presence or absence of locally grown produce signage. During the visits, research assistants were asked to evaluate factors such as 

the clarity of DUFB signage, whether there was an adequate amount of DUFB signage present, the amount and quality of available local produce, the presence or absence of local produce cooking demonstrations, and to note the availability of Spanish signage. One hundred and seven (n=107) grocery store assessments were completed during the pilot. 

Seventy-eight of the assessments (89% out of 88) indicated that the clarity of the 

signage for DUFB produce was unambiguous; it was obvious the produce was locally 

grown. Further, clarity of the signage seemed to improve over time. For instance, 

at the beginning of program implementation some signs displayed produce as 

‘‘homegrown’’ which may have caused some confusion for customers as to whether 

that produce was considered locally grown and qualified for the program. Notes 

from the grocery store assessments indicated that on occasion there were ‘‘local’’ 

signs posted but it was unclear to what specific produce the sign applied. Additionally, some posted signs designated produce as local but lacked any DUFB program 

logo, which may have made it unclear to SNAP customers if the produce qualified 

for the program. 

Some stores had sections in the produce department devoted entirely to locally 

grown fruits and vegetables, which made it easy to identify those products that 

qualified for the DUFB program. Large banners were also displayed to advertise the 

DUFB program. These banners were eye-catching and clearly defined the program’s 

target audience as SNAP recipients. Further, at times, local produce signage would 

also include where the particular product was grown (e.g., Grown by Twin Co. Family Farms in Rich Hill, Missouri). Overall, modifications to the program signage improved over time, with greater visibility and clarity as to what produce qualified for 

the program.

In addition to within-store signage, Mid-America Regional Council used several 

other methods to advertise and promote the program. These methods include print 

advertising, social media posts, and billboards (a total of seven) in various locations.


11403180.eps
1002

Grocery store assessments also examined whether the amount of program signage 

was adequate. A majority of the assessments (n=71 out of 86, 83%) indicated an appropriate amount of signage. Research assistants noted an abundance of flyers 

about the DUFB program available to SNAP customers. They also observed that the 

flyers were easily accessible to the customers. Stores placed DUFB information tables near the produce section, which contained flyers that customers could take with 

them. Occasionally, store employees were stationed at the tables so that they could 

explain how the program worked to incoming customers. 

The evaluation checklist also included questions about the locally grown produce 

that was available. Signs and flyers were available at the store that listed produce 

as ‘‘LOCAL THIS WEEK’’. Research assistants compared the actual amount of locally grown fruits and vegetables available in the produce department to this listing. 

The listing of local fruits and vegetables varied from visit to visit as the season progressed. Approximately 72% (n=57 out of 79) of grocery store evaluations indicated 

the amount of local produce was stocked adequately. However, on several occasions 

only a limited number of the listed items could be found. For instance, blackberries 

were often included on the local produce listing but were unable to be located by 

the research assistants.

Research assistants rated the quality of the local produce as ‘‘good’’ consistently. 

Approximately 92% of assessments (n=76 out of 83) indicated that the quality of the 

local produce on the day of assessment was fresh and in good visible condition. 

Research assistants were also asked to take note of other factors, such as the 

presence of cooking demonstrations and the availability of Spanish language signage. Although cooking demonstrations did not take place during a majority of the 

occasions that research assistants were present at the stores (91%, n=93 out of 102), 

there were often local produce samples available to customers for taste-tests (such 

as tomatoes or cantaloupes). Finally, on only approximately 1⁄3 (n=36 out of 102, 

35%) of assessments, research assistants indicated Spanish language signage was 


11403181.eps 11403182.eps
1003

available at the store. However, program flyers and local produce listings included 

information in both English and Spanish. 

Price Chopper Employee Interviews 

Interviews with Price Chopper employees were conducted to gain feedback about 

facilitators and challenges to the process of implementing the DUFB program. 

Standardized guides were used to complete interviews with employees of the four 

participating Price Chopper stores. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed 

verbatim, and analyzed to discover themes across the responses to each open-ended 

question. 

Interviewed employees included cashiers and store directors, as well as other employees in roles such as service manager and produce manager. 

Cashiers 

Fifty-two cashiers (n=52) were interviewed about their experiences with the 

DUFB program. Of the four participating locations, 18 interviews were conducted 

at Roeland Park, ten at Blue Ridge, 19 at Grandview, and five at the State Avenue 

location. The interview instrument utilized with cashiers can be found in Appendix 

E.

Length of Time Employed as a Cashier 

The amount of time the cashiers had been working for Price Chopper was averaged in years. Overall, the mean number of years working at a particular store was 

approximately 4.3 years across all four stores. Cashiers interviewed at Roeland Park 

reported working for an average of 3.1 years, Blue Ridge 6.4 years, Grandview 4.2 

years, and KCK 3.8 years. 

Ease of DUFB Implementation 

When asked to rate how easy the DUFB program was to implement, using a 

Likert scale from 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy), the majority of cashiers (n=37, 

72%) reported it was either easy or very easy to implement. As displayed in Figure 

19, 11 cashiers (21%) indicated it was neither easy nor difficult to implement while 

four cashiers stated DUFB was difficult or very difficult to implement. 

Figure 19. Ease of Program Implementation According to Cashiers

Cashiers who indicated it was difficult or very difficult to implement DUFB also 

reported they received no formal training. One cashier stated, ‘‘I learned by word 

of mouth. I did not have training.’’ Another cashier who rated the ease of DUFB 

implementation as difficult still did not understand the program fully when she 

stated, ‘‘. . . the cash back thing was confusing.’’ While another cashier struggled 

initially with implementation stating, ‘‘I really didn’t understand it [DUFB] was 

only for food stamps, but now I get it. Just getting used to it.’’

Factors Affecting Ease of Implementation 

Cashiers were asked to share what was easy or difficult about implementing the 

DUFB program. Most cashiers reported the implementation of the DUFB program 

was straightforward. They described several aspects of the process, which made 


11403183.eps
1004

DUFB easy to carry out. First, the cashiers emphasized the importance of having 

specific codes to enter into the register to identify the local foods eligible to earn 

incentives. One cashier’s statement captured the sentiments of others when she 

stated, ‘‘. . . just having the code we have to type for it [DUFB] makes it really easy.’’

Second, many cashiers stated that a listing of locally grown items that are eligible 

for DUFB made the transaction process easier, too. This listing helped cashiers 

know that the items needed to be keyed in as locally grown and food bucks would 

be earned. In contrast, a few cashiers at one store stated they had difficulty identifying what produce was locally grown and generated DUFB incentives. As one cashier shared, ‘‘I think the most difficult part for a cashier is just the knowledge of what 

was local and what wasn’t.’’

Many cashiers indicated the use of technology facilitated the earning and redemption process. For example, the auto-generated computer screen popup allowed the 

cashiers to press ‘‘acknowledge’’ on their registers and the customer was able to redeem food bucks easily. As a cashier stated, ‘‘the easy part is it’s just a code to put 

in.’’ Another cashier explained the ease of implementation when she stated, ‘‘I mean 

it’s just simple because all it is, once you buy the local, then you match with any 

kind as long as you have the EBT card. It’s just plain and simple. The computer 

tells you the rest.’’

Others stated the process was made easier by hands-on training. One cashier 

summarized the points of view of other cashiers about the ease of implementation 

when supplemental training was given. She stated, ‘‘. . . it was easy ‘cause [sic] they 

explained the program to us . . . kind of went over with us. They gave us the information and what codes we use and like told us how to actually do it on the registers.’’

Several other cashiers mentioned that there were difficulties with implementation 

of DUFB. They stated most problems occurred at the beginning of adopting the program into the stores. Many cashiers found the amount of information shared during 

the training session to be overwhelming. They felt ‘‘trying to understand everything 

at the beginning’’ with only one training session made implementing the program 

difficult. However, over time, the cashiers indicated the program was easier to implement. 

Many cashiers shared that the most difficult part of the program was getting the 

SNAP customer to understand the process. Several cashiers reacted in the same 

manner, stating ‘‘. . . but the difficult part was like sometimes explaining what it 

[DUFB] was . . . it’s when you try to explain it to customers. The customers don’t 

get it. So I have to keep trying to explain it.’’ Similarly, another cashier stated, ‘‘. . . 

trying to explain that the first time they have to buy local and second time they can 

buy anything they want to. Learning how to explain it to customers.’’ Other cashiers 

shared examples of how they struggled to explain the DUFB process to SNAP customers. They stressed the need for additional help for the customer to understand 

how the program works. As one cashier lamented, ‘‘even though we have posters up 

and brochures, we have people out there. they still didn’t know what we were talking 

about.’’

Extra Time To Process a DUFB Transaction 

Cashiers were asked how much extra time a DUFB transaction demanded compared to a regular, non-DUFB transaction. As displayed in Figure 20, over 70% of 

respondents (n=37) reported that a DUFB transaction required either the same 

amount of time or less than 1 minute extra compared to a usual transaction. Onefourth of cashiers (25%, n=13) thought it took over 1 minute more to complete a 

DUFB transaction compared to a regular transaction. 

Two of the cashiers were not sure if a DUFB transaction took less or more time 

compared to a typical transaction. 

1005

Figure 20. Length of Time to Complete DUFB Transaction

Number of DUFB Transactions Processed 

Cashiers were asked to estimate how many DUFB transactions they have processed since the pilot program began in their particular store. Responses varied considerably from less than five transactions to more than 15 per day four times per 

week. The average number of transactions across the four stores was 118. At the 

Grandview store, which had the most SNAP transactions of the pilot stores, cashiers 

reported an average of 285 transactions that were processed since the DUFB program initially began in their store. 

Readiness To Implement DUFB After Training 

Cashiers were asked to think about the training they received to work on DUFB 

and then rate how ready they were to work on the program, using a scale from 1 

(not being ready at all) to 4 (being very ready). As displayed in Figure 21, the majority of cashiers (n=40, 77%) reported they felt very or quite ready after the training. 

Figure 21. Cashier Readiness after Training

Factors Affecting Readiness To Implement DUFB 

When cashiers were asked why they thought they were ready or not ready to implement the DUFB program after training, most cashiers indicated the extent of 

training was sufficient to execute the program effectively. Many comments about the 

readiness to implement the program were similar. For example, comments shared 

included,

‘‘. . . the training covered everything you needed to know going into it.’’


11403184.eps 11403185.eps
1006

‘‘. . . it [the training] couldn’t be more direct than that.’’ ‘‘. . . it’s such an easy program to run.’’ ‘‘. . . it’s an easy process.’’ ‘‘It’s just kind of self-explanatory.’’ ‘‘The training was sufficient.’’ ‘‘Well, I felt I was ready because they explained it.’’

Others felt the training was sufficient but expressed the need to ‘‘get the hang of 

it.’’ They shared that DUFB was similar to any other new program to be implemented, ‘‘it’s just a matter of getting used to it.’’ Cashiers who indicated they were 

not at all ready or not ready to implement DUFB did not receive formal training. 

They reported the only training they received was ‘‘by word of mouth.’’ As one cashier described, ‘‘it was just kind of word of mouth kind of thing. There were several 

weeks that went by before I knew that I was supposed to hit acknowledge.’’ Another 

stated, ‘‘I learned from asking other cashiers what to do next,’’ while another cashier 

admitted, ‘‘I’m gonna be completely honest. I didn’t even get the training. I missed 

that day. I came into work the day afterward and just kind of picked up on it.’’ Additionally, two individuals who stated they were not ready to implement DUFB also 

continued not to be clear about eligibility, asking the interviewer, ‘‘is it only for food 

stamp customers?’’ and sharing the comment, ‘‘I owed the customer cash back.’’

DUFB Appreciation 

When interviewers asked the cashiers to state what they like or appreciate about 

the DUFB program, the overwhelming response was that it helps SNAP customers 

eat healthier. Many similar comments, such as ‘‘it [DUFB] goes toward helping families so that they eat healthy . . .’’ and, ‘‘. . . it gives them an opportunity to buy 

more healthier stuff . . . easier for them to buy because it gets expensive for fruits 

and vegetables.’’ Others stressed how they appreciated helping children of low income families eat healthier through the DUFB program, noting, ‘‘a lot of fruits and 

vegetables are very, very important in a child’s meal’’ and, ‘‘. . . they’re trying to promote healthy eating. We see a lot of customers that buy just junk food, preprocessed 

food, not the healthiest choice for their kids. And now you’re seeing a little bit more 

fruits and veggies.’’ Another cashier responded, ‘‘I feel they eat a little more healthier. 

And for the kids, too. So, I think it’s a great program.’’ Additionally, many cashiers expressed how much they appreciated how DUFB 

helps SNAP customers save money. Many stated how the program helps families, 

‘‘get more money back to use for any produce, not just local.’’ Others stressed how 

they really like the program because ‘‘they [the SNAP customers] can stretch that 

dollar with DUFB.’’ One particular cashier communicated their appreciation because ‘‘. . . it helps most of our elderly customers that we have because sometimes 

they don’t get as much on their EBT . . . And I like the fact that I can go and help 

them out.’’ Other cashiers appreciated how the DUFB program supports local farmers. As one 

cashier summarized these feelings, ‘‘. . . it’s good for local farmers.’’ Not only did 

they value how DUFB benefits local farmers but they also appreciated how the program supports the economy and increases Price Choppers’ business. The cashiers 

described how the entire process benefited more than just the SNAP customer. As 

one cashier captured the opinions of others, ‘‘. . . people come in and they bring in 

a lot of money and they come back in. It increases our profits. And helps guarantee 

my job.’’

Suggestions To Improve the Double Up Food Bucks Program 

Cashiers were asked for suggestions to improve the DUFB program. Most recommendations fell into three categories: (1) to increase customer awareness and 

knowledge of the program, (2) to expand the program to include all fruits and vegetables, and (3) to expand the eligibility of the program to include non-SNAP customers. 

Many cashiers suggested additional training to help the customer understand how 

the program works. They recommended the need to seek different ways to explain 

the program to SNAP customers because the current strategies were not working 

well and customers continue to be confused and had misperceptions about the 

DUFB program. The cashiers indicated that many of their customers still did not 

understand how to take part in the program. They gave several examples of confusion by SNAP customers, sharing ‘‘. . . they think they have to do like separate 

transactions for Double Up Bucks and then for their regular food.’’ and ‘‘they don’t 

really know what they are entitled to . . .’’ Moreover, other cashiers mentioned it 

would be helpful to teach customers how to use the produce. They stressed the importance of providing examples of different ways to prepare the locally grown 

produce. Similarly, one cashier encouraged food demonstrations to improve the 

1007

DUFB program, ‘‘. . . if we had in-house demos . . . people don’t know how to use 

the squash. If we had more demos to get that produce out in front.’’

Several cashiers recommended expansion of the program to include a larger variety of local items. They felt more individuals would participate in the program if 

there were more options. Further, other cashiers wanted the DUFB program to 

allow all fruits and vegetables, not just locally grown ones. As a cashier stated, ‘‘I 

don’t think it should have to be locally grown produce at first. . . . I think it should 

be all the produce because people buy a lot of different varieties. If they are more 

into the exotic type of foods, they won’t get the local points.’’ Another stated, ‘‘if they 

had more options [larger variety of fruits and vegetables], they would be more likely 

to use the program.’’

Many cashiers recommended the program expand to include those who are not eligible for SNAP benefits. Several cashiers thought it was ‘‘unfair’’ to those who were 

struggling financially but not SNAP-eligible. Fairness to others was a common 

theme among cashiers with one stating this shared opinion, ‘‘I think it would be a 

good idea to be fair to let everybody have access to that [DUFB]. I don’t have EBT. 

It would sure help me out a lot. I’ve even had a couple of customers ask me why 

they can’t have it. Because they ask about it and they don’t think it’s fair.’’ Similarly, 

another cashier recommended, ‘‘. . . some type of way to help give those customers 

something, so it’s not just like you have to be on EBT to get it.’’ Another cashier stated, ‘‘Honestly, I would like it [DUFB] to be given to everyone’’ while yet another remarked, ‘‘I think it should be for everybody, not just people that are on food stamps.’’

Store Directors 

Three store director interviews were completed. One store director represented 

two of the participating Double Up Food Bucks locations (i.e., Roeland Park and 

State Avenue). The results of the interviews with the store directors are presented 

below for each question asked. The interview instrument utilized with store directors can be found in Appendix F.

Most Useful Aspect of DUFB Startup 

When asked to think back to when DUFB was first implemented at their store 

and to identify what was most useful to them for starting the program, store directors emphasized the importance of having one-on-one conversations with employees 

and customers. One director commented that the directors of the four stores who 

were rolling out the DUFB program met as a group and walked through the program at the Roeland Park grocery store, which was the site that launched the program ahead of the other locations. One store director commented that it was helpful 

to see how the Roeland Park store was implementing the program and by doing so, 

it made the implementation of the program at his store much simpler. 

Additional Supports Needed 

When asked what would make the program easier to implement, two store directors indicated they did not require additional help to execute the DUFB program 

fully. Although the directors did not report needing additional help, in-store activities were organized by the directors to support the DUFB program. For example, 

the service manager called a storewide meeting to discuss the program and answer 

employee questions to supplement the DUFB training session. 


11403186.eps
1008

Additionally, another store director met with each employee individually to ensure 

employees understood the program completely. At a different store location, other 

activities were noted as influential in supporting DUFB. The store manager indicated they placed a large sign in the produce section about DUFB and positioned 

an individual near the front of the store to explain the program to incoming customers to support the DUFB program. One store director commented that in the beginning of the pilot, it took time to get the word out about DUFB and make certain 

store staff understood how the program works. One store director did comment that 

the redemption procedure for DUFB incentives was ‘‘a little bit confusing at first’’ 

and would welcome activities to bolster the understanding of how this process 

works. 

Adequacy of Training for Cashiers and Produce Department Staff 

Collectively, the store directors reported the training for cashiers and produce department staff was adequate. One director commented, however, that the DUFB 

training was a ‘‘little repetitious at first.’’ According to another store director, the 

training for the produce department staff was adequate as it was ‘‘pretty easy and 

self-explanatory.’’ That same director reported the program might have been a little 

more challenging at first for cashiers because they did not handle many local and/

or organic produce typically but as time passed, the cashiers became acclimated to 

the process.

Additional Training for Staff 

When the store directors were asked if they provided additional DUFB training, 

one store director reported no additional training was conducted while the other two 

store directors provided supplementary training to their staff. Because one store had 

new employees coming on board frequently during the pilot, the director indicated 

training was an ongoing process to make certain employees were informed about 

DUFB. The other store director provided additional one-on-one training with their 

grocery store staff to enhance the employees’ understanding of the DUFB process. 

This store director commented that the implementation process ‘‘would have gone 

better with a little more additional training.’’

Recommendations for Training Enhancement 

Although one store director indicated the DUFB program was ‘‘a pretty easy program to implement and understand’’ and did not have suggestions, other store directors had recommendations to enhance the training of employees. One recommendation for enhancement of the DUFB training was to develop a training video that explains in detail important aspects of the program. A store director commented that 

it is critical for the grocery store team to understand how and why they are implementing the program and providing visual aids might be very helpful in supporting 

this effort. Another store director responded that reviewing with employees what 

local produce is stocked within the store might be very beneficial. In this manner, 

the employees can identify local produce easily and in turn, could facilitate the 

transaction process for cashiers. 

Ease of Processing DUFB By Cashiers At Point of Sale 

When asked to think about the point of sale—when customers get or use their 

DUFB cards/points with cashiers—and the level of difficulty for cashiers to process 


11403187.eps
1009

DUFB, two store directors reported that it was challenging at first, particularly the 

first week or 2 of implementation. However, they reported it became easier as the 

cashiers adjusted to the process. One director commented that the redemption process was the cashiers’ most challenging part of the program. A major obstacle that 

affected the process at this store was due to a computer issue. For example, if the 

customer had previously earned DUFB points and returned later to buy produce, 

then the cashier would be prompted on the screen to acknowledge if earned points 

were to be used for the current produce purchases. Then, if the cashier pressed the 

acknowledge key and the customer had earned more points than they were redeeming that day, then the transaction statement would indicate the customer was owed 

money back. To exacerbate the computer issue further, this store serves a large 

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) population, which also affected the DUFB purchasing process. Many of these customers purchased local produce with their WIC 

vouchers, which led to confusion by the cashiers. Due to the computer issue, the 

cashiers’ tills would not reconcile with the appropriate balance. The cashiers were 

then placed in an uncomfortable position because they wanted their tills not to have 

variances. 

Feedback from Cashiers About Processing DUFB 

All store directors interviewed indicated cashiers at their store have responded 

positively to the program. They reported not hearing any negativity towards the 

DUFB program. The store directors reported the DUFB program is met with very 

positive feeling from the cashiers. For example, one store director commented the 

cashiers are positive about the program because they can see how it benefits the 

SNAP customer and increases the business of their grocery store. As a result, the 

cashiers feel the program helps to promote their job security. 

Lessons Learned Or Recommendations for Improving Process 

When asked about any lessons learned or recommendations for making the DUFB 

process better, one store director responded it is beneficial for the cashiers to ask 

the customer the extent of their knowledge about the DUFB program or at least 

mention the program at the beginning of the transaction when they first notice the 

customer is using an EBT card. Another store director commented about the importance of ‘‘just learning the experience of going through it with the customer.’’ Store 

directors mentioned that the lessons learned are to understand the importance of 

‘‘on-the-job experience’’ and ‘‘cashiers processing many transactions until it becomes 

routine,’’ which are necessary components to the process. 

Produce Signage for DUFB-Eligible Items 

Store directors were asked to think about the signage in their stores for DUFBeligible produce and to indicate how well the produce signs work for DUFB. In response, each of the store directors indicated they thought the produce signs worked 

well for the program. One described the signage at their store as an ‘‘evolution.’’ He 

explained how they upgraded the signs across the pilot program period to improve 

how the program was described. Although he mentioned the signs included a lot of 

information, providing cues that the SNAP customer will recognize immediately is 

helpful in promoting DUFB-eligible produce. 

Feedback from Produce Managers About DUFB Signage 

When asked if store directors had heard any feedback from produce managers 

about how well the DUFB signs worked, the store directors reported receiving very 

few comments from the produce managers about signage. They indicated, however, 

that all of the produce managers were supportive of the DUFB program. One store 

director stated that the produce manager would only provide feedback if there were 

complaints or if the produce manager felt the signage was not working well. Because he had not received any complaints or remarks about signage from the 

produce manager, he believed all was working well. Another store director mentioned that the signage was fine. However, he mentioned the availability of some 

of the local items that were advertised was inconsistent and their store had to adjust accordingly. 

Lessons Learned Or Recommendations for Produce Signage 

Store directors were asked about lessons learned or recommendations to improve 

produce signage. All store directors stated the signs worked well. One store director 

commented that ‘‘bigger is better when it comes to the signs’’ because the store needs 

to grab the SNAP customers’ attention. He commented, for example, that at the beginning of the pilot period, the signs might not have been as effective because they 

were too small and blended in with the surroundings. 

1010

Additional Marketing Strategies To Promote DUFB 

Interviewers shared with the store directors that Fair Food Network and MidAmerica Regional Council used many different strategies to communicate and market DUFB to customers and then asked if any additional marketing strategies were 

used to promote DUFB to their customers. The store directors mentioned different 

strategies to promote the program. One strategy was to talk directly with customers, 

usually at the point of sale, and let them know the benefits of the program.

‘‘One thing we did . . . was to tell the customer at the checkout point of sale 

that this was a great way to spread out their ability to have fresh fruits and 

vegetables on their table every week instead of just a one-time purchase per 

month. And that they could actually save, you can accumulate and save the benefit for later.’’

Another strategy included placing tables near their produce section that contained 

information about the DUFB program to help inform SNAP customers.

Effective Strategies 

When asked what strategies to promote the DUFB program were most effective, 

the store directors reported the one-on-one interaction with the customers, particularly having cashiers explain the program, was by far the most effective strategy. 

One challenge, however, was to make certain all cashiers were explaining the program properly at the point of sale. 

Experience With Volunteers and Demonstrations 

When asked to describe their experience with volunteers and store demonstrations, only one store director reported the presence of cooking/food demonstrations. 

He described the demonstrations as excellent and reported the way in which individuals who led the demonstrations explained the DUFB program to customers was 

excellent, too. He was impressed by how much detail was shared with customers 

about the DUFB program during the demonstrations. The two other store directors 

commented that they did not have cooking demonstrations but did have other type 

of demonstrations, such as samples of local produce. The store directors stated that 

the individuals who led the demonstrations were polite and pleasant. Additionally, 

one store director commented the presence of the University of Kansas Medical Center students, who were surveying at the store and were able to explain the program 

in-depth to the customers they talked to, was an effective strategy to increase the 

understanding of the DUFB program. 

Lessons Learned Or Recommendations for Marketing the Program 

The interviewers asked the store directors if they had any lessons learned or recommendations for marketing the DUFB program to customers. One store director 

commented that discussing the program one-on-one with the customers and spreading information about the program by word of mouth is the best marketing strategy. 

Another store director described the lessons learned about how to market the program in this manner:

‘‘I would have to say that the important thing to do, is that you have to be 

aggressive at the front end of it. You can’t slide into it gradually and I’m talking 

about from a knowledge standpoint. Everybody has to be on the same page when 


11403188.eps
1011

you’re starting it. You can’t ramp up speed as you go because what that means 

is that you’ve got people out there that can’t explain the program. And what we 

saw or experienced was that the program started off slowly but that it gained 

strength steadily through the year and you want that to happen. But it can’t 

happen if you don’t have people that are willing to explain it and know what 

they’re talking about.’’

Feedback from Customers About DUFB 

Interviewers asked store directors to share what they have heard from SNAP customers about DUFB. The store directors shared that the feedback from customers 

about the program has been positive. As reported by one store director, the customers enjoy the ability to put healthier foods on the table. Additionally, the customers appreciate the flexibility of being able to redeem their rewards across time 

and the freedom to choose when to use their incentive dollars. However, this same 

store director also commented that numerous SNAP customers are not knowledgeable about how to prepare many of the local fruits and vegetables. He suggested it 

would be beneficial to include more education on the preparation of these items. Another store director shared what customers have communicated about DUFB:

‘‘The customers like it. Many of them now understand the program so they look 

forward to using their food bucks and actually plan their buying around the fact 

that they’re earning money. It’s part of their budget now.’’

Change in Purchasing Behaviors By Customers 

When asked if the store directors have heard from any customers that DUFB 

changed their purchasing behaviors, two store directors responded affirmatively. 

One director stated customers are more willing to try new fruits and vegetables, 

which they had not consumed previously. Another director reported hearing how 

customers are budgeting differently so that they can purchase additional fruits and 

vegetables with their earned incentives. 

Changes in Your Customer Base 

The interviewers asked the store directors if their stores have experienced any 

changes in customer base because of DUFB. In response to this question, one store 

director commented that it was too difficult to know because the store was being 

remodeled during the same months DUFB was being piloted. Another store director 

reported he has noticed more customers ask for organic or local produce. Finally, 

another store director commented:

‘‘It would be hard to know [about changes to customer base] . . . But what 

it does for us, because we’re the only store or company that’s doing this in Kansas City, at least at the current time, it makes that customer a dedicated customer. In other words, they’re going to come back because of that so that 

strengthens our customer base. And over time, that should continue to happen.’’

Locally Grown Produce Purchased By Stores 

Interviewers asked store directors if they believed their stores purchased more locally grown produce because of the presence of the DUFB program. All store directors indicated they saw an increase in purchases of locally grown produce by their 

store. One director commented that DUFB ‘‘pushed’’ sales of local produce. Another 

store director reported that he was not definite about overall sale increases but was 

positive about the store purchasing additional quantities of specific locally grown 

items. 

Greater Focus on Locally Grown Produce 

When asked if they felt their produce department had a greater focus on locally 

grown produce because of the DUFB program, the store directors all responded affirmatively. Additionally, the store directors mentioned that displays with information about DUFB and tables featuring locally grown produce contributed to the focus 

on local fruits and vegetables. One store director stated that they had promoted locally grown produce in the past but the DUFB program was more effective.

1012

Unexpected Benefits 

The interviewers asked store directors if there were any unexpected benefits from 

having DUFB at their stores. Two directors did not believe any unexpected benefits 

emerged from their participation in the DUFB program. However, another store director commented that the presence of the DUFB program provided an opportunity 

to have a dialogue between the customer and cashier or produce team member. This 

opportunity for dialogue was beneficial because it meant the customers were placing 

trust in the Price Chopper employees to explain about locally grown items. It also 

provided an opportunity for the employees to help customers with selecting quality 

produce and deciding upon what and how much to purchase. Overall, he thought 

having that interaction was an unexpected positive benefit, deriving from the DUFB 

program. 

Challenges To Implementing DUFB 

Store directors reported implementation challenges that were out of their control, 

such as computer issues. For example, one store director reported that the Double 

Up points were not visible on the customers’ receipt. Customers wanted to be able 

to view the amount earned on the locally grown produce purchases. The main challenge to another store director was the struggle to increase the SNAP customer’s 

understanding of the DUFB program. He commented that many SNAP customers 

still do not understand the process and the benefits of the program. 

Advice to Other Grocery Stores 

When interviewers inquired about what advice they would give to other grocery 

stores planning to implement a similar program, store directors stressed the importance of education and communication about the DUFB program. They emphasized 

communication should occur in parallel with the customers and the grocery store 

team. For example, one store director emphasized how important it was to avoid the 

situation where the customer becomes excited about being able to use the DUFB 

program only to have store employees unable to answer questions about the program correctly. He also called attention to making certain the SNAP customer understands the program fully, including how participation involves long-term benefits. 

Improvements Or Recommendations 

Interviewers asked the store directors to share ideas about improvements or recommendations for the DUFB program. Store directors did not share any major recommendations to improve the program. One director commented that word of mouth 

was very important for building the DUFB program. He stressed the importance of 

finding ways to enhance this mode of communication. Another store director recommended that the Price Chopper stores acquire a greater variety of locally grown 

produce, which will help promote the DUFB program. 

Satisfaction With the Store’s Participation 

Overall, the store directors expressed satisfaction with their store’s participation 

in the program. As commented by one store director:


11403189.eps
1013

‘‘Very satisfied because I think it’s a plus for the company. It’s a plus for the 

customers to eat healthier. I just really don’t see any negatives with the program 

at all.’’

Another director indicated his store has had a positive experience with the DUFB 

program. Further, he welcomed the opportunity to see the program continue and expand into other Price Chopper stores. 

Implement DUFB Again 

When the store directors were asked if they had it to do over again, would they 

implement DUFB at their grocery store, all store directors responded affirmatively. 

The directors stated they would definitely agree to implement the program again 

at their store. 

Transaction Data 

Transaction data from the four Price Chopper locations participating in the Double Up Food Bucks pilot program was used to analyze the amount of money SNAP 

users had earned with DUFB as well as the amount that had been redeemed. Additionally, the data was used to examine which local products were most commonly 

being bought with the program and on which products DUFB users were spending 

their earned rewards. The Roeland Park store launched DUFB on June 11th while 

the remaining three stores launched DUFB on July 1st. Transaction data provided 

by Price Chopper was used to look at DUFB program usage from June through December 2015. 

From the launch of the program through the end of 2015, Price Chopper customers earned approximately $42,300 across the four stores using the DUFB program. As displayed in Figure 22, August was the highest-earning month with a total 

of nearly $12,000 earned across the four stores. 

Figure 22. DUFB Earned

Through the end of 2015, DUFB customers had redeemed a total of nearly 

$26,000 on produce using the program. September had the highest total redemption 

of $5,800 (see Figure 23). 


11403190.eps
1014

Figure 23. DUFB Redeemed

The total redemption rate (i.e., percentage of earned DUFB rewards that had been 

redeemed) as of December 2015 across the four stores was approximately 61%. 

Transaction data was also used to examine what types of produce participants 

were using the program to purchase. Some of the top local products customers were 

purchasing to earn rewards include green bell peppers, beefsteak tomatoes, watermelon, cabbage, and cucumbers. Table 4 shows total amounts of these local products 

purchased by DUFB customers across the four stores.

Table 4. Top Local Products Purchased with DUFB 

Product DUFB Earned 

Green bell peppers $5,610

Beefsteak tomatoes $5,210

Watermelon $5,140

Cabbage $4,350

Cucumbers $3,230

Some of the top produce items customers were using their earned rewards to purchase include russet potatoes, iceberg/shredded lettuce, watermelon, red grapes, and 

bananas. Table 5 shows the amount redeemed on these five products.

Table 5. Top Products Purchased with DUFB Rewards 

Product DUFB Earned 

Russet potatoes $1,780

Iceberg/shredded lettuce $1,630

Watermelon $1,090

Red grapes $1,050

Bananas $960

The number of unduplicated customers that participated in the program through 

the end of 2015 equals over 8,600 individuals across all four participating stores. 

Although a majority of DUFB participants only utilized the program at one store, 

some participants used the program at two or three different locations. 

Price Chopper also shared data about overall sales of local produce for their pilot 

stores, which displayed an increase after DUFB implementation. From June–December of 2014 to June–December of 2015, a 12% increase in units/pounds of local 

produce sold was seen across the four pilot stores. Additionally, a 4% increase in 

sales of local produce (in dollars) was seen across the four stores. Although this 

number varies from units sold, it was indicated that these local products were sold 


11403191.eps
1015

at a lower retail price. Thus, Price Chopper customers were purchasing more local 

produce but paying less for these products. 

Recommendations 

Recommendations To Enhance Implementation 

Based on surveys, interviews, environmental scans, and transaction data, the following are recommendations to enhance implementation of the DUFB program in 

grocery stores.

• Development of a formal, standardized training session enhanced with video, 

PowerPoint slides or other visual aids that are available to all store employees. 

Training should be made available to all new employees before they are positioned at the registers.

• A refresher course should be offered for those employees who struggle to understand the program. ‘‘Hands-on’’ training at the register should take place to 

help cashiers through the entire process, from the beginning of a SNAP transaction to the end when cashiers share with customers the amount of incentives 

earned. Continue to have one-on-one conversations with employees and customers to answer questions and ensure employees understand the program completely.

• A system should be in place at each participating store to make certain all cashiers have completed training and understand how to implement the DUFB program correctly.

• A detailed script should be made available to all employees that addresses frequently asked questions about DUFB.

• A listing of locally grown fruits and vegetables eligible for DUFB at each register, which is updated as needed, should be easily accessible to the cashiers so 

that they know what locally grown produce is available at any given time.

• Store directors considering adopting the DUFB program should be invited to 

visit stores that have implemented the program.

Suggestions To Improve, Maintain, and Replicate the DUFB Program 

The following suggestions aim to provide guidance for future grocery stores that 

choose to implement the program, based on what was found to have worked well 

during the pilot program and what were reported as areas that could use improvement.

• Increase customer awareness and knowledge of the program.

» Place tables near the produce section that provide information about DUFB 

and feature locally grown produce.

» Encourage cashiers to explain the program to SNAP customers.

» Provide samples of locally grown produce for taste-testing.

» Provide examples of how to prepare various locally grown fruits and vegetables.

• Expand the program to include additional quantities and wider variety of fruits 

and vegetables.


11403192.eps
1016

» Make certain fruits and vegetables advertised on the listing of locally grown 

produce are on the shelves.

» Seek other locally grown fruits and vegetables, typically not offered at grocery stores.

• Expand the eligibility of the program to include non-SNAP customers.

» Consider offering incentives for those who are struggling financially but who 

are not eligible for SNAP benefits. 

Discussion 

Double Up Food Bucks is a program designed to increase access to and affordability of fresh fruits and vegetables for beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP). The DUFB program was launched at four Balls Price 

Chopper locations in the Kansas City metropolitan area in the summer of 2015. 

During the summer and fall of 2015, a research team at the University of Kansas 

Medical Center conducted a mixed-methods evaluation to assess the program’s impact as well as benefits and challenges to the program. Overall, feedback gained 

about the program was positive and supportive. 

Survey data gathered from Price Chopper customers shows that non-SNAP participants are supportive of the program and believe it allows SNAP participants to 

save money while eating healthier. Another benefit non-SNAP users see in the program is supporting local farmers. SNAP participants who had not used the program 

mainly reported their lack of knowledge about the program as their reason for not 

participating. A majority of SNAP beneficiaries reported they were likely to use the 

program during their next visit to the store. SNAP participants who had used 

DUFB reported that the program was easy for them to use, helped increase their 

fruit and vegetable intake, and was helping them save money. 

Interviews conducted with Price Chopper employees also displayed positive feedback. Employees were supportive of the program and enjoyed the fact that it was 

able to help a portion of their customers to eat healthier and save money. Additionally, they reported that the program was easy to use, after an initial adjustment 

period, and that using the program did not require additional time to process transactions. The store directors all agreed that they were satisfied with DUFB and 

would choose to implement the program again. 

Transaction data from DUFB show that, as of December 2015, DUFB customers 

had earned a total of $42,000 and redeemed a total of $26,000 across the four stores 

using the program. This equates to a redemption rate of approximately 61%. Popular products purchased using the program include bell peppers, tomatoes, watermelon, and potatoes. Overall, an increase in sales of local produce was seen across 

the pilot stores. 

Recommendations for improving the program focus on increased communication 

and education about the program, both for customers and for grocery store employees. Having a formal, standardized training for employees would be beneficial for 

ensuring all employees have a good understanding of the program. Additionally, introducing an education component about preparation of local produce would be helpful for those customers who may struggle knowing how to prepare certain items. 

Summary 

Results from this evaluation demonstrate that implementation of the DUFB program is feasible and replicable in grocery stores. Non-SNAP customers were supportive of the program and SNAP customers who hadn’t used DUFB reported they 

were likely to utilize the program in the future. Additionally, DUFB participants reported the program was easy to use and helped them save money while eating 

healthier. Further, DUFB participants showed a high redemption rate of their 

earned rewards. Grocery store employees reported positive experiences with implementing the program. Finally, an increase in local produce sold was seen across the 

four pilot stores. 

1017

Appendices 

Appendix A: Survey for Non-SNAP Customers


11403194.eps
1018

Appendix B: Survey for SNAP Customers Not Using DUFB


11403203.eps
1019

Appendix C: Survey for SNAP Customers Using DUFB


11403195.eps
1020


11403196.eps
1021


11403197.eps
1022

Appendix D: Grocery Store Assessment


11403198.eps
1023

Appendix E: Cashier Interview Instrument

Appendix F: Store Director Interview Instrument 

As you may know, Double Up Food Bucks is being piloted at grocery stores in the 

Kansas City metropolitan area. We’d like to understand from your perspective, what 

has been working well with Double Up Food Bucks, what hasn’t been working well, 

and how you would improve the program. This interview will take about 20–25 minutes and is confidential—your answers will be compiled with those from other managers across the pilot grocery stores. Do you have any questions before we start? 

Please think back to when you first implemented Double Up Food Bucks in your 

store.

1. Please think about the training you received to start up DUFB in your store.

• What was most useful for starting DUFB?

• Were there additional supports that you wish you had received to implement the DUFB program?

2. When you think about the training for cashiers and produce department 

staff . . .


11403199.eps
1024

• Was the training adequate?

• Did you provide additional training for your staff?

• What recommendations do you have for enhancing the training?

Please think about the point of sale—when customers get or use their DUFB 

cards/points with cashiers . . .

3. From your perspective, how easy or challenging was it for cashiers to 

process DUFB?

• What feedback, if any, have you heard from cashiers about processing

DUFB?

• Do you have any lessons learned or recommendations for making that process better?

Please think about the signage in the store of DUFB-eligible produce . . .

4. From your perspective, how well did the produce signs work for DUFB?

• What feedback, if any, have you heard from produce managers about the

sign work?

• Do you have any lessons learned or recommendations for produce

signage?

5. Fair Food Network and Mid-America Regional Council used a lot of different 

strategies to communicate and market DUFB to customers.

• Did you use any additional marketing strategies to promote DUFB to

your customers?

• What strategies do you feel were most and least effective and why?

6. Please describe your experience with the volunteers and/or demos.

7. Overall, do you have any lessons learned or recommendations for marketing the program to customers?

When you think about your customers . . .

8. What feedback have you been hearing from customers about DUFB?

9. Have you heard from any customers that DUFB changed their purchasing behaviors? If so, how?

Other outcomes

10. Has your store experienced any changes in your customer base as a result 

of DUFB? If so, in what way?

• From a purchasing perspective, do you believe that your store purchased

more locally grown produce by having the DUFB program?

• Do you feel your produce department had a greater focus on locally grown

produce because of the DUFB program?

11. Did any other unexpected benefits emerge from having the DUFB program at 

your store?

Overall . . .

12. What have been any other challenges we haven’t mentioned so far with implementing DUFB?

13. What advice would you give to other grocery stores planning to implement 

a similar program?

14. What improvements or recommendations would you have for the DUFB 

program?

15. Overall, how satisfied have you been with your store’s participation in the 

program and why?

16. If you had it to do over again, would you agree to implement DUFB at your 

grocery store?

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Beal. I appreciate that. 

Ms. Hess, 5 minutes. 

1025

STATEMENT OF PAMELA HESS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

ARCADIA CENTER FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD &

AGRICULTURE, ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Ms. HESS. Thank you. My name is Pamela Hess, I am the Executive Director of Arcadia, and I am beyond excited to be here this 

morning. 

I came to the nonprofit food world from national security journalism. I covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and consequently, I spent a lot of time visiting people who had been injured, at Walter Reed. And as you know, the signature injury of 

those wars is a lower limb amputation. 

So fast-forward to 2013 when I joined the nonprofit Arcadia Center for Sustainable Food & Agriculture, as Executive Director, here 

in D.C. Arcadia is dedicated to, among other things, dismantling 

the barriers to a healthy diet, which, in D.C., tend to be geography 

and income, and we reconnect the urban core to the rural economy. 

The first time I went into the low-food access neighborhoods that 

we serve, I saw a remarkable number of people in wheelchairs and 

on crutches with amputated limbs, and I thought they were war 

veterans. My staff told me I was wrong; they have diabetes. 

So here is some perspective. There are about 1,500 amputations 

from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 10 years of war, a result of a very diabolical and determined enemy. Do you know how 

many diabetic amputations there are in the United States in a 

given year? Let’s look at 2010: 73,000 in 1 year. This is not a 

health system problem, or at least not just a health system problem, this is also a food system problem. It is about what you eat. 

But what you eat is largely dictated by the food that is convenient 

and affordable to you. For most low-income people in this city, that 

means processed and convenience foods, the excessive consumption 

of which correlates strongly with chronic diseases like diabetes, 

heart disease, hypertension, obesity, and many forms of cancer. We 

can’t condemn people for making bad choices if they don’t have a 

choice to begin with, at least not a convenient and affordable one. 

So Arcadia’s mobile markets are trying to change that. 

Our mobile markets are rolling farm stands that sell a complete 

healthy diet at affordable prices and convenient locations. You have 

our schedule in front of you. We make 14 regular weekly stops in 

our area. 

Because we exclusively serve low-income neighborhoods, we accept eight forms of tender at least, each of which has unique rules. 

For instance, we double SNAP for fruits and veggies as well as proteins, and the fruits and veggies come through the Food Insecurity 

Nutrition Incentive Program that you all funded in the last farm 

bill, and we thank you for that because it is making a powerful impact on our customers. But all of those forms of tender make for 

a really complex point of sale that can be frustrating for my staff, 

a few members of whom are here today, and certainly for our customers. 

So in 2015, we helped design and started using a custom iPadbased mobile point of sale system that we use out at our mobile 

markets. Our partner is Perigee Labs. It is called the Arcadia 

Farmers Register, and like other point of sale systems, it speeds 

transactions and improves our accounting, and it helps us manage 

1026

our inventory. But more importantly, it collects data that gives us 

keen insight into what our SNAP customers are purchasing, where, 

when, and how they are using FINI to maximize their nutrition per 

dollar. As near as I can tell, we are the only farmers’ market or 

farm stand using something like this. 

And so here is what we know from our data, and first the big 

picture. Our customers, the vast majority of whom are low-income, 

have pumped nearly $468,000 in new revenue into the rural economy, into the hands of farmers in the Mid-Atlantic since 2012. 

That is a powerful vote for healthy food. 

Since 2012, the mobile market’s annual revenues have increased 

by more than 400 percent, with no marketing budget, while serving 

some of the poorest neighborhoods in D.C. That is another vote. It 

is all by word-of-mouth. 

Because we locate in the neighborhoods where folks who use 

SNAP live, work, or go to school, we have a disproportionate impact on this community. 

So let’s be clear. We are small, we are adorable, we roll around 

town selling vegetables out of the back of the green bus. So let’s 

modulate our expectations here. We do less than two percent of all 

farmers’ market business in Washington, D.C., but we redeem 30 

percent of all SNAP benefits at farmers’ markets in Washington, 

D.C., and that is because we are convenient, we are affordable, our 

food is first quality, it is not gleaned, it is not borrowed from other 

farmers’ markets at the end of the day. And if you still wonder 

whether people on SNAP want healthy food, here you go. In 2012, 

our average SNAP customer took home about $7.50 worth of food 

from the mobile market. That has nearly tripled to $19 per SNAP 

transaction at the mobile market in this last year. So FINI encourages healthy purchases. And again, this is what you all funded in 

the farm bill. Our SNAP customers are the most likely among all 

of our low-income customers to reach into their pockets for cash to 

buy even more food. That is important because it means our SNAP 

customers value the food enough to buy it without the 50 percent 

discount they are getting from FINI. When our SNAP customers 

also use cash, they spend an additional $6.93 per transaction, on 

average, and that goes straight into local farmers’ pockets. 

In 2015, 70 percent of our SNAP transactions included produce. 

In 2016, the total was 81 percent. That is a bold upward trend for 

produce. 

So let me repeat that, because of FINI, the popularity of produce 

is trending up. 

Now for the nitty-gritty. The top four products sold to our SNAP 

customers in 2016 were fruits and veggies. We sold 972 pounds of 

apples, 860 pounds of peaches, 514 pounds of onions, 409 pounds 

of kale. In the last 2 years since we instituted our point of sale system, we have sold 675 pounds of apples, 1,475 pounds of peaches, 

1,098 pounds of cantaloupe, 812 pounds of potatoes, and 796 

pounds of kale. We are demonstrating every day that if you make 

wholesome food affordable and convenient, low-income people will 

purchase it and consume it in ever-increasing amounts. That is 

good for the rural economy, and it is great for public health. 

I look forward to your questions. Please ask me about Yvonne 

Smith, one of our customers. 

1027

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hess follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAMELA HESS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARCADIA CENTER

FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD & AGRICULTURE, ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking Member for having me here today. 

I came to the nonprofit world from journalism. I covered the military and the CIA 

for nearly 20 years. I covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and consequently 

I spent a lot of time visiting people who had been injured visited at Walter Reed. 

As you know, the most visible injury of those wars is a lower limb amputation. 

Fast forward to 2013 when I joined the nonprofit Arcadia Center for Sustainable 

Food & Agriculture here in D.C. Arcadia is dedicated to among other things dismantling the barriers to a healthy diet. 

The first time I went out on Mobile Markets in the low-food access neighborhoods 

we serve, I saw a remarkable number of people in wheelchairs and on crutches, with 

amputated limbs. I thought they were war veterans. I was wrong. They were victims 

of diabetes. 

There have been about 1,500 amputations from 10 years of war, resulting from 

the work of a very diabolical and determined enemy. Do you know how many diabetic amputations there are in this country? In 2010 alone, about 73,000. 

This isn’t just a health system problem. This is a food system problem: what you 

have access to, what you can afford, and what you consume. 

There are two food systems. There is the one most of us enjoy, where you can 

access just about anything you want, whenever you want. But if you have limited 

income and lack reliable transportation, you are primarily eating what’s in your immediate neighborhood, which for most low-income people in Washington, D.C., 

means what’s available from convenience stores and fast food. 

If we are going to address the galloping rates of chronic disease which cost the 

United States somewhere north of $300 billion a year, healthy foods need to be just 

as ubiquitous, inexpensive and appealing as the processed and convenience foods 

that so many of us—regardless of income—eat regularly. If you have ever tried to 

diet, you know how hard it is. If you can’t afford healthy food or access it conveniently, it is almost impossible to make a sustained change in your diet. 

And we all pay the price for the bad quality diets most Americans eat. Beyond 

the human cost, as a nation we all bear the burden in increased health care costs, 

insurance premiums, Medicaid, Medicare, and lost productivity. 

Arcadia is trying to fix that, here in Washington. 

Our nonprofit was established in 2010 by restaurateur Michael Babin. 

We work in three interlocking mission areas: 

Sustainable Agriculture 

We grow food on our vegetable farm in suburban Virginia on the grounds of the 

National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Woodlawn-Pope-Leighey. We train military veterans to be farmers on that same land, which incidentally was once cultivated by George Washington himself after he resigned his military commission. So 

we are increasing the supply of wholesome food and farmers to grow it in our region. 

Farm and Nutrition Education 

Then we use the farm as a campus for school children to learn about agriculture, 

connect the food they eat to where it originates, and to get them excited about 

healthy food. It works: we see a 29 percent increase in the number of kids who like 

eating beets after they attend a field trip to our farm. So we are building demand 

for wholesome food even as we add to the supply. 

But none of that does any good if you don’t have a way of getting that food into 

the hands of the people who need it the most. 

Food Access 

That is where our market-based distribution model comes in. We have two Mobile 

Markets. The Mobile Markets are rolling farm stands that stock a complete healthy 

locally grown diet—from fruit and vegetables and herbs to milk, pastured and grass 

fed meat, eggs, and sustainably sourced fish. We take the farm stand to neighborhoods without a quality, affordable source of food. We pop out our awning, set up 

tables and tents and within about 30 minutes, have a fully functioning farmers’ 

market. We do this at 14 regular weekly stops in low-food access neighborhoods—

places with high use of SNAP (the supplemental nutrition assistance program), lowcar ownership and typically no store that can support a healthy diet within about 

1028

a mile. We serve areas where people don’t have much money, rely on public transportation, and have limited geographic access to wholesome food. 

How the Mobile Markets Work 

The Arcadia Mobile Markets prove that if you make high-quality food affordable 

and convenient, you can change the way people eat. Because our work centers on 

low-income communities, it is especially applicable to this discussion. 

Healthy food needs to be just as ubiquitous, cheap and appealing as the processed 

and convenience foods that so many of us—regardless of income—eat regularly. If 

you have ever tried to diet, you know how hard it is. If you can’t afford healthy food 

or access it conveniently, it is almost impossible to make a sustained change in your 

diet. 

This is not an emergency food pantry, as necessary as those are. Our customers 

spend their own resources—be it their own money or a nutrition benefit—to select 

the most nutritious, fresh, local food. They buy it. They value it. They eat it. 

We accept at least eight forms of tender—SNAP, WIC, Senior FMNP vouchers, 

Produce Plus vouchers, cash, debit, credit and our own coupons. Each of the forms 

of tender has their own rules. We also double WIC and Senior vouchers, but those 

are only for produce. PPP is good for $10 in produce and is not doubled. 

We make it affordable by matching SNAP purchases at the register for fruits, 

veggies, and proteins dollar for dollar. What that means for our customers is a 50 

percent discount on the highest quality food possible. Our fruit and vegetable SNAP 

sales are matched through the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive program the 

Congress funded in the last farm bill via our partner Wholesome Wave. It is a game 

changer, which our data demonstrates. 

Our SNAP protein sales or clean, grass-fed, pastured meat, eggs, and milk—and 

our fruit and veggie match for WIC and Senior FMNP vouchers—are matched by 

other donors, including the Bainum Family Foundation, William S. Abell Foundation, Power Supply, Inova, George Washington University’s Inversity program, and 

Alston & Bird. 

Leveraging Technology to Increase Food Access 

As you can imagine, this makes for a complex, and sometime confusing point of 

sale. To make our transactions and our financial reporting easier, in the winter of 

2014 we put up a request on Facebook for someone savvy with technology to help 

us create a point of sale system we could use on the Mobile Market to easily ring 

up our transactions. 

Perigee Labs stepped up to partner with us, and they designed an elegant, iPadbased point of sale system—a glorified cash register—that we can use at our market 

stops to ring up sales that does all that math for us without a WiFi connection. Because we are a nonprofit and want to minimize costs, we built this for a secondgeneration iPad, available refurbished for around $250. 

The Arcadia Farmers Register speeds customer transactions, manages inventory, 

and expedites financial reporting. Because it associates every transaction with the 

form of tender used to purchase it, the location, time, and price, it also yields valuable data on the food purchasing patterns of our customers. Arcadia is now working 

with the city of Washington to use the data to inform and design food policies and 

interventions that encourage the purchase of nutrient dense foods. 

The Arcadia Farmers Register is a scalable solution to creating a national database of healthy food purchasing behaviors available free of charge to government 

policy makers and public health researchers. It can also be used to ascertain prices 

at farmers’ markets nationwide, and to improve the farm business valuation system 

used to determine capital lent to small farmers. 

It was used this year by ten organizations and farms across the nation who are 

also working in healthy food access.

Real Food Farm in Maryland, 

Grow Ohio Valley in West Virginia, 

The Kellyn Foundation in Pennsylvania, 

Waterloo Greens to Go in Iowa, 

Healthy Here in New Mexico, 

Vegas Roots in Nevada, 

Seacoast Eat Local in New Hampshire, 

Good Food Bus in Maine, 

DC Urban Greens in Washington, D.C., and 

Mill City Grows in Massachusetts. 

1029

Data Gathering 

But the more we used the Farmers Register, the more we began to see its transformational value: the data on the back end. Because of the Arcadia Farmers Register, we understand what our customers buy, what they want, how they use their 

Federal nutrition benefits, and how they combine them with cash or other benefits 

to maximize the healthy food their families get. 

We can analyze the impact interventions like cooking demonstrations and coupons 

have on promoting products and changing behaviors. We no longer go ‘‘on our gut’’ 

or anecdotally to determine what works in improving our customers’ diets. We can 

rely on cold, hard data. 

The question is often asked: what are SNAP customers using the benefit to buy? 

As a rule, people in my line of work have relied primarily on self-reporting surveys of SNAP customers to answer that question. While useful, the results can be 

a little unreliable. Ask me what I had for breakfast this morning and I am far more 

likely to admit to my oatmeal at 7 a.m. than I am to the donut chaser at 10 a.m. 

The Arcadia Farmers Register tracks what customers who use SNAP purchase at 

every stop, every day, every week, every season. 

Because they choose what they want and spend their own resources, we know 

they are eating the food. We can measure actual changes in purchasing patterns, 

track improvements, and figure out what works to increase our customers’ consumption of the most nutritious foods. 

Results 

First, the big picture:

• Our customers, the vast majority of whom are low income, have pumped more 

than $468,000 in new farm sales into the rural economy in the Mid-Atlantic—

revenue farmers would not otherwise have without the Arcadia Mobile Markets 

as they do not have access to these customers.

• Since 2012, Mobile Market annual revenues have increased by more than 400 

percent with no marketing budget while serving the poorest neighborhoods in 

Washington, D.C. This remarkable increase in revenue has occurred almost entirely through word of mouth. Our sales have increased because our customers 

love the food and the prices

• Although the Mobile Markets represent less than two percent of total farmers’ 

market revenues in Washington, D.C., we redeem about 30 percent of all SNAP 

benefits used at farmers’ markets in the city. We have a disproportionate impact on the SNAP-using community. We attribute this to our locations—we are 

convenient to SNAP customers—to our prices, to the high quality and variety 

of offerings, and to our customer service.

• In 2012, our average SNAP customer took home about $7.50 of food from the 

Mobile Market That has nearly tripled to about $19 per SNAP transaction. That 

means our SNAP customers tried this food and doubled down using their EBT 

cards. They have increased their demand and consumption of nutritious food.

The impact of FINI: FINI encourages healthy purchases:

• Our SNAP customers are the most likely among all low-income customers to 

reach into their pockets for cash to buy even more food. This is important because it means that these customers so value the food they get they are willing 

to spend their own money on it without getting the 50 percent discount. This 

is proof the FINI program works and meets a need.

• More proof the FINI program is creating converts. While SNAP customers only 

used cash in two percent of their transactions during the past two season, those 

two percent are strong users, with an average amount of additional cash spent 

at $6.93 per transaction. Compare that to the next highest users, PPP customers, who are getting $10 in free fruits and veggies. PPP customers who 

spend cash spend an average of $2.22. Keep in mind that SNAP can be spent 

on any food at any store. In contrast, PPP is free and can only be used for 

produce at farmers’ markets in D.C. This statistic, while complex, is important 

because it demonstrates that SNAP customers are willing to invest more of 

their own resources, which could be spent on any SNAP eligible item, on 

produce and then invest their own money.

• We did 3,769 SNAP transactions over the last two seasons. 75 percent of all 

SNAP transactions went for produce. That number is trending up, from 70 percent [in] 2015 to 81 percent in 2016.

1030

• The increase in produce sales to SNAP customers is remarkable considering the 

similar increase in D.C.-funded Produce Plus benefits. That means overall demand for healthy produce is sharply increasing.

SNAP customers spent more than $37,000 on produce during the past two 

seasons, 1⁄2 of the total attributable to FINI:

• 1,675+ pounds of apples.

• 1,475+ pounds of peaches.

• 1,098+ pounds of cantaloupe.

• 812+ pounds of potatoes.

• 796+ pounds of kale.

The popularity of produce is trending up:

• The top 4 four products sold to SNAP customers in 2016, based on transactions, 

are ‘Produce’—they are in fact six of the top ten. Our SNAP customers have 

other choices—they can also buy meat, eggs, cheese and milk. But they increasingly choose fruits and vegetables, and more of them.

• That is a dramatic change from 2015, when produce cracked the top four only 

once: apples.

In 2016 our top 4 SNAP purchases, all of which leveraged FINI funds:

• 972 pounds of apples, a 38 percent increase over 2015.

• 860 pounds of peaches, a 40 percent increase over 2015.

• 514 pounds of onions, an 83 percent increase over 2015.

• 409 pounds of kale, a six percent increase over 2015.

More than 70 percent of our transactions occur with verified low-income customers using some form of nutrition benefit. Here’s what we know since we implemented the Farmers Register in 2015. It is just a taste of what our customers took 

home from us for the last two seasons.

• 7,865 customers bought 14,467 lbs of local peaches.

• 7,810 customers bought 13,879 lbs of local apples.

• 1,984 customers bought 7,473 lbs of local watermelons.

• 2,385 customers bought 9,814 lbs of cantaloupe.

• 3,706 customers bought 5,195 lbs of kale.

• 2,871 customers bought 4,258 lbs of summer squash.

• 2,277 customers bought 4,019 lbs of sweet potatoes.

• 2,160 customers bought 5,587 lbs of cabbage.

Nutrition incentives change lives. 

One of our customers, Yvonne Z. Smith, shared her story with me. Yvonne is 64, 

in her own home in Washington, D.C.’s Ward 8. She has crippling arthritis and is 

on disability—like many seniors in this country she is at particular risk of food insecurity. Until this year she was diabetic. Because her housing costs are more than 

50 percent of her income, she qualifies for SNAP—a total of $16 a month. It’s not 

much, but it helps. 

She uses SNAP at the Mobile Market, so her $16 becomes $32. She leverages PPP 

get even more produce and also uses cash. 

She has cut all processed foods and simple sugars out of her diet. She cooks 

collards and kales in big batches in a crockpot twice a month, freezes them, and 

eats them three times a week. She has raw salads four times a week. The magnesium in the greens cuts down on the inflammation from arthritis. She eats brown 

rice and only rarely white potatoes. 

Yvonne is now free from diabetes. The Mobile Market’s rich, seasonal selection of 

affordable, sustainably grown vegetables is critical to her transformation and ongoing health. 

‘‘Organic is seen as something only for the rich. Having access to vegetables that 

you might not try is important,’’ she told me. ‘‘Mushrooms, for example. I use them 

when I cook beef and that means I cut down on the amount of beef because of the 

texture, and (Arcadia has) them more reasonable than grocery stores.’’ 

‘‘I am the person for whom just a little help is important,’’ she told me. ‘‘It is the 

access to the vegetables within blocks of me that made all the difference, and the 

(incentives).’’

1031

About Arcadia 

The History of the Arcadia Center for Sustainable Food & Agriculture 

Washington, D.C. restaurateur Michael Babin founded Arcadia to fix a problem 

he first came into contact with when trying to source local, responsibly well-grown 

fruits and vegetables for his restaurants. The supply was small and the price was 

high. 

He asked himself: if this is so difficult for me, what does that mean for the rest 

of Washington? That question quickly led him to the public health crisis engendered 

by our food system: exceptionally effective at producing nutrition-free calories that 

are cheap at the point of sale but devastatingly expensive for public health. With 

few nutritious choices, constrained resources, and limited transportation, low-income 

communities suffer disproportionate rates of chronic disease that result from our industrial food system—diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and obesity. The health 

care cost to the United States annually is staggering—nearly $1⁄2 trillion. 

Babin created Arcadia, a 501(c)[(3)], in 2010 to innovate solutions to the gaps he 

saw in the local food system with the mission of improving public health through 

food. 

He established Arcadia on the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s 

Woodlawn-Pope-Leighey site in Alexandria, Va., just 14 miles from the nation’s capital. Woodlawn is the first property the Trust ever purchased to save, and Arcadia 

has returned agriculture to this historic farm. This land was Dogue Run Farm, once 

part of George Washington’s Mount Vernon. But its significance for the local food 

movement goes well beyond the first President. 

In 1846, 2 decades before the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation, timber merchants bought the then—2,000 acre—property from Washington’s family. 

These merchants were, not insignificantly, Quakers and abolitionists, and they had 

a plan for the property: Woodlawn would be a slavery-free farming community that 

would prove to the rest of the South that slavery was not necessary for a farm to 

thrive. They sold plots to free African-Americans, Irish and German immigrants, 

and other Quakers. They established the mansion as an integrated school for the 

town’s children and created an integrated militia to protect the citizens. As a ‘‘free 

labor zone,’’ for the first time in the Woodlawn’s history, it was a profitable farming 

operation. 

Arcadia, like the Quakers before us, is using food and agriculture to advance social justice. 

Standing on the shoulders of those who came before, Arcadia is partnering with 

the National Trust for Historic Preservation to transform the 126 acre WoodlawnPope-Leighey estate into a true Center for Sustainable Food & Agriculture. 

Just 25 minutes from Washington, D.C., Arcadia at Woodlawn will offer a landmark destination farmhouse restaurant, year-round farm stand, farm cafe ́, Virginia 

wine and cider tasting room, and craft food pavilion that will link the property’s inspiring legacy of social and racial justice to food equity, public health, and the 

strengthening of the regional food system. Arcadia’s programming and events will 

be expanded to include food policy conferences, lectures, culinary and gardening 

classes, edible landscaping, art and design events, and an expanded veteran farmer 

training program, enriched school programs, and experiential agriculture. 

Arcadia at Woodlawn will once again reclaim the central role the property has 

historically occupied, serving as a beacon for food justice, environmental sustainability, and a healthy food system. 

Arcadia has launched a $20 million capital campaign to fund the rehabilitation 

of the historic farm buildings and finance new construction.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Hess. You will need to learn to 

talk a little quicker. 

Ms. Newport for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MELINDA R. NEWPORT, M.S., R.D./L.D.,

DIRECTOR, WIC AND CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS,

CHICKASAW NATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ADA, OK 

Ms. NEWPORT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of 

the Committee. Thank you for the invitation to present testimony 

today. I would particularly like to acknowledge Congressman 

Lucas, and thank you for your many years of service to Oklahoma 

citizens. 

1032

My name is Melinda Newport, I am Director of WIC and Child 

Nutrition Programs with the Chickasaw Nation. I bring you greetings from Bill Anoatubby, Governor of the Chickasaw Nation. 

The Chickasaw Nation has more than 63,000 citizens, and our 

jurisdictional boundaries encompass 13 counties in south central 

Oklahoma. We administer several USDA FNS programs, as well as 

a variety of nutrition-related demonstration and research projects. 

As a registered dietician, having worked at the national level on 

many challenging nutrition program issues over the last 30 years, 

I am pleased to share the innovation in our Healthy Hunger-Free 

Kids Act Demonstration to End Childhood Hunger, also known as 

Packed Promise. 

Although we administer a number of Federal, state, and Tribally 

funded nutrition programs, we still find there are gaps in rural 

areas; evidenced by the fact that 15 percent of households remain 

food-insecure. One in four children in Oklahoma experience hunger. Transportation is often an issue among the food-insecure clients, and limited access to grocery stores with quality food choices 

in rural areas is common. To help eliminate these barriers, as well 

as the stigma often associated with food-assistance programs, the 

idea for direct mail food benefit via an online grocery shopping experience was conceived. The Packed Promise project is designed to 

test the viability of an online ordering system and home delivery 

of food benefits to household with school-age children who qualify 

for free school meals. A unique feature of the Packed Promise 

project is the partnership between the Chickasaw Nation and Feed 

the Children, a nonprofit food assistance organization. This publicprivate partnership with Feed the Children provides logistics experts, a broad network of volunteers, and the food-buying power to 

allow an increased number of children to be served for far fewer 

dollars. Families choose from five food packages comprised of nutrient-dense, shelf-stable food items from a food ordering website. A 

couple of examples of the food packages may be found in the printed version of this testimony. Each child receives one 25 pound box 

of shelf-stable foods, plus a $15 fresh check to purchase fresh or 

frozen fruits and vegetables at Chickasaw Nation WIC-authorized 

retailers or farmers’ markets. This benefit provides adequate food 

for an evening meal, plus one snack each day, intended to supplement the National School Lunch Program. 

The overall goal for the food package is to provide a well-balanced, nutrient-dense food benefit that offers commonly accepted 

foods, while providing exposure to a few unfamiliar wholesome food 

options. Food requiring minimal preparation were included to accommodate the potential that youth may prepare meals on their 

own. 

The direct mail food benefit is intended to alleviate episodic food 

insecurity by delivering the food package at the time of the month 

when SNAP benefits would likely have run out. To date, Packed 

Promise has provided benefits to an average of 3,500 children for 

each of the past 9 months. 

USDA has commissioned a rigorous independent evaluation of 

the project to be performed by Mathematica Policy Research to look 

at the change in the prevalence of food insecurity among children, 

1033

improvement in diet quality, and evaluation of costs associated 

with the project. 

A couple of anecdotes I would like to share. A grandmother 

shopped with her grandchildren to let them choose their fruits and 

vegetables with their FRESH check. One child chose a pineapple. 

The grandmother was unfamiliar with how to cut up a fresh pineapple, so she looked up a how-to video on YouTube. Her children 

loved it, and she said it was their first time to try fresh pineapple. 

A grateful father called to express appreciation for the program, 

and said it not only helps financially, but it has also changed some 

of his family’s eating habits, such as eating more beans, tomatoes, 

and vegetables they do not normally choose to buy. He said this 

has provided healthier options for his family. 

Chairman Conaway, we appreciate the Committee’s commitment 

to ensuring the viability, strength, and quality of Federal nutrition 

programs, and in particular, a focus on innovations that might enhance the effectiveness of our country’s largest nutrition safety net 

program. 

In conclusion, it appears online ordering of foods and direct shipment to the home is a viable model for addressing food insecurity 

for rural families, while ensuring access to more nutritious foods. 

Investment by Federal nutrition programs and targeted foods of 

high nutritional quality, and educational support to assist families 

in using those optimally, is critical to reducing food insecurity, as 

well as avoiding many costly chronic diseases, as we have heard. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our experience. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Newport follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MELINDA R. NEWPORT, M.S., R.D./L.D., DIRECTOR, WIC 

AND CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS, CHICKASAW NATION DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 

ADA, OK

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to 

present testimony today. I would particularly like to acknowledge Mr. Frank D. 

Lucas, our Representative from Oklahoma, and thank you for your many years of 

service to our citizens. 

My name is Melinda Newport, M.S., R.D./L.D., Director, WIC and Child Nutrition 

Programs, Nutrition Services, for the Chickasaw Nation. I bring you greetings from 

Bill Anoatubby, Governor of the Chickasaw Nation. The Chickasaw Nation administers several United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food & Nutrition 

Services (FNS) programs, as well as, a variety of nutrition-related demonstration 

and research projects. As a registered dietitian having worked at the national level 

on many challenging nutrition program issues for more than 30 years, I am pleased 

and honored to testify today. 

Chairman Conaway, we appreciate the Committee’s commitment to ensuring the 

viability, strength and quality of Federal nutrition programs and, in particular, a 


11403200.eps
1034

focus on innovations that might enhance the effectiveness of our country’s largest 

nutrition safety net program. Increasing access to and availability of nutritious 

foods for families in rural areas is a challenge. On behalf of the Chickasaw Nation, 

thank you for this opportunity to share regarding innovations in our Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act Demonstration to End Childhood Hunger, also known as Packed 

Promise. 

The Chickasaw Nation has more than 63,000 citizens and our jurisdictional 

boundaries encompass all or part of 13 counties in south-central Oklahoma. 

Common Access Barriers to Nutritious Foods 

In spite of the Chickasaw Nation’s administering a dozen or so Federal, state and 

Tribally funded nutrition programs, we still find there are gaps in rural areas, evidenced by the fact that 15.5% of households remain food-insecure. Children’s development, health, and well-being depend on access to a safe and secure source of food. 

In Oklahoma, 25.6% of children are food-insecure, meaning they either go hungry 

or do not receive the minimal nutritional amounts set forth by the USDA. Due to 

the rural nature of the Chickasaw Nation, many participants live in food deserts, 

the closest grocery store is often 10 miles or further from their home. The Chickasaw Nation has observed that transportation is often an issue among the most foodinsecure clients and limited access to grocery stores with quality food choices in 

rural areas is common. To help eliminate these barriers, as well as the stigma often 

associated with food assistance programs, the idea for a direct mail food benefit via 

an online grocery shopping experience was conceived. 

Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act to End Childhood Hunger Demonstration 

Projects 

In 2014, USDA administered a competitive grant process with the purpose to test 

innovative strategies to end childhood hunger. This included alternative models for 

service delivery and benefit levels that promote the reduction or elimination of 

childhood hunger and food insecurity. USDA placed special emphasis in targeting 

areas or populations where there are currently elevated levels of food insecurity or 

gaps in nutrition assistance program coverage. 

The Chickasaw Nation’s Packed Promise project was one of five projects awarded 

nationally through USDA’s Demonstration Projects to End Childhood Hunger grant. 

Packed Promise is designed to test the viability of an online ordering system and 

home delivery of food benefits to households with school-age children who qualify 

for free school meals. 

Packed Promise Project Design 

A unique feature of the Packed Promise project, is the partnership between the 

Chickasaw Nation and Feed the Children, a 501(c)(3), nonprofit food assistance organization with expertise and vast experience in global food operations such as: bulk 

food ordering, packaging, and delivery. Feed the Children provides logistics experts, 

a broad network of volunteers, and the food buying power to allow an increased 

number of children to be served for fewer food dollars. Working together in a mutually supportive partnership, the national public nutrition assistance and private 

food assistance systems can prevent and eradicate the unnecessary health problem 

of childhood hunger. Furthermore, the convenient geographic location of one of their 

distribution centers created an appealing efficiency. We also leveraged the existing 

website developed by Feed the Children for online food ordering for individuals and 

households and customized the content with Packed Promise branding. 

As the only viable access point to reaching children across rural Oklahoma, the 

Chickasaw Nation collaborates with school districts to identify students who have 

elevated levels of food insecurity. In order to be included in the demonstration area, 

school districts had to meet the following inclusion criteria—(1) a county with a diabetes prevalence rate of 15% or higher, (2) a county with 15% of households with 

children less than 18 years old who fall below the poverty line for income, (3) a 

county with a general population greater than 9% Native American, (4) exceed 50% 

free school meal eligible student population, ([5]) exceed the state wide average of 

16.6% Native American student population, ([6]) located within the Chickasaw Nation jurisdictional boundaries. 

The home delivery portion of the project design creates an experience similar to 

online grocery shopping. Families choose from five food packages comprised of nutrient dense, shelf stable food items from a food ordering website. Each month participants order their food boxes via the website or by calling the Packed Promise team. 

Each eligible child receives one 25 pound box of shelf stable foods plus a $15 FRESH 

check to purchase fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables at Chickasaw Nation WIC 

authorized retailers or Farmers’ Markets. Nutrition education, recipes, vendor information, and other project tips are also available on the food ordering website. 

1035

The Packed Promise demonstration project provides an approximate retail value 

of $60 to $80 of food per month dependent upon the food package selected. Feed the 

Children, through their food buying expertise, volume purchasing, and use of donor 

relationships, is able to provide the food benefit for an average cost of $20.08 per 

food box. This benefit level provides adequate food for an evening meal plus one 

snack per day, intended to supplement the National School Lunch Program. Feed 

the Children competitively bid and awarded a contract to UPS to provide the delivery service. 

The Chickasaw Nation believes this innovative project will help alleviate food insecurity and improve diet quality, while proving to be a cost affordable food delivery 

model. 

Nutritional Content of Food Package 

The updated Nutrition Standards for School Meals were reviewed alongside the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans and MyPlate recommendations for the project’s 

targeted student population. From this review, the need for increases in the protein, 

whole grain and vegetable food groups were identified to effectively fill the biggest 

nutrient voids experienced by school-age food-insecure students. Dairy and fruits are 

offered at every school meal, so the focus was smaller on these food groups. A committee of Chickasaw Nation registered dietitians was also mindful of fat and sodium 

content, and chose to primarily offer low-fat, minimally processed packaged choices 

with low to moderate sodium content. 

The overall goal for the food package is to provide a well-balanced, nutrient dense 

food benefit that offers commonly accepted foods, while providing exposure to a few 

unfamiliar wholesome food options. Foods requiring minimal cooking or preparation 

were included to accommodate the potential that youth may prepare meals on their 

own. 

The Chickasaw Nation is aware that SNAP benefits are provided on a rolling 

month cycle. As SNAP benefit cycles end and food dollars run out, participants commonly report lack of food adequacy. As part of this implementation, participants answered questions regarding the week of the month in which they experience highest 

feelings of food insecurity, and, based on that, selected the week of the month in 

which they desire to receive their monthly direct mail benefit. The goal is that the 

direct mail food benefit will alleviate this episodic food insecurity by delivering a 

benefit during this critical time frame. 

Packed Promise Implementation Facts 

The Chickasaw Nation implemented the Packed Promise demonstration project in 

February 2015 and has provided benefits to families for the past 9 months. On average, 1,500 households comprised of 3,500 children receive benefits each month. To 

date, Packed Promise has shipped 793,000 pounds of food to vulnerable Oklahoma 

families. These families have redeemed $261,000 in fresh fruits and vegetables by 

using their FRESH checks delivered along with their food boxes. 

Approximately 65% of participants place their orders online, while the remaining 

35% call Packed Promise specialists who place the participants’ orders on their behalf. 

It was initially perceived that this most vulnerable population move or change 

their place of residence often. Over the course of the past 8 months, less than a 

fourth, 22.59%, of the Packed Promise participants have indicated a change of address. 

Evaluation 

USDA commissioned a rigorous independent evaluation of each demonstration 

project. The evaluation is being performed by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

The primary evaluation outcomes of interest are the change in the prevalence of 

food insecurity among children, improvement in diet quality, and evaluation of costs 

associated with the project. 

Documented Success Stories

• Grandmother and FRESH check experience—A grandmother shops with her 

grandchildren to let them choose fruits and vegetables. One child chose a pineapple. The grandmother was unfamiliar with how to cut a fresh pineapple, so 

looked up a ‘‘how to’’ video on YouTube. Her grandchildren loved it, and she 

said it was their first time to try fresh pineapple!

• Grateful father—A father called to express appreciation for the program and 

said it not only helps financially, but it has also changed some of his family’s 

eating habits, such as eating more beans, tomatoes and other vegetables they 

1036

do not normally choose to buy. He said it has provided healthier options for his 

family.

• Hummus—tried it, loved it!—A mother called and said that her son had never 

tried hummus, but ‘‘gave it a shot’’ since it was in the box. Now he takes it 

every day in his lunch for school and buys celery with the FRESH check to dip 

in his hummus!

• Help at just the right time! Staff were able to connect with a participant that 

had never placed an order before and was on unpaid leave from work after having surgery. She said God had answered her prayers when her phone rang and 

our staff was on the line explaining the program and taking her order for food!

• Christmas every month!—One mom called to place her monthly order and expressed extreme gratitude for Packed Promise. She stated that her family received the boxes every month, but to this day her girls still act like it’s Christmas when the boxes arrive on the doorstep. They run to carry them inside and 

squeal with excitement when opening the boxes! 

Future Considerations 

As the Packed Promise demonstration is nearing the mid-point of its 2 year implementation period, some adjustments are being considered. Since participants are 

limited to five food packages, modifications to the content of each package are being 

evaluated to increase variety and exposure to new foods, while alleviating repetitiveness. A goal of maintaining the overall nutritional composition will remain a priority. 

In our initial concept design, individual food item ordering was preferred versus

ordering from a limited number of food packages. However, individual food item ordering presented multiple cost constraints such as maintaining adequate inventory 

of items, limiting bulk purchasing of items, and the take rate of specific short dated 

food items presents potential waste. In the nonprofit food assistance model, the ability to bulk order the contents of the food packages offers a significant cost savings 

and grouping items into food packages increases the inventory control. The Chickasaw Nation would be open to exploring an individual food item ordering model in 

a retail environment that would still gain access to volume purchasing, but would 

be able to offset some of the disadvantages through distribution of items to other 

store patrons if not ordered by program participants. 

The WIC Program EBT model allows the ability to prescribe specific nutrient 

dense food items and quantities for purchase at the participant’s convenience. In the 

future, our preference would be to transition the $15 FRESH check benefit to an 

EBT card. With a check benefit, the entire amount of the check must be used all 

at once. Transitioning the fresh component to an EBT card would allow the participant to purchase produce as needed, would reduce stigma during shopping in the 

check-out lane, and the benefits for multiple children in a household could be aggregated on a single card. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, it appears online ordering of foods and direct shipment to the home 

is a viable model for addressing food insecurity for rural families, while ensuring 

access to more nutritious food choices. Food assistance programs continue to be a 

key factor in building healthy and economically strong communities. Investment by 

Federal nutrition programs in targeted foods of high nutritional quality, and educational support to assist families in using those optimally, is critical to reducing 

food insecurity, as well as, avoiding obesity, diabetes and other costly chronic diseases that compromise quality of life. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee for this opportunity 

to share our experience. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

1037

ATTACHMENT


11403201.eps
1038

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Newport. 

The chair will remind Members they will be recognized for questioning in order of seniority for Members who were here at the 

start of the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in 

order of arrival. I appreciate Members’ understanding. 

I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

First off, thank you very, very much. I am not sure I have had 

five witnesses give us as much good news about a hard topic as you 

folks have just given us. It is particularly gratifying to see you are 

not waiting on the Federal Government, you are reaching out, you 

are doing things in your own spaces that you believe are in the 

best interest of Americans, and I really appreciate and thank you 


11403202.eps
1039

for that. Quite frankly, you are a lot more nimble at addressing 

issues than any government body can be, and I appreciate that. 

Mr. French, Mr. Lovelace, you both mentioned online transactions and security, can you flesh that out a little bit? How would 

that work without PIN numbers or without the normal circumstances with respect to a SNAP EBT card versus other credit 

cards that people might use? How would we know that the SNAP 

beneficiary that is using that card online is actually the person 

that is supposed to be using it? Can you walk us through a little 

bit of that? 

Mr. FRENCH. Sure. I will go first. First of all, like I mentioned 

in my testimony, we absolutely share the Committee’s focus and 

prioritization on preventing fraud within the SNAP Program. I am 

probably not the best person to go super deep on the actual kind 

of technical implementation, so I am happy to follow up on that offline, but what I can say is we have spent some time researching 

this and we do think that the current PIN-based solution is probably not the optimal solution; that there are alternatives out there, 

new mechanisms that are actually more secure. And, if we are selected into the pilot, we look forward to working with the USDA 

in exploring that further. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lovelace, your thoughts on that? 

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes, to your point, the PIN issue I think has been 

one of the primary reasons that getting SNAP online has moved 

slowly. And I know that one of the primary processors fell out of 

the program, and I think that caused a major delay. We had been 

talking to the USDA more than 2 years ago about trying to accept 

transactions online, and I know it was a payment processing issue 

was one of the primary concerns. 

I think that the beauty of e-commerce is it is a database-driven 

technology so it allows for us to categorize our products. When people are purchasing online we filter our entire catalogue by different 

lifestyle preferences or different types of users. So we can completely filter the catalogue for somebody who is on SNAP and is 

making a SNAP purchase, in a way that only allows for funds to 

go to SNAP-approved products. And I think one of the challenges 

that exists in the current retail economy is that it is very hard to 

actually get reporting on aggregate purchasing behavior. Where are 

these funds going, how are they being used, it is like a black box. 

And yes, there is data, but it is actually very hard to get down in 

very granular reporting. And the beauty of using e-commerce is 

that it is so transparent. We provided real-time when we met with 

the USDA, we said, ‘‘Hey, we can give you a real-time API look into 

our database if you want, and we can provide transparency.’’

The CHAIRMAN. Sure. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Beal, you mentioned your Double Up Program, and also evaluating, as Mr. Lovelace talked about, the purchasing patterns of 

the folks who were in your tests. Can you tell us how you fund 

your Double Up program? Does your own company do that, or do 

you partner with not-for-profits, how do you make everybody whole 

and still get the extra food for the recipients? 

Mr. BEAL. Yes, thank you. Initially, during the pilot program, it 

was our understanding, at least we were told, that the program 

was funded by a philanthropist, and they wanted to demonstrate 

1040

that the program that was initially implemented in farmers’ markets up in the State of Michigan could be replicated and expanded 

with greater access to consumers in retail grocery stores. That was 

in 2015. 

In 2016, it is my understanding that some of our local partners, 

and about three of those partners are nonprofits, have applied for 

a grant, and apparently received a grant from the USDA to expand 

the program out. And that is my understanding for 2016, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. And your evaluation on purchasing 

patterns for the folks who use your Double Up Food Bucks, you 

said that was in process. When do you think you will have that information? 

Mr. BEAL. I would expect to have that done within the next couple of months. And contrary to what has been stated by some of 

the online retailers, we have the ability, if we needed to, to provide 

real-time reporting of SNAP purchasers’ history down to the very 

item. We can replicate the entire receipt of any consumer, just like 

when you go into a Best Buy or Home Depot, retailers that I think 

all of you can relate to, they have all that purchase detail. So it 

is just a mass of data out there, but with the proper set-up, there 

is no problem reporting on any of that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. Every Member wants to ask 

questions. And again, thank you all for being here. 

Mr. Peterson, I recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I represent an area that is very large, rural, remote, and I don’t 

know, this might be a good idea, but I think that everybody on the 

Committee and you guys should go to Ponemah, Minnesota, before 

we do this, because——

The CHAIRMAN. Is that part of the Chamber of Commerce pool 

and get everybody——

Mr. PETERSON. Well, it is on the Red Lake Reservation which is 

an Indian Reservation, which is 900,0002 miles, and I think it is 

an hour and some to any grocery store, and you can’t get there unless you are going there. And the road ends and it isn’t the end of 

the world, but you can see it from there. Or you go to Grygla or 

Waskish or Funkley, in Mr. Nolan’s district. Those folks are having 

trouble now accessing SNAP. Maybe this is a good idea, they will 

be able to, but they don’t have Internet a lot of them either, and 

the stores up there don’t have Internet. Who is going to pay for delivering this stuff out there? If they can use their SNAP benefits, 

and if somebody will pay for the delivery and we don’t take it out 

of the SNAP money, it might be a good idea. If we are going to do 

some kind of a demonstration or pilot project, one of the areas 

should be some place like this, so we see what happens in that 

kind of a situation. Because I have a lot of those places in my district, and I think Mr. Nolan has in his district, and there are other 

places in the country as well. I am not even sure there are maybe 

two towns in my district where you can get delivered groceries. I 

am not even sure about that. 

When they are doing these pilots, are they looking at having additional appropriations to pay for the delivery, or is there going to 

be no charge for the delivery, how is that all going to work? I don’t 

know who wants to answer that. 

1041

Mr. LOVELACE. It is our understanding that we would be paying 

for the delivery, and our business model is set up to be able to do 

that. We are also leveraging existing last-mile infrastructure which 

makes it a lot more efficient for us. And we share your concern 

about those types of extremely rural communities. We did a program recently with the Sioux up in North Dakota where we delivered groceries to some of the most disadvantaged folks. 

Mr. PETERSON. Whereabouts in North Dakota? 

Mr. LOVELACE. I don’t know exactly where it was, but I know it 

was on the Sioux Reservation. And, to your point, there are many 

times in the winter where groceries aren’t even being delivered, 

and it is one of the highest rate of diabetes in the country. 

Mr. PETERSON. Yes. 

Mr. LOVELACE. I am not going to speak for Amazon, but we are 

prepared to be able to make a way to be able to absorb the shipping costs. 

Mr. PETERSON. Are you going to undermine the few stores that 

we have out there if you take away their business? 

Mr. LOVELACE. I think that is a fair concern. Our products are 

pretty different than the types of products that they would be offering, because we specialize in organic groceries, but I think that one 

of the things that we have seen is that while there is concern about 

existing retailers or health food stores with our model, because we 

are so disruptive with pricing. What we are seeing is that 50 percent of our customers are in the Midwest and the South, so we are 

bringing a new customer into the market that is wanting to do this. 

And, to another point that you made, the data that we have seen 

is 70, 75 percent of low-income communities have a smartphone. 

And so while they may not have Internet, they are able to purchase 

using their smartphone. 

Mr. PETERSON. If they can get cell service. 

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes. 

Mr. PETERSON. I mean my farm up north, I don’t have cell service. 

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes, you have to go to a local hill or something. 

Mr. PETERSON. If you can help us get more cell phone towers, we 

would appreciate it. 

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes. That is——

Mr. PETERSON. I mean it is a nice thing sometimes because nobody can get ahold of you. 

How about Amazon, are you guys willing to eat the delivery fee, 

or how does that work? 

Mr. FRENCH. Yes, sure. So right now, we deliver non-perishable 

groceries nationwide. So all the people in your areas have the ability to order non-perishable grocery products on Amazon right now. 

We offer perishable grocery products through our Amazon Fresh 

Service, which is available in a number of regions, including many 

of the states in which the USDA has proposed to run the pilot. In 

terms of the fees, we have a few different ways that customers can 

buy groceries on Amazon, some of which do require a membership 

fee or have delivery charges. The SNAP funds would definitely not 

go towards that. If accepted into the pilot, we are absolutely interested in working with the USDA on ways to structure an impleVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00501 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
1042

mentation of the pilot to reduce and potentially eliminate those 

membership fees or delivery charges. 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time 

has expired. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Neugebauer, 5 minutes. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you. 

Mr. French, did you say that you have applied to be a part of 

the pilot program with the USDA? 

Mr. FRENCH. Yes, we have applied. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. And so I guess when you said what you are 

doing nationwide on non-perishable, and then you are doing regional for the perishable foods, are those regions primarily in major 

metropolitan areas at this particular point in time? 

Mr. FRENCH. Yes. The Amazon Fresh Service, which is our service for delivering full-line grocery assortment, including perishable 

groceries, tends to be more concentrated in urban and suburban regions right now. Certainly, our intent over time would be to be able 

to service SNAP customers nationwide, with some combination of 

the various programs and services that we have for delivering grocery products on Amazon. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Would that be partnering with suppliers in 

those regions to cut down on the distance to the final customer? 

Mr. FRENCH. Yes. It is tough for me to comment on the exact specifics of how we do it and what the implementation specifics would 

be until we are actually accepted into the pilot program. So, unfortunately, there is not much more I can share on that. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Beal, you said that the pilot incentive program has been successful. So when you talk to your customers who 

are SNAP recipients, what are the top reasons that they give you 

that they want to participate in this incentive? Why are they responding to that incentive? What do they say to you about that? 

Mr. BEAL. I believe that we provided electronic copies so there 

will be more detail of the program report that was actually prepared by our five partners, but generally speaking, the participants 

reported that they were better able to afford healthier fruits and 

vegetables, that they shifted more of their purchasing from prepared foods, center store, be it cereals, the processed foods that a 

lot of consumers buy, towards fresh fruits and vegetables. You will 

see in the report too that they have shifted their purchasing habits, 

provided healthier eating options for their families as a result of 

this program. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Lovelace, you kind of got into the conversation a little bit about the technology of making sure that people that are actually the SNAP recipients are the ones receiving 

the food. I think both of you maybe alluded to the PIN technology 

may not be the answer to that. I was a little surprised at that because, I mean when these recipients are going into a grocery store 

today, they are using a PIN, and in many cases the grocer may or 

may not know whether that person using that card that has the 

PIN, is actually the person. First, what kind of downside is there 

to the PIN; and second, what is the technology that you would recommend? 

1043

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes. We are actually prepared to use a PIN infrastructure. We haven’t specifically been pushing for that. Obviously, 

we believe in things being as efficient and secure as possible. 

And to the earlier point, one of the main reasons that there has 

been a delay in bringing this on, even though it was mandated in 

the 2014 Farm Bill, is the issue of PINs and the balkanization of 

the processors and how that works. 

My understanding is that there has been progress with the processors, and that there are going to be several states in the Northeast, especially in the first phase of the pilot, and that it will be 

a PIN-based technology approach, which we are comfortable implementing. From the beginning in our conversations with the USDA, 

we said we would be happy to absorb the technology costs associated with making those types of secure transactions work. 

In a world where you don’t use PINs you look at actual fraud 

amongst credit card transactions in terms of people that are using 

credit cards that aren’t actually theirs, it is actually incredibly low. 

I think that there is a case to be made that it could be very much 

like a credit card transaction, where you don’t use a PIN. 

That said, we are not advocating for that specifically, and we 

would have to all study that together and find——

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I know the credit card industry is working on ways to prevent online fraud by using cards, and certainly 

that technology 

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes. It is a real issue, but when you look at the 

total transaction size, it is still such a small part of it. But, we are 

not advocating necessarily to abandon PINs. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Scott, 5 minutes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me direct this question to Mr. French and Mr. Lovelace. You 

are aware that there are efforts underway to restrict what SNAP 

recipients can purchase in the grocery store, such things as food 

monitoring, food surveillance, to determine that. And my concern 

is, and I want to see if it is your concern, that the expansion of 

SNAP to be used online could make it easier to restrict and limit 

the amount of food, the types of food, and purchases that are 

bought with SNAP dollars. How do you make sure that this is not 

happening? 

Mr. LOVELACE. That is, obviously, a complex question, and I 

haven’t honestly spent all that much time thinking about that particular aspect of it. I think you are hitting on privacy issues. I personally think it is a good thing that there is the ability to see 

transparently and accurately where funds are going, given it is a 

massive taxpayer program. At the end of the day, the approach to 

all of this has to be data-driven, so what are the types of products 

that people can use with SNAP that are actually going to be 

healthy for them, and my hope is that the data can transcend any 

ideological ideas around that. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. All right. Let me be more specific 

here. Let me go to you, Mr. French. How would Amazon ensure 

that all of the items, all the food purchases that a SNAP recipient 

can get in the grocery store are the same that he can get online, 

and that there are no efforts in between to use this online service 

1044

as a way to restrict the food stamp recipient from getting the same 

thing that he can get. Because it is almost impossible, and many 

have already said that with brick-and-mortar at the grocery store, 

you really can’t restrict that. That is not my concern, we fought 

that battle, but online there could be a way that you can use that 

instrument to limit the ability of food purchases by food stamps. So 

what would Amazon put in place to make sure that doesn’t happen? 

Mr. FRENCH. Sure. Yes. It is difficult for me to comment on the 

exact specifics of how we would implement that, but what I can tell 

you is at Amazon, we are all about starting with the customer and 

working backwards, all about ensuring a great customer experience, and all about offering customers low prices, vast selection, 

and great convenience. And so we absolutely share the Committee’s 

interest in offering SNAP recipients access to as wide a range of 

foods as possible, and to do anything counter to that would be 

counter to Amazon’s intention to offer vast selection. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Now, there is also a growing movement and they use this term, healthy foods, right, we fight that 

battle, that limit the items that the food stamp recipient can get 

only to healthy foods. And there is no definition for that, but that 

is another way. So what would Amazon’s position be on limiting 

items that can be purchased with stamp benefits to only healthy 

foods?

Mr. FRENCH. Sure. Again, it is a little difficult to comment on the 

exact specifics of implementation until we are accepted in the pilot; 

but, what I can say is we absolutely believe in offering customers 

vast selection, offering them as many choices as possible, and in 

the case of SNAP recipients, offering them access to as broad a 

range of foods as possible to——

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Yes. Okay, thank you. 

Ms. Melinda Hess, didn’t you want to share a story of Yvonne 

Smith? 

Ms. HESS. Yes. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Let me ask you something, and you 

showed how drastically she changed her diet. This hits home with 

me because, in my State of Georgia, I have 1,121,495 people in my 

State of Georgia, adult population who have diabetes. That is 14.2 

percent of the people. So I wanted to ask you how do we reach people effectively and give them the tools to change their life like Ms. 

Yvonne Smith did? 

Ms. HESS. Yvonne is one of our SNAP customers, and if you all 

haven’t read the longer testimony, she is 64 years old, she is a 

homeowner, because her housing costs are more than 50 percent of 

her income, she qualifies for SNAP. She gets $16 a month. With 

our bonus bucks, dollar-for-dollar, we double that to $32. She is 

able to access some other promotional programs for fruits and 

veggies, so she gets an additional $80 on top of that per month. 

And with this, she buys vast quantities of greens and salad greens. 

She cooks them up in giant batches and eats them all month. And 

what she told me this week is that she has brought her diabetes 

under control. She no longer suffers from it, by completely changing what she eats. She cut out all processed food, all starchy white 

1045

foods. She is a true believer, and she gave me permission to share 

her story. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Thank you. 

Ms. HESS. There is an old saying, which is pay the farmer or pay 

the doctor, and I promise you paying the farmer is way cheaper. 

So that is sort of the basis of our promotion of SNAP and the FINI 

incentive program. 

You have to attack it from a couple of——

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. I am sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will do a second round, your time has expired. 

Ms. HESS. It is? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. Lucas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I would like to turn to Director Newport. Chickasaw Nation has historically been very innovative, very aggressive in trying 

things, but we have, in addition to the Chickasaw Nation, 37 other 

federally recognized Tribes in Oklahoma. Can you discuss for just 

a moment, I assume it is not just Chickasaws, but the other Tribes 

in the state too are trying, with the flexibility that they have been 

given at different times, to be more innovative, correct, in delivering services and meeting the needs? 

Ms. NEWPORT. Yes, sir. Those opportunities are available to any 

Tribe, in most cases. 

Mr. LUCAS. And to you knowledge, not just the Chickasaws, and 

you can’t speak for anyone else, I realize, but the spirit of innovation of the Chickasaws is also out there in the other Tribes too. We 

are trying hard in Oklahoma to maximize these opportunities. 

Ms. NEWPORT. Yes. I think there are unique innovations in different Tribes around the state that have tried different initiatives 

to better serve their clientele. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Beal, I live in the third District of Oklahoma, 

kind of the west side of the district, the southern part of the Great 

Plains, east of the Rockies, some really rather interesting climates. 

And when I look at the concept of the Double Up Food Bucks program to encourage the purchase of local produce, a lot of times 

where I live, seasonally, there are not many options locally. With 

this kind of a program, my neighbors would say if it works and it 

works well, and it is so impressive, should people who live in areas 

where there are not local produce options always, should there be 

a greater opportunity to use not just local but more local than that. 

And I am sure your folks have looked at these issues, correct? 

Mr. BEAL. Well, we originally started our local produce program 

right after 2000, and while that may be the situation in Oklahoma, 

we would look to parts of the country that are both south of us and 

to the west of us as having greater growing opportunities than 

what we have in Missouri, just because of the weather is a great 

function of that. Our local produce program, for the most part, the 

majority of the items, 90 percent of the items, the season starts in 

mid-to-late May, continues throughout October. But we do have 

some local items that come in earlier that are—might be grown in 

greenhouses and the like. So it is something that you do have producers that are producing year-round, but with higher costs, that 

1046

have a different business model. But we have defined for ourselves 

our local market as being within 200 miles of Kansas City, and we 

work with over 150 local family farmers in that market. 

Mr. LUCAS. Okay, you have answered my question about what 

local is then. Okay. 

To Mr. French, kind of like Ranking Member Peterson, I do sort 

of live at the end of the world too. And, of course, my grandparents 

always referred to the catalogue houses, the entities in this country 

and commerce that existed before the Internet, the Sears and Roebucks of the world, and the Spiegels and the Montgomery Wards, 

who came into existence because of parcel post, and before the 

Postal department took a package delivery, if you lived out in the 

countryside, you didn’t have many other options than the local 

merchant. But with the evolution of parcel post, the ability to deliver packages 125 years ago, you could buy almost anything from 

those giant catalogues, a point that has always been made to me. 

Now, we have evolved to the present time, working on the quality of the transportation system, there are a number of private delivery companies who deliver in my area, and all over the world. 

Some are a little better than others at finding me. Some have a 

damn hard time finding me consistently. So I am sure in your market model, you are working with the delivery services to constantly 

improve that concept, right, so that my 5 pound can of whatever 

winds up within 5 miles of my house? 

Mr. FRENCH. Yes, correct. We have worked very hard over the 

last 20 years to develop a reputation for world-class operational excellence, and that reputation encompasses a number of dimensions, 

including what you are articulating, which is the ability for customers to order an item on Amazon and have it arrive in the time 

period that they expect, and have it arrive safely. So yes, absolutely that is something that we take very seriously. And as we 

think about the opportunity to serve SNAP recipients, it is something that we would certainly be looking to extend to a new customer set. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. French. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. McGovern, 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Well, thank you. And I want to thank all of you 

for being here today. It is important that we talk about new approaches that could be taken to improve access to food. 

I am pleased that the USDA has begun the process of reviewing 

applications for the online purchase pilot, which was authorized in 

the last farm bill, and I look forward to continuing our work to 

make it possible for SNAP recipients to purchase groceries online. 

It is an important step forward. 

It is also great to see FINI grants being put to good use to increase the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables. Using a 

FINI grant, my home State of Massachusetts is in the process of 

expanding a pilot statewide to provide a dollar-for-dollar match on 

SNAP recipients’ purchases of local fruits and vegetables. But, I 

have said in the past the most important thing we can do to improve access to nutritious food is to increase the current SNAP benefit, and provide low-income Americans with more money to purchase nutritious foods. 

1047

Now, Ms. Hess, your testimony makes a very strong point about 

the need for food to be affordable for those who are low-income. 

What do you think the impact could be on your farmers and on 

your customers if we simply increase the SNAP benefit overall, and 

what do you think would happen to your farmers and customers if 

we cut the SNAP benefit? 

Ms. HESS. The impact would be profound, and we have an example here in D.C. that demonstrates it. The Produce Plus Program 

is a D.C. benefit for low-income people, $10 free fruits and vegetable voucher. And we have lines around the block, 90, 100 people 

waiting to get $10 in free fruits and vegetables every day at the 

mobile market when the program is going. 

The base sales each year are about $22,000, but the Produce Plus 

sales are $77,000, and we turn people away all the time because 

we run out of vouchers. There is a massive demand for this stuff. 

And what people need are the resources to be able to access it. 

The profound impact that increasing the amounts of affordable 

and ubiquitous healthy food could have on public health is staggering. Right? We are looking at $1⁄2 trillion that we are spending 

on treating diseases that we don’t have to have, they are caused 

by the food that we eat. So if we change the food that everybody 

eats, and I am not just talking about low-income people, I am talking about all of us. What, 39 states, 40 percent of the people are 

overweight and obese. I am overweight. It is hard to eat healthy. 

And if you add on top of that the barriers to access, like you live 

5 miles from a grocery store and you don’t have a car, and you 

don’t have any money at the end of the month after you have paid 

for your diabetes medication, I don’t know how you would expect 

to change anything. 

And here is what is so important about it. I know everybody is 

on different sides of this issue politically, but people can’t parent 

well and raise happy, healthy children who are ready to learn, and 

you can’t work well if you are hungry, if you are wondering where 

your next meal is coming from, or if you had to spend your lunch 

money taking a cab because you were late for work that morning. 

It is super frustrating to me that this fundamental thing that is 

the sort of basis of all human health is even a debate. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. 

Ms. HESS. If you cut anything, it should not be peoples’ food. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Yes. And I like your statement about pay the 

farmer or pay the doctor. One of the problems with the way we 

budget up here in Congress is that we all have our little areas of 

jurisdiction. And so your point about the fact that healthy, nutritious food actually is like medicine, it keeps us well, can prevent 

diabetes, which is a lifelong illness, it could prevent heart disease, 

it could prevent obesity. And so by doing this right, there are all 

these avoidable healthcare costs that you don’t have to pay for. 

Kids who go to school, who are hungry, don’t learn. There is a cost 

to that. Workers who go to work, who are hungry aren’t as productive. There is a huge cost here, and sometimes we are looking at 

our little narrow area here, but the cost of hunger and food insecurity in this country is enormous. 

1048

I gather from your testimony that you believe that access to 

healthy food is much more important than teaching people about 

healthy food. Maybe you can tell me a little bit more about that. 

Ms. HESS. Yes. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Not that the teaching help really was bad, I am 

just simply saying that we can teach all we want, but if you don’t 

have access to it, so what. 

Ms. HESS. What you said. Ideally, these things go hand in hand, 

and this answers also Mr. Scott’s question. The first building block 

that you have to have is a lot of affordable, really high-quality food 

that people actually want to eat. The next step then is making sure 

that people know what to do with it and people get exposed to it. 

We do a lot of taste tests at the mobile market, we do cooking 

demos, we have a cookbook that we give to our low-income customers so that they are inspired to cook at home. But I have to tell 

you, just focusing on cooking skills is pretty shortsighted because 

you can give everybody all the skills they want, and even send 

them home with some knives and cutting boards, but if they don’t 

have anything to cut, you haven’t changed a thing. 

One of my customers who is a Navy veteran and has a 3 year old, she turns off the gas in her house on the summers to save $30 

so that she can continue to eat well, and she eats mostly raw fruits 

and vegetables through the summer. 

So the chaos and the difficulty in being poor should not be underestimated, and it starts by making food affordable, high quality, 

and ubiquitous. 

Mr. MCGOVERN. Right. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Gibbs, 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And you are right, 

this is a very interesting panel. Of all the hearings we have had 

on food stamps, it is—and I love it because the technology, and 

former Chairman Lucas was talking about as well as former Chairman Collin Peterson, about living at the end of the world. I can see 

Amazon delivering food to these areas by drone, so hopefully we 

can get FAA regulations so that it works. 

But what I want to talk a little bit about is the technology part 

that interests me. A few months ago, we had the Auditor of the 

State of Ohio in to testify. He did an audit in Ohio and what was 

going on in the SNAP Program. And we found out there is some 

fraud. I don’t think it is a widespread problem, but there is some, 

and so we tried to address it as best as we can. And we found out 

things like there were issues about some people had huge balances 

and weren’t using it, so that was tying money up. We also discovered in one of our hearings that if we could go to crediting the 

cards twice a month instead of once a month, that might help the 

food recipients with their cash flow and budgeting. 

My questions to Mr. French and Mr. Lovelace is, and I know Mr. 

Lovelace talked about the database, and that technology. The technology ought to help us in real-time catch instances where there 

could be fraud. And we have had testimony that some of the retailers can be fraudulent and we had testimony in his auditor’s report 

where somebody had come in the 1st of the month and spent the 

exact amount of dollars, like $200, and then go 8 minutes later to 

1049

another retailer and spent another $200. Every month it is very 

odd. I can’t go to the grocery store and spend the same amount to 

the penny every month. And so I guess you want to comment a little bit about the technology? Could you flag those in real time, just 

kind of like you can do with credit cards now. If I use my credit 

card and it doesn’t look like my normal expenditures, I will get an 

e-mail from my credit card company asking if this is me, so can 

you? I don’t know if you want to expand on that. Because you hear 

about technology, people get concerned maybe the possibility of 

more fraud, but it is the other way around. So go ahead. 

Mr. FRENCH. Sure. Like I mentioned earlier, we absolutely share 

the Committee’s focus and prioritization on preventing fraud in the 

SNAP Program. At Amazon we take customer trust and information security incredibly seriously. And so if given the opportunity 

to participate in the USDA’s pilot program, we absolutely look forward to the opportunity to leveraging the same world-class engineering that we use across Amazon to protect information security 

to the SNAP Program on Amazon. 

Tough to comment on some of the exact specifics and the specific 

areas you were mentioning, but it is absolutely——

Mr. GIBBS. Well, I want to ask you a question. A thought came 

to my mind. Because my understanding, the state runs the programs for the USDA, right? And so somebody in Ohio goes in and 

uses their SNAP card, and it looks weird, the state has to flag it, 

the question may be that the state is not doing their job. How 

would Amazon or your outfit interact with the databases, or maybe 

you want to talk about that? 

Mr. LOVELACE. My understanding is the processors for SNAP are 

very much like a merchant account for a credit card. So there is 

this layer of merchant account processors that verify security, all 

their types of fraudulent flagging systems, which are real time. 

That is why sometimes when you make a purchase and you put the 

wrong address, just normally with a credit card, the transaction 

isn’t approved. So there are all sorts of best practices that exist 

today that can be applied to the SNAP Program which will allow 

for a lot of security around that. 

And to your point, obviously, there is understandable concern 

about fraudulent use and abuse, but I believe that there is going 

to be dramatically less of that, given the way that there is so much 

transparency and reporting using a database-driven technology, 

like e-commerce. 

And, we looked at a study of a family in a food desert in downtown Los Angeles, for example, not people on SNAP but just in a 

food desert, and 90 percent of the grocery purchases are happening 

at a little bodega or liquor store, or a fast-food market. So what we 

are dealing with here is one of the beauties about being able to 

ship groceries nationally to people, be able to provide that, is that 

we can eliminate that in a very dramatic swoop. 

Mr. GIBBS. Great. I think regulation, legislation needs to try to 

keep up with the technology, because we can actually make real 

improvements and serve people that really need the help. 

So I yield back. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. DelBene, 5 minutes. 

1050

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all of 

you for being with us today. I appreciate it. And I am very interested in this pilot and the possibilities that it can bring to make 

sure that we are providing healthier, fresh, local food to a broader 

population, and definitely folks who have been under-served. 

You definitely can buy anything online, and there is no reason 

that that can’t be true for SNAP participants as well, and we can 

learn a lot from CSAs that exist today that are providing some 

similar services. And definitely bringing these types of foods to 

more rural, traditional food deserts is certainly worth exploring, 

and so I appreciate the work that you are doing. 

I had a question for you, Mr. French. And thank you for being 

here today from Seattle. I read in your testimony, and I know you 

mentioned this in your opening statement, that you believe the 

PIN-based technology being used for SNAP EBT is not necessarily 

more secure than other available technologies. And so I was wondering wouldn’t that change in the authentication method mean we 

would have to revamp the systems that are currently being used 

by the states? 

Mr. FRENCH. I am actually probably not the best person to go 

into that in a ton of detail. It is a good question, but let us follow 

up with you on that. It is a good question. 

Ms. DELBENE. And is that something that generally would be 

supported in terms of the change of how that system would 

work——

Mr. FRENCH. I am sorry, can you say it again? 

Ms. DELBENE.—by others? Well, I was kind of asking others if 

folks thought the PIN-based technology or changing that to something that is more universal would be something that is important 

to others. Does anyone have a——

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes, so the delay in bringing SNAP online has 

been the processors and the ability to do the PIN-based transactions online. That is what our understanding is, in the communications with USDA officials over the last 2 years. 

We transparently haven’t heard a lot of discussion about moving 

away from the PIN system, but rather, the focus has been how do 

we make sure that there are processors in place that can handle 

the PIN-based system online, in a way that people like us can 

interact with in a real-time way. So there hasn’t been a lot of discussion from our conversations with USDA about moving away 

from a PIN-based system. 

We are not necessarily saying that we shouldn’t move to more 

standard-based credit card transaction processes, but, our approach 

to it has been we are totally willing to absorb and build a special 

user interface just to support PIN-based transactions. 

Ms. DELBENE. Yes. Okay, thank you. Okay, did anyone else want 

to say something? I couldn’t tell. Go ahead. 

Mr. BEAL. If I could inject just a thought, and we are a brickand-mortar retailer, but I would say with regard to PIN-based 

transactions, I know from our business, which is regular business 

with credit cards, our amount of fraud has increased by about 12 

times, and I have also shared those concerns with other grocers, a 

large grocer out of St. Louis, because we do not have PIN-based 

transactions now on general credit cards. EMV card, and I know 

1051

we are getting off subject, but with dealing with security with credit card transactions, the lack of a PIN-based system for credit cards 

has greatly increased our fraud in a brick-and-mortar store. So it 

is hard for me to envision as a grocer how it would be more secure 

without something like that, as just an anecdotal response. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

Ms. HESS. If I may. Farmers’ markets are really hobbled by the 

need to have that, it is the MarketLink, it is a PIN-based program. 

They cost about $500 each, and so typically, a farmers’ market will 

have one, and anyone who is using SNAP goes to the market manager, they run their SNAP cards, they get tokens, they go to the 

farmers. There are a lot of problems with that program. If we can 

handle the security issues and get it so we can run EBT cards directly off of a Square, or a similar card reader, that really just 

opens up farmers’ markets to a lot more SNAP transactions and a 

lot more healthy food for a lot of people, and it saves market managers a lot of trouble and cost. I spend about $100 a month just 

on my data fee for the MarketLink. 

Ms. DELBENE. Yes. Okay, thank you. 

And I know folks talked a little bit about cell service, but I also 

think broadband access, WiFi access can be very difficult for many 

folks in rural areas, or folks who don’t have a reliable online connection anywhere, or even technology available. Do you have a 

sense of how much that would impact access for potential SNAP recipients who may want to use these types of services, but don’t regularly have any type of connection to do so? 

Mr. LOVELACE. The data we have looked at is that 75 percent of 

low-income communities do have a smartphone. Obviously, that is 

not perfect, but that is pretty profound. Whereas, broadband Internet access or desktop computers have dramatically lower rates. So 

while I believe in getting broadband infrastructure to everybody, 

the practical realities and the time to market is so dramatically 

more expensive than it is to increase high-speed smartphone, cell 

phone access. 

Ms. DELBENE. Yes. 

Mr. LOVELACE. So in terms of solving that problem, not only for 

this issue, but just broader educational access issues, the fastest 

way is going to be Third World developing countries who just 

skipped the hard infrastructure and have gone straight to 

cellphone. So I think that that is the fastest way for us to solve 

this problem ubiquitously. 

Ms. DELBENE. Yes. Okay, thank you. My time has expired. I 

yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CRAWFORD [presiding.] Thank you. I recognize myself for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. Beal raised a topic that we probably don’t have enough time 

to talk about in the 5 minutes that I have to address this, but I 

want to start a conversation about brick-and-mortar stores and 

how they differ from the online vendors. What role might you play 

in enhancing access? For example, in my district, it is very rural, 

we have, obviously, small towns, but even remote areas I would 

classify not just rural but remote. And so a scenario, for example, 

a town of 3,000, they have a grocery store, but around that town 

of 3,000, 15–20 miles away or more, small towns, a town of 300, 

1052

and the best they can hope for is a convenience store. And so as 

a grocer that occupies that space in the small town of 3,000, could 

you become a distributor? Does it fit your model to go out to those 

small towns in a refrigerated truck and be able to deliver non-processed foods? Because as we have heard, and I know this to be the 

case, our healthcare statistics are on an upward trajectory in rural 

America. And the irony is that, in my district, for example, we are 

one of the most productive agriculturally in the nation, and yet we 

are in a food desert. And it has to do with access to non-processed 

food. 

So if you would, kind of go into some detail about how you might 

be able to fit in that role to sort of serve as a distributor. 

Mr. BEAL. Thank you. I will tell you that we are currently doing 

that today. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Good. 

Mr. BEAL. We supply our local produce to other grocers around 

the Midwest, not just the Kansas City area. We sell local produce 

to grocers in Springfield, Missouri, 3 hours away, about 200 miles. 

We sell local produce to grocers up in Nebraska, over 3 hours away. 

And so it is a very good question, and for us particularly, it 

wouldn’t be a challenge because we are currently doing that, and 

we see ourselves in that role. We distribute to our stores and to 

other stores over $5 million worth of locally grown produce every 

single year, and it is growing. 

I mentioned in my presentation that the distribution system is 

critical, and in visiting with Ms. Hess, on the panel, that was one 

of the questions I asked her before we started. But that distribution system is important, but we are set up to do that. And so it 

does provide a very important role in the distribution of these benefits to other potential markets. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Well, one of the benefits I get from being on the 

latter end of the questioning is some of the dialogue that has taken 

place up to this point. Mr. Peterson mentioned this, in the remote 

areas, and obviously, we have talked about Internet access, 

broadband being an issue in rural communities, and, Mr. Lovelace, 

you addressed that with regard to enhanced cell phone infrastructure. And one of the things that Mr. Lucas addressed was the 

seasonality associated with those fresh foods is also a challenge. 

Grocers are in a unique position to address that, as you mentioned, 

using greenhouses and sourcing beyond just the local region. How 

does that play into your distribution model? 

Mr. BEAL. Well, we currently purchase produce from around the 

country. Okay, so we will bring in produce using common carriers 

from California, from Arizona, New Mexico, Georgia, and Florida, 

and obviously, that isn’t local produce to us, but we source specialty products for our stores to make them a class above our competition. That is kind of one of the things that we try to do. But, 

having a facility to be able to do that, having trucks to distribute 

is critical. We are not our primary supplier to our stores for our 

groceries, our center store, because we have a wholesaler to do 

that, but what we have found in working with our wholesaler, who 

is in excess of a $10 billion company, I know that is peanuts when 

it comes to the Amazons of the world, but what we have learned, 

it is oftentimes more difficult the bigger the entity is to source from 

1053

local because, first, the local provider can’t provide enough product 

for the big boys to service all of their customer needs. And so there 

has to be kind of matching of the growers with the markets that 

they serve to make it as efficient as possible. 

Walmart would have a very difficult time of providing local 

produce, because there are only slots in a warehouse that are available for perishable products, because they have to be refrigerated 

and stuff. Not to say they can’t do it, but the challenge is a little 

bit greater. It is for our wholesaler, because they have tried to roll 

out a program. And that is where we fit into that role much more 

uniquely than what they are able to. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Real quick, I have 20 seconds. Were there any 

tax incentives that facilitated that decision for you to implement 

that model, or was it just something, a naturally occurring business phenomenon? 

Mr. BEAL. No, there were no tax incentives. It was consistent 

with our model of focusing on fresh and local, and working with 

our local farmers and ranchers. As I mentioned, we had been working with them for over 15 years to start with, so it was a natural 

transition and expansion of the program for that. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. I appreciate it. My time has expired. 

I recognize Ms. Adams for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of 

our panelists for being here today and for your insight. 

Many communities throughout the 12th District in North Carolina that I represent are located in food deserts, resulting in many 

of my constituents not being able to purchase a variety of fresh and 

nutritious foods from a local grocery store. I did want to just add 

that just a week and a half ago we opened in my district, in a food 

desert, the Renaissance Co-op, which is now owned and operated 

by the community. It is very, very successful. For 18 years, we did 

not have a grocery store there. It was an abandoned strip shopping 

center. It has all been renovated, and it is a great project, great 

fruits and vegetables there. As a matter of fact, last week I 

shopped there myself. But that is one example of what can happen. 

But for those who are able to afford a smartphone or Internet access, online purchasing of food using SNAP benefits does have the 

potential to offset some of the negative consequences of not having 

a grocery store in a neighborhood. I do look forward to USDA’s 

progress in the pilot program. I hope the Department and food retailers will continue to develop new ways to reach customers in 

under-served communities, such as many that I have in North 

Carolina. As a matter of fact, in Charlotte, which is the area that 

I am going to be representing coming January, we have interest 

and some concerns about many of the food deserts there. 

But, as we conclude our 18th hearing, or 16th, whatever it has 

been, on the SNAP Program, I would also like to take a moment 

to remind Members that the SNAP Program can only be as effective as how much we choose to fund it. So that is really important. 

Any new requirements to increase financial incentives for purchasing fresh foods or to expand the assistance and finding a jobtraining program must be paid for, and not become unfunded mandates on state and county governments, because they are having 

difficulties as well. 

1054

My first question, Mr. Lovelace, how can retailers reach SNAP 

participants that do not have a smartphone or Internet access? Are 

you looking at telephone as maybe a possibility? 

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes, it is a good question. Honestly, I don’t have 

a good answer for it. We are actively working with, and communicating with, cell phone providers and broadband cable providers 

to piggyback on programs that they have targeting low-income 

communities that don’t have Internet access. So that is something 

that we spend time doing out of our Giving department. And beyond that, I don’t have a better response to your question. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you very much. Mr. Beal, the cost of produce 

has been identified as a major barrier for improving access to fresh 

fruits and vegetables, particularly in the 12th District in Charlotte 

that I represent. How has partnering with other public and private 

entities enabled your stores in Kansas City to be able to pay for 

the in-store credit or earnings that a SNAP participant gains each 

time they buy produce through the Double Up Food Bucks Program? 

Mr. BEAL. Well, the program, and the first year of the pilot year 

was funded by an outside third-party philanthropist. That was 

2015. And working with our local partners, three of whom are nonprofit entities, they applied for a grant from the USDA to expand 

the pilot program to all of our 14 Price Chopper stores that we own 

in 2016. So we pay market price for our local produce to our local 

farmers because they deserve a fair price, and so it is on part with 

what we would be paying for produce from our wholesaler anywhere else that we would obtain the product. But the funding 

mechanism for the program is in part through a USDA grant that 

one of our local partners has provided for 2016. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. 

Mr. French, have you been in conversations with USDA about effective applications for online payment transactions or other elements that should be included in any application that is developed 

to interface between the food retailer, USDA, for processing these 

SNAP purchases online? 

Mr. FRENCH. Sure. We have been in active discussions with the 

USDA for some time now. They have been a great partner throughout this process. We appreciate the rigorous and thoughtful approach they are taking to the pilot program. It is obviously quite 

complex, and so we appreciate, again, the thoughtful approach they 

are taking. 

The PIN-based solution, as we have talked about a couple of 

times now, again, our perspective is we share the focus and 

prioritization on preventing fraud in the SNAP Program, but we 

think there are new technologies that are superior to PIN-based solutions for doing so. 

Ms. ADAMS. Thank you. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding.] The gentlelady yields back. 

Mr. Allen, 5 minutes. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

being here today and sharing this information. 

One of the previous hearings, I believe with the representatives 

from USDA about fraud, I suggested something like a picture ID 

1055

EBT card, and the response was, well, that is too expensive. As we 

address fraud, as far as the PIN numbers, I mean is that the same 

kind of pushback you are getting is that, hey, that is cost-prohibitive, yet how do we actually control this fraud? I mean what do you 

think is holding up this whole process as far as fraud and abuse 

goes? 

Mr. LOVELACE. Are you talking about just credit card transactions in general? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, and the PIN numbers and that. I mean what 

is the real push? Is that the folks who distribute—well, USDA distributes the EBT cards, so why can’t we do a PIN number system, 

I guess is what——

Mr. LOVELACE. I mean we are going to do a PIN system. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. 

Mr. LOVELACE. That is how it is going to go down for the first 

pilot, for sure. 

Mr. ALLEN. Right. 

Mr. LOVELACE. It is a PIN-based system. And the reason why the 

implementation to get SNAP online was delayed in the first place 

was that the processors that typically handle these transactions for 

SNAP, one of the major processors pulled out of the SNAP Program 

altogether. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. 

Mr. LOVELACE. So that caused a huge delay. But everything that 

I understand from our conversation about integrating with SNAP 

to be able to accept transactions online has been around using the 

existing PIN-based program online. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. 

Mr. LOVELACE. Again, we are not against other more efficient 

processes, but we haven’t been pushing for that. Knowing how controversial the program and where the concerns are, our goal is to 

be as frictionless as possible, and try to just make the existing system as improved as possible. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. Where we have these food deserts, for example, 

and this is a problem we have to address, and you are talking 

about addressing it with online and then, of course, deliveries. 

Have we looked at working through not-for-profit food distribution? 

Mr. Beal, you talked a little bit about that, but in every community 

there probably has to be a food bank or something that you could 

distribute through, that is not-for-profit, that would reduce the cost 

of shipping and all these other things that might add onto the cost 

of providing for this program? Yes, sir. 

Mr. BEAL. If you don’t mind if I answer that, but we currently 

do provide produce to a couple of nonprofit entities, one of which 

specifically addresses the needs of the food desert community in 

downtown Kansas City, with local produce. And so we work with 

a couple of different entities towards that end. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. Would that be a possibility as far as online is 

concerned? In other words, you would get the order online and then 

you would have a local not-for-profit, you could say, ‘‘Okay, this is 

what we have.’’

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes, we do that currently. 

Mr. ALLEN. You do? Okay. 

1056

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes. We did a program with a church community 

group in Flint where we have been donating groceries. So it is 

something that we think about. We raised money last holiday season for two million meals with Feeding America and their local 

food bank. We work with over 150 national nonprofits, and it is 

something that we are very focused on. 

Mr. ALLEN. Good. 

Mr. LOVELACE. And there is a lot of great work being done by 

brick-and-mortar and nonprofits on the ground, and so our goal is 

to be good partners to that. 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes. Is Amazon doing the same thing? 

Mr. FRENCH. So we are constantly inventing on behalf of customers. That extends to the various delivery methods we have for 

delivering products to customers, our extended delivery service 

through our Amazon Fresh Program, and our Amazon Lockers Program are both examples of where we have innovated in the delivery method for how we get products to customers. If we are accepted to participate in the pilot, we absolutely would look forward to 

engage with the USDA on other ways that we could innovate and 

invent on behalf of customers and SNAP recipients, in particular. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. And the biggest complaint that I get from my 

constituents is the nutrition issue. When you are in a checkout line 

and people say, ‘‘My goodness, what is going on here.’’ If you can 

conquer that issue, it will make this program—we know diabetes, 

we know these things are costing the healthcare system. Yes? 

Ms. NEWPORT. I was just going to share that our initiative addresses a couple of the things that you are saying. One being that 

we actually devise a choice of food packages, and all of the foods 

are nutrient-dense. And then we also, in partnership with Feed the 

Children, are able to offer this benefit monthly at approximately 1⁄3

to 1⁄2 of the cost of buying it in the retail market. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. Well, thank you. And please keep working on 

that. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Costa, 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members 

of the Committee. I apologize for not being able to participate in 

this hearing this morning, but I have had a hearing with Natural 

Resources occurring at the same time. But I do want to make a 

statement with regards to the many issues that have been raised 

as it relates to the SNAP Program, and the many hearings that 

this Committee and Subcommittee have held over the last year. 

Clearly, we have set the table as we prepare in the next Congress to look at the reauthorization of the farm bill, and the SNAP 

Program is an important part of the reauthorization of the farm 

bill. And I do have concerns about what policy decisions we will 

make. Certainly, we can look at efforts to improve the SNAP Program, and I would be willing to participate in that effort, but I 

would reject a proposal in the next farm bill to dramatically cut the 

SNAP Program. My district is struggling, and cuts to the program 

would be devastating and directly equate to taking food out of the 

mouths of children and families in my district. 

1057

It is a bit of an irony in contrast that I have significant wealth 

in my district and significant poverty, and we happen to be an area 

where we grow so much of the food; 1⁄2 the nation’s fruits and vegetables, but yet notwithstanding that agricultural productivity, too 

often the food doesn’t get to the place that it needs to be. The 

SNAP Program is an important bridge of that effort. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has indicated that we have twice 

the unemployment levels of other parts of the country. As it stands 

now, I have over 50,000, 50,000, think about that, households in 

my district that receive benefits. Seventy-nine percent of those 

households have a child under the age of 18; 15 percent have one 

or more person that are 60 years or older. This is just the facts. 

And, of course, the drought conditions that we have had for the last 

6 years in the San Joaquin Valley, in which we have gotten zero 

water allocation for a host of years, has further compounded the 

problems that are being faced where you have people who have no 

jobs because fields are unplanted, and jobs are, therefore, at a premium. 

So clearly, taking away food from people who need it is not a solution toward any improvements or efforts to deal with the SNAP 

Program in the next farm bill. 

One of those areas that we had testimony here in the Committee 

this year, is a way in which we can deal with, and that is the Fresno Bridge Academy. It is one of several programs around the country that is asking to take advantage of the SNAP Employment and 

Training pilot program to reduce dependency. Well, how do we reduce dependency? That is an important goal. In this program, 

under the Bridge Academy, we saw 77 percent of the participating 

SNAP clients come in unemployed that were underemployed, but 

18 months later after they were part of this program, 83 percent 

of the clients had obtained employment or job advancement, and 32 

percent had achieved complete self-reliance. So it is these kinds of 

efforts that I think we need to work on to develop and innovate 

across the country. The Fresno Bridge Academy is designed specifically to truly help people move to independence. 

And, notwithstanding the divide that we have in our country 

today, one thing every Member on this Committee can agree upon 

is that we want to make it more effective for people to be able to 

become self-sufficient and to feed their families. And, we can look 

forward to working together in the next Congress, as we reauthorize the next farm bill, on how we can bring together good bipartisan solutions that will do just that. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, and I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Thompson, 5 minutes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks to all the witnesses for being here. 

I am going to start with Ms. Newport. Has there been any problem with product delivery, particularly in terms of freshness of the 

items delivered? 

Ms. NEWPORT. The items that are delivered are actually shelfstable, for the most part, and so we have not had too many problems with the delivery, and we made adjustments where we needed 

1058

to. Sometimes the address is a challenge, but for the most part, the 

foods are shelf-stable and so that has worked out well. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. 

Mr. Beal, would this sort of program that you referred to be successful in retailers with significant use of self-checkout systems? 

Mr. BEAL. Yes, sir. The self-checkout systems can be programmed to provide a message to the consumer of both the Double 

Up Bucks earnings that that consumer has on that shopping trip, 

as well as what they have available to use on a subsequent shopping trip that would allow them to use some or all of that. There 

wouldn’t be a problem with that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. All right. 

Mr. Lovelace, how do you define low-income individuals in your 

organization, and if the utilization of the online space for SNAP recipients moves forward, how do you plan to handle the membership 

fee that comes with the Thrive models, since, in regulation, you 

really can’t treat SNAP recipients different than other customers? 

Mr. LOVELACE. We have talked about that with the USDA extensively, and for every paid membership, we give away a membership 

to a low-income family; a veteran, a teacher, a student. So we are 

comfortable waiving the membership fee for all SNAP participants 

across the board, and that is something that we have discussed and 

doesn’t seem to be a problematic issue in terms of implementation 

of the program. And, the way that we think about poverty levels 

is anybody who is double the poverty level qualifies for our low-income program. These are families across the country, they are veterans, they are teachers and students, and they apply directly 

through us and/or through a network of nonprofits that we work 

with. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay, very good. USDA has obviously, well, I 

don’t want to assume, that is a dangerous thing to do, but they 

have indicated to your organization that they would be satisfied 

with waiving that fee? 

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay. 

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes, there is, obviously, that provision is in there 

for making sure that people aren’t discriminated against, and obviously, we think that is a good thing, but in this case, this is something that they understood and was not a problem for them. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay, very good. 

Mr. French, how long does it take to have food delivered from 

these programs, and does it take longer to deliver to rural areas 

than it does urban, and is there a freshness concern when delivering to rural areas? 

Mr. FRENCH. Sure. We have a variety of different programs and 

formats that we use to deliver grocery products to customers. Like 

I mentioned earlier, we deliver non-perishable groceries to customers nationwide, and then through our Amazon Fresh service we 

deliver full-line grocery store, but including perishable items, in a 

number of regions throughout the country. 

Across those different programs and formats, we do have different value propositions with different shipping speeds as well. 

The Amazon Fresh service in particular does offer same-day and 

next-day delivery of grocery products, which is obviously an imporVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00518 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
1059

tant part of ensuring that the products arrive to the customers 

without freshness being an issue. 

Mr. THOMPSON. I may have my partners mixed up. Does Amazon 

work with the U.S. Postal Service in terms of some of the—like 6 

day delivery? Is that a part of the process that you use for delivery? 

Well, not 6 day, but 7 day, actually. I saw one of the Postal trucks 

on Sunday in one of my neighborhoods, and I assumed that they 

were probably delivering for Amazon or someone like that. 

Mr. FRENCH. Sure. Yes, we work with a number of different delivery providers, including the USPS. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay, very good. 

And, Ms. Hess. Ms. Hess, you work to change the eating habits 

of individuals. Is there an educational component to the mobile 

market model, and if so, can you walk us through what that looks 

like? 

Ms. HESS. Sure, thank you. We do cooking demonstrations, we do 

taste tests, we do some cooking classes with community groups as 

the opportunities come up, but again, if you don’t have that in lockstep with increased access and affordable food, and really highquality offerings and great customer service, you don’t get to 

change much. 

We also teach little kids on our farm about healthy eating and 

the origins of healthy food. And we find that they go home and tell 

their parents, who then come out to the mobile market. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Very good. Seems like the younger you get them, 

the better. 

Ms. HESS. I think it is. And I just want to say one thing, as you 

guys look at SNAP, going forward, to cut it is sort of the very definition of penny wise and pound foolish. It is going to cost us all 

in the end. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Okay, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. Lujan Grisham. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Ms. Hess, I couldn’t agree with you more, and while we are 

having this hearing, and I appreciate the Chairman continuing to 

have SNAP hearings in the Committee, finding the balances so 

that we are innovative and thinking about ways, particularly, to 

garner better access, not just to food in general but healthy food 

that has the educational components and choice in areas where we 

have significant food deserts. 

Ms. Newport, like Oklahoma, New Mexico is incredibly rural, incredibly challenged currently in their getting hungry families fed. 

We still have the hungriest families in the country. Our children, 

when I first was elected, were the hungriest children in the country. We have done a little bit better. But interestingly enough, you 

are at 25 percent, we are at 27 percent of our children are hungry, 

and right now USDA is investigating the state for SNAP fraud. 

And when we are talking about fraud, we want to make sure beneficiaries and families, individuals in the community aren’t doing 

things—and providers and contractors, that here I have a state 

that is falsifying records to deny access to some of the hungriest 

families in the country. All right? 

1060

Striking these balances are very important, and making sure 

that we don’t end up in an environment where we just create more 

hunger, and create newer generations of unhealthy populations, 

that makes no sense to me, when we have a benefit and a policy 

that could really make a difference. 

Ms. Newport, what would you suggest for a state like mine to 

create the infrastructure for programs like Packed Promise that 

would get us to the rural delivery aspects, better choices, and get 

us started in an environment where we are embracing the benefits 

of a SNAP investment to feeding hungry families, and to creating 

educated consumers for the future? 

Ms. NEWPORT. Well, certainly, looking for opportunities to at 

least pilot some of those concepts and see where they are successful, and have a rigorous evaluation so that we really know what 

is worth doing, and we are not spending time on something that 

is not effective. I think also just keeping the conversations going. 

I look forward to talking with folks like Amazon and others who 

are sending out fresh products and doing it effectively to these 

areas that we both know are so remote, and have so little to pick 

from. We just keep pressing forward with examples of how to do 

it, and showing where it works best. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. I would be happy to have anybody else on 

the panel respond. I appreciate some of the questions about what 

kind of options, choices, are we really getting fresh produce, because some of the programs that are widely available in a market, 

and how we are seeing studies that if you hire a dietician or a nutritionist, actually folks are spending much more wisely, particularly with SNAP benefits, in these communities, but also coming 

back and following through with preparing healthy means. And we 

are seeing an increase in spending overall in markets that do this, 

outside of the SNAP beneficiaries. But in rural areas, you don’t 

have those kinds of markets. We have a lot of local farmers that 

are looking for ways, and they are already getting lots of support 

from USDA, but creating this infrastructure where all of these 

ideas coalesce in a way that is meaningful. Are there other things 

that we ought to be doing in New Mexico? 

Ms. HESS. If I may, there is a real need in this nation for 

strengthening the regional food systems, and instead of relying on 

people, which I love, but people flying food in from all over. People 

should be eating more and more locally. It is an important issue 

on the terms of national security as well. All it will take is one typhoon or one dirty bomb in the Port of LA to shut down our food 

system for a week or longer. And so it is important that localities 

now are building regional food systems that can support the food 

needs of people immediately around them. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Okay. 

Yes, sir? 

Mr. BEAL. I would submit that the model that we have put together, working with our partners in the Kansas City metro area, 

fulfills a lot of what you have requested. 

One of the partners is the University of Kansas Medical Center, 

and so they provide dietary training to SNAP recipients on the 

Kansas side of the line, because Kansas is willing to work with 

them. Missouri wasn’t willing to work with them, wasn’t willing to 

1061

submit to those individual SNAP customers notification about the 

program and stuff. We also work with the Health Foundation of 

Greater Kansas City, another nonprofit. 

They are providing healthier eating choices and education for 

those consumers, along with our dieticians that we have in our 

stores. 

Ms. LUJAN GRISHAM. Thank you. My time is up. I just think 

these balances are incredibly important to recognize in this Committee. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Mr. LaMalfa, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my 

tardiness with competing committees here. So thank you to the 

panel for coming. 

I agree the online retail and delivery system has great potential. 

I hearken back to when milk was delivered to your doorstep back 

in the day, I actually thought it was weird to go to the store to buy 

milk. As a farmer, we go through that thing where people think 

food comes from the store. I always thought milk came from the 

back step. So I know better. That is dairy. 

But the platforms actually the USDA is being urged to look into, 

I am concerned with Thrive, for example. This is for Mr. Lovelace. 

You do have a whole page dedicated to being non-GMO, okay, that 

Thrive is passionately committed to creating a world that is free 

of GMOs. Okay. It is a controversial subject, I get it, but much potential around the world for helping with hunger on greater yields, 

et cetera, less chemical use. Much of what comes from these 

websites is non-perishable foods, so we are not going to see as 

much fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, and deemed as the most nutritious, with packaged items, et cetera. I guess where I might run up 

with a bit of a problem is that when we are talking just straight 

nutrition, that it isn’t solidly proven that organic or non-GMO is 

more nutritious. It might be grown in a way that is more acceptable to folks, in some fashion there, but we do know that there is 

much more cost with that. So making our dollars go as far as possible, giving consumers the choices on price, whether they are concerned or not with something being GMO, we might harm ourselves a little bit if we are going to go only down that path. So if 

you would comment on that, Mr. Lovelace, a little bit, and how 

does your outfit decide the food that you categorize as SNAP-approved, and then the affordability of it, going forward, how do you 

arrive at that, please? 

Mr. LOVELACE. Sure. I first acknowledge that the GMO debate 

is a controversial one. And we are not explicitly against GMOs. I 

think that there is a lot of competing data and it is very early in 

the process. I think one of the——

Mr. LAMALFA. If I may, if a webpage does, indeed, say passionately committed to creating a world free of GMOs that is——

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes. We are committed to being seen as a place 

where you know when you buy food it doesn’t have GMOs. And the 

challenge that I have personally with GMOs today is——

Mr. LAMALFA. Well, your company would be free of GMOs? It 

says here a world free of it. 

1062

Mr. LOVELACE. The problem that I have with GMOs is that they 

are being sprayed with massive amounts of glyphosate, which studies are showing are coming into—90 percent of Americans are testing positive for glyphosate poisoning. So it is a very complex issue. 

I think there are opportunities where GMOs can be producing 

higher-yield foods with lower water. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Say that again please. The GMOs being sprayed 

with——

Mr. LOVELACE. With glyphosate. It is 90——

Mr. LAMALFA. That doesn’t define a GMO. A GMO is genetically 

modified in the field. 

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. What you do to it after it comes from the field is 

something——

Mr. LOVELACE. Yes, so the food crops are being engineered to 

withstand glyphosate, which is an herbicide, and so that enters 

into the food stream, and 90 percent of Americans are testing positive for glyphosate. 

There is all sorts of early data. We feel like it is too early to be 

able to say definitively that it is safe to have GMOs in the food 

supply. That is our position on it. 

Mr. LAMALFA. So how do you decide what is going to be categorized as a SNAP-approved food within your——

Mr. LOVELACE. I mean there are very strict guidelines for what 

those are. And so we look very carefully at the USDA recommendations on that, and every category of product that is——

Mr. LAMALFA. So you align with USDA regs? 

Mr. LOVELACE. It is absolutely aligned with the USDA regs. 

There is no——

Mr. LAMALFA. And how about affordability? 

Mr. LOVELACE. Say again. 

Mr. LAMALFA. How do you do things in an affordable way? Keep 

the food as affordable as possible as well as——

Mr. LOVELACE. Well, we buy directly from the brands. We cut out 

all the distributors, all the retail markup, and all the shelf games 

that happen in the traditional retail model. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Okay, thank you. I have to jump around with the 

limited time here. 

Ms. Hess, it was mentioned you have developed an app that allows you to track what people have purchased at the mobile market there. So just real quickly on this technology, why is tracking 

this information, do you think, is useful? Is it a little bit intrusive? 

Ms. HESS. Yes. It is not intrusive because we are not tracking 

it to individuals, but what we get to see are the purchasing patterns that people have, and then we get to see what actually works 

in increasing the amount of healthy food that people take home 

with them. So if we do a kale cooking demo 1 week, we can track 

whether or not our kale sales shot up that week at that location, 

and were they sustained at that location. So it is a great way to 

tell—you can’t change what you can’t measure, so we are measuring what we are doing and——

Mr. LAMALFA. So not just the 1 week or 2 on kale, but maybe 

a long-term——

1063

Ms. HESS. Right. Right. Ideally, that is what you come out with, 

right, because if everybody is eating more kale, then we will see 

some health benefits from that. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. I had better yield back. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I want to thank our five witnesses this morning for being with 

us. Your written testimony and more extensive information is 

available. Thank you for what you are doing on your own to try to 

solve this issue. It is a wide-ranging issue, from food waste to affordability, misinformation about what is and isn’t in the food, all 

those kind of things out there. Some of my colleagues have argued 

passionately about what they won’t agree to this next year. This series of hearings was done in an attempt simply to find out what 

is working and what is not working. It was never intended to cut 

SNAP or to do anything to it but improve it. And if we can get the 

policies right, then we will figure out whether or not we can afford 

them. But getting the policies right is really the goal of these past 

2 years. My team will put together an extensive report on these 

hearings to be able to further the discussion as we move toward 

the legislative part of what our work is about. And we appreciate 

your help. If there is any additional information that you want to 

provide? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. I just want to thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for these series of hearings, because this is a very, very, 

very, very important subject that this Committee grapples with. 

And it took a lot of leadership for you to do this. It has brought 

a lot of information and education about this issue. The one area 

that really points this out, and just for the record so you can understand the significance and the greatness of what you have done, is 

in this latest statistic from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities that says, 1.7 million struggling veterans are now using food 

stamps. In addition, more than 1⁄4 of recent veterans reported service-connected disabilities, which has made it harder for our veterans to provide for their families. And households with a veteran 

who has a disability that prevents him or her from working are 

twice as likely to not have access to adequate food. That alone, Mr. 

Chairman, gives great significance of what you have done, because 

you have uncovered some things of which this nation has been only 

dimly aware. And I want to thank you for that, and the nation 

thanks you for that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I appreciate that. 

That has not been a universal position with respect to many on the 

Committee, as the number of hearings we have had——

Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Well, that is why I wanted to let 

you know. 

You deserve the recognition, because I know it has been a tough 

grind for you, but the nation appreciates it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you, I appreciate that. 

Our Chairwoman and Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, 

Mrs. Walorski and Mr. McGovern, have been an integral part of all 

of that as well. And so, again, I appreciate it. 

Under the Rules of the Committee, today’s hearing will remain 

open for 10 calendar days to receive additional materials and supVerDate 0ct 09 2002 08:16 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00523 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-03\98359.TXT BRIAN
1064

plemental written responses from the witnesses to any question 

posed by a Member. 

This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned. 

Thank you again. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

1065

SUBMITTED QUESTION

Response from Eric French, Director of Grocery, Amazon 

Question Submitted by Hon. Trent Kelly, a Representative in Congress from Mississippi 

Question. Mr. French, during your testimony you raised questions about the security of PIN technology, and you referenced other technologies that were as, or more, 

secure. To put a finer point on this part of your testimony, if the Department of 

Agriculture decides to implement with PIN technology as a requirement, is Amazon 

prepared to comply? 

Answer. Yes, Amazon is fully willing and will be prepared to implement the current PIN requirement in order to accept SNAP payments online. Our statement 

about PINs was meant to encourage the Committee and the USDA to develop a 

framework that ensures the security of these online transactions without prescribing specific technologies, which could quickly become outdated. Amazon stands 

ready to serve as a resource to the Committee and the USDA on this important 

issue.

Æ