JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – As Congress considers a farm bill that imposes stricter requirements on people receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, those who say they are simply trying to get back on their feet claim the changes will make things worse for families experiencing hunger.
According to data from the Missouri Budget Project, one in eight Missourians benefit from SNAP – formerly Food Stamps – which is authorized through the farm bill.
Jefferson City resident Amy Rogers says SNAP helped her get back on her feet after a series of unfortunate events resulting in her losing her job and ability to support her family. She says even with degrees in computer information systems and a foreign language, it takes time to find work.
"With no work, I have to do SNAP, and without SNAP, I have no food,” says Rogers. “The legislators there in Washington, they need to take a really hard look at just exactly who is on SNAP, case by case basis."
Those in support of stricter work requirements claim it targets people who make a life out of living on public assistance. Others say that view is shortsighted considering people such as Rogers and the nearly 500,000 Missourians living in hunger.
The issue of public assistance has long been controversial and partisan in Washington.
Jeanette Mott Oxford is the executive director of Empower Missouri, which advocates for the well-being of all Missourians. She says data shows the people who are on SNAP are either low-income or simply unable to secure basic needs such as food and shelter. In addition to the working poor, Oxford says that many SNAP recipients face other challenges.
"Most people on SNAP are either senior citizens who have had a long, decades-long history of working or people with disabilities who may may work to the best of their abilities but perhaps cannot work full-time because of the mental or physical health challenges that they have," says Oxford.
Under the House Agriculture Committee's Farm Bill proposal, adults age 18 through 59 who are not disabled or raising a child younger than 6 would be required to prove they have worked at least 20 hours per week. If they fail to meet the new requirements, they would face a "sanction" resulting in the loss of their SNAP assistance for a full 12 months.
Oxford says the changes would cost the state millions more money to implement while putting families at risk of losing access to nutritional food.
get more stories like this via email
Alabama is one of 14 states opting out of the 2024 summer electronic benefit program.
As summer rolls around, there will be no programs in place to help low-income families with grocery costs.
LaTrell Clifford Wood, hunger policy advocate for the group Alabama Arise, said as a result, more than 500,000 children who usually receive free or reduced lunch could go without meals. She noted while summer feeding programs will be available, they will not reach everyone in need.
"Ninety-four percent of Alabama children who rely on free and reduced-price meals won't have access to them over the summer," Wood reported. "That means that only 6% of the children who rely on those meals during the school year are going to be fed through summer feeding programs."
Wood warned limited hours, transportation and strict program rules will hinder many families from benefiting from such vital programs. The Alabama Legislature did not allocate the necessary $15 million for the program by the end of the last session. However, Wood noted there is a chance the program will be funded in the summer of 2025.
As legislators focus on next year's budgets, Wood stressed the need for funding next summer's EBT program. She pointed out Alabama Arise is calling for lawmakers to allocate funds from the general fund or Education Trust Fund to combat child hunger, affecting one in four children in the state.
"This is a program that's been tested for 13 years," Wood emphasized. "It's had three rigorous evaluation periods, and it was shown to improve the diet of children and decrease children's food hardship by a third."
Wood believes prioritizing children's needs and addressing food insecurity is a form of preventive care and serves as an early investment in the state's overall wellness.
The Food Research and Action Center said funding the e-benefits program would also benefit the economy - adding anywhere from $98 million to $117 million. The Alabama Senate Finance and Taxation Education Committee is expected to vote on the budget next week.
Disclosure: Alabama Arise contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Health Issues, and Poverty Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
California's program helping low-income families buy fresh fruit and vegetables is on the chopping block and health care advocates are asking legislators to save the Market Match program.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed cutting most of the program's $35 million budget to help close the state's budget shortfall.
Sophia Vaccaro, a participant in Market Match from Echo Park, said she depends on Market Match in more ways than one.
"It helps people being able to stretch their budget further," Vaccaro explained. "Then, I think it helps the community, in that it creates a sense of camaraderie at the farmers' market and makes people more invested in the community itself."
The program matches every dollar CalFresh customers spend on fresh fruits and vegetables at a farmer's market up to between $10 and $20 per day. It is active at 294 sites across the state and is partially paid for through federal matching funds.
Dr. John Maa, surgeon at Marin Health Medical Center and board member of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of the American Heart Association, said Market Match promotes healthy eating and boosts the local farm economy.
"An improved diet really will have long-term meaningful impacts on health, and also reduce health care costs," Maa explained. "It really helps to sustain the growers and the merchants. I guess it's a win-win-win."
Siu Han Cheung, outreach coordinator for the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation and board member of the Heart of the City Farmers' Market, argued the program is vital to residents across the state.
"If the Market Match will be cut, that is terrible," Cheung stressed. "That means they have less money to buy their food. So, Market Match is very important for the low-income families and the seniors."
Legislators and the governor are working toward the May budget revisions, and must pass a balanced budget by June 15.
Disclosure: The American Heart Association Western States Region contributes to our fund for reporting on Health Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
South Dakotans face high prices at the grocery store and some are working to ease the burden.
A new report from the Federal Trade Commission finds some grocery retailers used the supply-chain disruptions of the pandemic to raise prices and collect bigger profits, even after supply chains regulated.
One South Dakota group is trying to reduce sticker shock by targeting the state sales tax on groceries. Dakotans for Health is sponsoring a citizens ballot initiative to repeal the 4.2 % tax.
Rick Weiland, co-founder of the group, said lower food bills would make a meaningful difference for some.
"People of modest means, or low income hardworking families, disproportionately spend upwards of 30% on food," Weiland pointed out. "This is going to be helpful."
South Dakota is one of only two states in the country to apply its full state sales tax rate to groceries with no exemptions, Mississippi being the other. More than 9% of South Dakotans are considered food insecure, meaning they do not always have access to enough healthy food.
The grocery tax has been a popular topic among state legislators in recent years. Republican Gov. Kristi Noem even campaigned on the promise to repeal it. Critics have said proposing a tax cut without a way to finance it is irresponsible.
Weiland pointed out Gov. Noem had a formula spelled out when she brought forward her bill in 2023, which was voted down.
"She had no problem defending her position in front of the Legislature, in terms of how much revenue the state was going to lose and where they could make it up," Weiland recounted.
The initiative needs about 17,500 signatures by next month to appear on the November ballot.
get more stories like this via email