SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 1739 words

COMMITTEE: SENATE AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY

HEADLINE: 2002 FARM BILL

TESTIMONY-BY: MR. KEVIN W. CONCANNON, COMMISSIONER

AFFILIATION: MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

BODY:
July 19, 2001

Testimony of

Mr. Kevin W. Concannon, Commissioner Maine Department of Human Services

Before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Kevin Concannon, Commissioner of the Maine Department of Human Services. I am very pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Food Stamp Program.

The Food Stamp Program is of vital importance to the State of Maine. Maine ranks 37th in per capita income. The ability of households to maintain a nutritional support system is heavily reliant on access to the benefits provided by the Food Stamp Program. Maine ranks 4th in the nation in participation rate among those households that are eligible for the program. According to a UDSA report, Maine reaches approximately 82% of eligible households. Over 53,000 households and 100,000 individuals receive Food Stamp benefits monthly. Annually this represents approximately $84 million dollars to the Maine economy.

The focus in Maine with regard to the Food Stamp Program has been on access. While in TANF we have experienced approximately a 55% decline in the caseload, our decline in Food Stamps has only been about 18% from its highest point to current. We believe the largest influence has been the message we deliver to recipients.

When a household applies for public assistance, they must attend an orientation. During the presentation, staff stresses the availability of resources to households including Food Stamps, medical assistance and other supportive services. We see the Food Stamp benefits as an important transitional benefit for working households, while perhaps a longer term benefit for the elderly and disabled to achieve appropriate nutrition. Maine has taken advantage of some available options and waivers to implement this approach. However, nationally with the changing caseload mix, working households are finding it more difficult to fulfill the requirements for reporting changes and recertifications.

Even the options and waivers currently available do not come close to addressing some basic faults that have accumulated in the Food Stamp Program over its long history. The program's basic eligibility structure is left over from the days when most recipients did not work but instead drew steady Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) checks. The Food Stamp Program has been added to and subtracted from around the margins for years, but has never undergone the basic modernization it must have to reflect the needs of present-day working families and to mesh successfully with flexible programs like TANF and Medicaid.

Along with the efforts to enhance access to the program, we acknowledge the responsibility to assure program integrity. The degree to which each is achieved requires a delicate balancing. Too often in an effort to improve program integrity unnecessary barriers are created. We think progress on access, while maintaining integrity, can be achieved.

The states through APHSA have addressed many concerns to be considered during the reauthorization process for the Food Stamp Program. We support the recommendations outlined in the APHSA "Crossroads" document. I have attached for the record the APHSA recommendations for a thorough reform of the Food Stamp Program. I would like to briefly outline some of those recommendations.

Simplify Food Stamp calculations. Current design of the Food Stamp Program contains complicated requirements regarding the calculation of benefits. These requirements focus on gross test, net test, household composition, shelter costs, child care and medical expenses. All these variables first are difficult for the recipient to understand and then for the state agencies to accurately calculate. Failure of recipients to understand these requirements may discourage them from applying. Simplifying the calculations, perhaps by using net income levels per household size regardless of individual expenses, would make the program more accessible and more manageable. Recipients would be able to access the program without the barriers of two income tests, however, one of the most important features of the current food stamp program is the fact that it is designed to target benefits to those most in need. The Program can and should be simplified, but simplification must not undermine this fundamentally important goal of targeting. For example, the program must continue to be able to serve those with little income left over after they pay high shelter expenses.

Simplify processing. Recipients do not understand why the various programs require different things. As a result they rarely report the right things, to the right program, at the right time. We need to look at the regulations of three major programs, Food Stamps, TANF, and Medical Assistance and develop ways to ensure a seamless access to all three. Time standards, recertification periods, verification procedures and reporting requirements for all three programs need to be melded in such a way to lift barriers for our low income working families and to ease the administrative burden on states. States need the flexibility to design these program requirements to meet the needs of the populations being served to further lift any barriers to access while maintaining program integrity.

Simplify Household comp. The household composition rules for the Food Stamp program are outdated. The requirement of "separate" household status needs to be revisited. Currently, a child must be part of his parents' household until he or she reaches the age of 22 regardless of the manner in which food is purchased or prepared. Most families consider children to "be on their own" once they attain the age of 18. Many families do not know the earnings or spending patterns of their children after the age of 18, yet heads of households are held accountable for accurately reporting such information to the state agency. Mandating households to be considered in this manner is cumbersome for the parent and error prone for the benefits.

Simplify assets. With the advent of welfare reform and recent interpretations regarding categorical eligibility, some states, such as Maine, no longer subject families with children to an asset test. However, the limit on assets, particularly vehicles, is very low. There is no question that individuals need reliable transportation in order to get and maintain employment. In many areas of the country, including Maine, there is very little public transportation. Ownership and use of a vehicle is expensive and it is necessary. The Food Stamp Program needs to reflect that.

For most households the asset limit is currently $2,000. This amount does not go far in a crisis situation especially for working families with children. This figure needs to reflect a more reasonable cushion to support families. Households should be allowed and encouraged to plan for the future by exempting all retirement accounts and education savings accounts. Transitional benefits. The idea of transitional benefits is a good one. When first introduced it was for a period of three months. Maine supports the APHSA "Crossroads" suggestion that it be for a six month period. Thesix month period would align with the time frame for Transitional Medicaid.

Enhance benefits to the elderly and disabled. At the present time, there is a minimum benefit of $10 for one and two member households of this group. We believe that many of our elderly and disabled population forgo this allotment, as it is "not worth the bother". Along with regulations, which create barriers to access for the Food Stamp program, their own pride causes recipients to forgo benefits that could provide them more nutritious meals.

They need incentives to bring them into the program. The minimum benefit needs to be increased to at least $25 a month.

EBT. The EBT (the electronic benefits transfer) program has proven to be a very effective endeavor in states that have been successful in implementing the program. The State of Maine has not been as fortunate as most other states in this effort. Maine was very fiscally responsible in its efforts in issuing coupons through the mail system. As a result, with the advent of EBT, we will need to spend approximately four times as much in issuing benefits by way of EBT. We believe that this mandate should come with far more than the current 50-50 match, and that the present cost-neutrality cap must be removed.

Performance measures. The current system of measurement, the Quality Control system must be overhauled. It is incredible that a system is in place that results in a failure rate of 50%. Currently a state can vastly improve program integrity over the course of a year and still be penalized for being over a national average. A state should be measured by its successful achievement of improving access and performance. This could be done on a biannual basis with comparisons being made not with other states but with its own previous ratings.

Performance measures should take into consideration the impact that welfare reform has had on the caseload, for example, the proportion of families with children in which a parent works has grown significantly in recent years.

This was the goal of welfare reform and it is being achieved in states throughout the country. Federal welfare law rewards states for meeting this goal, yet in the food stamp program we still see the unintended result of punishing states for doing a good job of serving these same working poor families who have left TANF through the current quality control structure. Working households are typically more error prone than cash assistance households because their income often fluctuates. The goals of both programs must be harmonized to reward work, and to ensure that states themselves are not punished for promoting that goal.

Maine has a very good and needed Food Stamp program. It makes a significant health and quality of life contribution for Maine people. We have taken advantage of many options and waivers and we will continue to strive toward a common goal of access and program integrity. We appreciate the assistance and cooperation we receive from our federal partners at the Food and Nutrition Service in Boston and we look forward to working with them and others as Food Stamp reauthorization is discussed.



LOAD-DATE: July 23, 2001