Implementation of the Food Stamp Provisions in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996

Implementation of the Food Stamp Provisions in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 by Alison Goldberg and Carrie Lewis The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRA) made significant changes in the federal Food Stamp Program. 1 While the PRA maintained the Food Stamp Program as an entitlement program, it decreased federal funding by more than $27 billion over six years, including across-the-board cuts, as well as eliminated benefits for several categories of recipients. The profound impact of these changes on vulnerable populations is becoming more apparent as states implement the changes in the Food Stamp Program. I. Introduction The PRA threatens to exacerbate a food assistance gap. New government survey information documented that in 1995 over 11 million households suffered from food insecurity. 2 By absolving the federal government of some of its traditional responsibility, the PRA has created increasing demands on states, communities, and charities. While some states have enacted laws attempting to fill part of this gap, none has stepped in fully. States also are now struggling with a variety of food stamp implementation and administration issues pursuant to the increased state flexibility afforded by the PRA. Advocates continue to play a significant role in state and federal implementation of food stamp changes. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Consumer Service (FCS), which has responsibility for the Food Stamp Program, has not yet promulgated regulations implementing the PRA changes. FCS and other agencies, however, have set forth guidance on a number of food stamp issues. 3 In the absence of proscriptive federal regulations, strong advocacy at the state level can help ensure recipient protections. Advocates have played, and continue to play, vital roles in urging states to step in and fill the gap left by the federal legislation, particularly for needy legal immigrants and jobless adults willing to work. This article examines federal and state implementation of the food stamp changes in the PRA and identifies some areas for 1 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996). 2 U.S. DEP'T OF AGRic. FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., OFF. OF ANALYSIS & EVALUATION, HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1995: SUMMARY REPORT OF THE FOOD SECURITY MEASUREMENT PROJECT (1997). 3 Food and Consumer Service (FCS) guidance memoranda referred to in this article are available on the FCS home page at http://www.usda.gov/fcs/library/welfare. Alison Goldberg is a former Mickey Leland Hunger Fellow and currently field organizer with the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), and Carrie Lewis is a senior policy analyst with FRAC, 1875 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 540, Washington, DC 20009-5728; 202.986.2200. JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998 1 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW

P continued advocacy in the food stamp arena. The article focuses in particular on unemployed childless adults and legal immigrants, who constitute the two populations facing complete loss of food stamp benefits. ersons subject to the three-month cutoff are among the most vulnerable food stamp recipients and face significant obstacles in finding employment. II. Unemployed Childless Adults The PRA restricts food stamp receipt for an able-bodied adult who is between the ages of 18 and 50 and does not have any dependent to only 3 months out of a 36- month period unless the individual is working 20 hours a week, participating in a job training program 20 hours a week, or participating in workfare for the requisite hours. 4 A. Cutoff of Jobless Adults Without Dependents The PRA allows states to apply for waivers of the cutoff in areas of high unemployment or insufficient jobs. 5 Fortytwo states and the District of Columbia applied for area jobless waivers. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) authorized states to exempt from the cutoff 15 percent of affected persons not subject to an area jobless waiver. 6 USDA numbers indicate that, out of approximately 676,000 persons subject to the cutoff, 35 percent (or 250,000) were covered by area jobless waivers in 1997. 7 States can now exempt up to 63,000 more individuals under the new 15-percent exemption. 8 B. Adults Subject to the Three-Month Cutoff The three-month cutoff applies to able-bodied childless adults between the ages of 18 and 50. 9 An individual is exempt from the three-month cutoff if under 18 or over 50;10 medically certified as physically or mentally unfit for employment; 11 a parent or other member of a household with responsibility for a dependent child; 12 a pregnant woman; 13 working 20 hours a week, participating in an employment and training program 20 hours a week, or participating in workfare for the requisite number of hours; 14 living in an area covered by an area jobless waiver; 15 or exempted at state option under the new 15- percent exemption. 16 C. Characteristics of Population Subject to Cutoff Persons subject to the three-month cutoff are among the most vulnerable food stamp recipients and face significant obstacles in finding employment. Over 40 percent of jobless adult food stamp recip- 4 Pub. L. 104-193, 824, 110 Stat. 2323. 5 Id. 824(a)(4), 110 Stat. 2323. 6 Pub. L. No. 105-33 1001(6). 7 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., FISCAL YEAR 1998 EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ALLOCATIONS AND ABLE-BODIED ADULTS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS EXEMPTIONS (from FCS to all regional administrators) (Oct. 1997). 8 Id. 9 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 824. 10 d. 824(a)(3)(a). 11 Id. 824(a)(3)(b). 12Id. 824 (a)(3)(c). 13 Id. 824(a)(3)(e). 14 Id. 824(a)(5). 15 Id. 824(a)(4). 16 Pub. L. No. 105-33 1001(6). 490 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW I JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998

ients are women. 17 Over half are between the ages of 36 and 50.18 Only 41 percent of jobless adults have any income at all. 19 Jobless adults who have income average $225 a month. 20 The average jobless adult household's gross income level is 24 percent of the poverty line. 21 On average, jobless adults participate in the Food Stamp Program for fewer consecutive months than other adult food stamp recipients. 22 Only 30 percent of jobless adults are in the midst of a participation spell of longer than a year, compared with 49 percent of other food stamp adults. 23 D. Definition of "Able-Bodied" The PRA exempts from the threemonth cutoff persons who are "physically or mentally unfit." 24 However, it does not define physical or mental unfitness. Until the promulgation of federal regulations, USDA has advised states to use their best judgment in defining "able-bodied" and to determine what verification will be necessary to prove physical or mental unfitness. 25 Some recipients may not meet a traditional definition of "disabled" or may be unable to come up with a doctor's certification of unfitness. Advocacy Tips: (1) Advocates should argue for alternative methods of proof. For example, some states have medical review teams that certify a recipient "unfit for work" on the recommendation of the caseworker. (2) Advocates should work with state agencies to ensure maximum flexibility in the determination of "able-bodied." E. Definition of "Responsible for Care of Dependent Child" The PRA also exempts from the threemonth cutoff persons "responsible for care of a dependent child." USDA has interpreted this exemption to apply to both parents in a two-parent household.2 6 Much of the legislative history of the PRA indicates that Congress did not intend the cutoff to apply to any household containing children. 27 Advocacy Tip: Advocates should encourage states to adopt a broad reading of the exemption to exempt all adults in households with children. E Area Jobless Waivers The PRA allows states to apply for waivers from the three-month cutoff in areas of high unemployment or insufficient jobs. 28 Waivers may be in effect for up to one year, but states may apply for renew- The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) has helped fill the gap from benefits lost. The BBA gives states the option to exempt up to 15 percent of the population affected by food stamp work requirements and not covered by other waivers. Some states have appropriated money to help noncitizens naturalize. The BBA appropriated money for education and job training for some persons affected by the food stamp cuts. 17 MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH, CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDLESS UNEMPLOYED ADULT AND LEGAL IMMIGRANT FOOD STAMP RECIPIENTS: FISCAL YEAR 1995 9 (1997) (data based on research prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)). 's1d 19Id. 20id. 21 Id. at 12. 22 1d. at 19. 2 3 d. 24 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 824(a)(3)(b). 2 5 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., CUMULATIVE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON CERTIFICATION AND WORK ISSUES IN PRWORA (updated Aug. 15, 1997) (http://www.usda.gov/fcs/library/ cumula2/htm). 26 id. 27 See 142 CONG. REC. H7903-6 (daily ed. July 18, 1996) (statement of Rep. Robert W. Ney). 28 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 824(a)(4). JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998 1 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW

al of waivers where the economic justification for the waiver continues. 29 The area jobless waiver option has proved to be an important means of maintaining benefits for the jobless adult population. Forty-two states and the District of Columbia applied for waivers in fiscal The Department of Agriculture automatically grants an insufficient-job waiver for any area designated as a "labor surplus area" by the Department of Labor. year 1997.30 Approved, implemented waivers cover approximately 35 percent of the affected population. 31 The PRA specifically authorizes waivers for areas of unemployment over 10 percent and for areas with "insufficient jobs." 32 Because it does not define "area," it allows states some flexibility in determining eligible areas. USDA granted waivers for a number of different types of "areas" including counties, census areas, cities, towns, and Native American reservations. 33 The PRA also does not define "insufficient jobs." USDA automatically grants an insufficient-job waiver for any area designated as a "labor surplus area" by the Department of Labor. 34 The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines labor surplus areas as a county, city, or partial county with an unemployment rate 20 percent higher than the national average for the past two years. 35 USDA also accepts state-generated data demonstrating insufficient jobs in a particular area. For example, in 1997 several states received waivers for low employment-to-population ratios, particularly for Native American reservations. 36 Illinois received a waiver for the city of Chicago for lack of entry-level jobs. 37 USDA has been less willing, however, to grant waivers not tied directly to numbers of available jobs. For example, Oregon unsuccessfully requested a waiver to allow job search as a substitute for employment or training for jobless adults. 38 Washington applied unsuccessfully to consider participation in a general equivalency diploma program as an acceptable work activity. 39 The good news is that a number of opportunities for advocacy are around area-jobless waivers. Advocacy Tip: In states where governors are reluctant to seek waivers, successful advocacy can lead to state legislation requiring the state to seek area-jobless waivers. 29 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., FSP [FOOD STAMP PROGRAM]-COMMISSIONER LETTER AND WAIVER GUIDANCE FOR TIME LIMITS FOR ABLE-BODIED ADULTS (from Yvette Jackson, deputy administrator, FSP, to all regional administrators) (Dec. 3, 1996). 30 FoOD & CONSUMER SERV., SUMMARY OF REQUESTS TO WAIVE SECTION 824 (updated Aug. 11, 1997). For 1997 all states except Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin applied for waivers. Ohio declined to implement any approved waivers. In fall 1997 New Hampshire applied for waivers for newly classified "labor surplus areas." 31 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., supra note 7. 32 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 824(a)(4). 33 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., supra note 30. 34 FooD & CONSUMER SERV., supra note 29. USDA has issued guidance instructing states on how to apply for partial county waivers (see FCS GUIDANCE, FSP-WAIVERS OF WORK REQUIREMENT TIME LIMITS BASED ON INSUFFICIENT JOBS) (Mar. 10, 1997)). 35 Information on labor surplus areas is published in "Area Trends in Employment and Unemployment" and is available from the Employment and Training Administration (202.219.5185) and the Government Printing Office (202.512.1800). 36 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., supra note 30. 37/d, 38I. 39Id. 492 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW I JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998

For example, in 1997 the Connecticut legislature mandated application for an area-jobless waiver when the governor failed to seek any such waiver. 40 Similarly the Virginia and Maine legislatures passed laws requiring a broadening of the states' initial waiver requests to include areas of insufficient jobs in addition to the already requested areas with unemployment over 10 percent. 41 USDA guidance limits area-jobless waivers to one year in duration but allows states to reapply where economic conditions justifying the initial waiver persist. 42 Advocacy Tip: Even in states that requested the broadest possible area-jobless waivers in 1997, advocates should urge governors to reapply for waivers as the current waivers expire. In 1997 advocates in many states found outside the traditional advocacy community broad partnerships useful in convincing governors to seek area-jobless waivers. Local officials, including mayors and county executives, concerned about the impact of the cutoff in their localities often gave vital support for seeking waivers. For example, Philadelphia Mayor Edward Rendell's strong public support for a waiver was instrumental in convincing Pennsylvania Gov. Thomas Ridge to seek area-jobless waivers. 43 Advocacy Tip: Advocates should strive to build partnerships outside the traditional advocacy community. G. 15-Percent Exemption The BBA authorizes states to exempt from the three-month cutoff an additional 15 percent of persons not covered by area jobless waivers. 44 USDA numbers indicate that this authorization translates into approximately 63,000 additional persons exempted from the three-month cutoff. 4 5 USDA will inform each state of the average monthly 40 S.B. 676, 1997 Leg., regular sess. (Conn. 1997). 4' H.B. 1600, 1997 Leg., regular sess. (Va. 1997); L.D. 1859, 118th Leg., 1st regular sess. (Me. 1997). 4 2 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., supra note 29. 43 Letter from Mayor Edward Rendell to Gov. Thomas Ridge (Oct. 28, 1996). 44 Pub. L. No. 105-33, 1001(6). 4 5 FOOD &CONSUMER SERV., supra note 7. JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998 1 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW

number of allowable exemptions for each year. 46 Each year USDA will adjust the number of allowable exemptions to reflect changes in a state's caseload and the num- Thepopulation affected by the cutofffaces numerous barriers to finding and keeping employment. ber of persons covered by area-jobless waivers as well as the average monthly exemptions used by the state in the previous year. 47 USDA will also adjust the number of allowable exemptions during a fiscal year if a state's caseload increases or decreases by more than 10 percent. " 8 States have broad flexibility in structuring the 15-percent exemption. For example, a state may choose to exempt individual recipients based on hardship; particular areas of the state not covered by jobless waivers; or subgroups of recipients, such as those over a certain age or under a certain education level. Advocacy Tips: Advocates should (1) be vigilant in urging states to take full advantage of the exemptions; (2) identify groups of individuals in need of exemption; and (3) reach out to coalition partners to support exemptions. H. Work Programs for Able-Bodied Unemployed Adults The PRA exempts from the threemonth cutoff persons who are working 20 hours a week, participating in an acceptable employment and training program 20 hours a week, 49 or participating in workfare for the requisite hours. 50 In August 1996, when the PRA was signed, only 6 percent of the jobless, ablebodied adult population were working 5 ' and only 11 percent were engaged in employment-and-training programs. 52 The population affected by the cutoff faces numerous barriers to finding and keeping employment. Over 40 percent of jobless, able-bodied, 18- to 50-year-old food stamp recipients lack a high school diploma. In many areas of the country lowskill positions are not available, and the labor market cannot absorb the dramatic increase in low-skilled workers. 53 While the PRA provides no additional funds for the creation of new jobs or work slots for 18- to 50-year-olds, the BBA does provide increased monies for work slots. 54 States must use 80 percent of all 100-percent-funded federal employment-and-training dollars (including their original allocation and the new monies) on unemployed able-bodied adults subject to the threemonth cutoff. In order to qualify for the additional funding a state must also spend at least the amount of state money it spent in Fiscal Year 1996 to administer its employment-and-training program and any optional workfare program. 55 I. Workfare Unemployed adults participating in workfare programs for the requisite num- 46 Pub. L. No. 105-33, 1001(6)(C)-(E). 47 Id. 1001 (6)(C)-(D). 48 1d. 1001(6)(E). 49 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 824(a)(c); participation in a job-search-only program does not count for purposes of retaining eligibility under this provision. USDA denied an Oregon waiver request to allow job search as a substitute for employment or training (see supra note 30). 50 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 824(a)(2). The "requisite number of hours" is determined by dividing the value of a food stamp allotment by the state or federal minimum wage, whichever is higher (see infra note 58). 5 1 MATHEMATICA POLIcY RESEARCH, supra note 17. 52 Id. at 16. 53 See Steven G. Cochrane et al., The Economic Impact of Welfare Reform, 30 REGIONAL FIN. REV. 9-17 (May 1997) (projecting the number of low-skilled jobs in all the states, as compared to the number of welfare and food stamp recipients who must be moved into the work force, and finding that 21 states will be able to absorb less than half the target caseload). 54 Pub. L. No. 105-33, 1002. 55 Id. 1002(f. 494 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW I JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998

ber of hours may continue to receive food stamp benefits. 56 The Food Stamp Act (FSA) authorizes states to operate workfare programs in which food stamp recipients "work off' their benefits through public-service jobs. Before the PRA, however, few states operated workfare programs, and those that did operate them supplied few actual slots. 57 Given the need for states to place large numbers of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and food stamp recipients in work slots, more states may be turning to workfare options. Food stamp workfare programs must meet a number of worker protections not necessarily required in other workfare settings. The FSA requires that food stamp workfare meet minimum wage requirements by limiting the number of hours worked to the amount of the benefit divided by the minimum wage. 58 Food stamp workfare programs must reimburse participants up to $25 a month in transportation and child care expenses. 59 Food stamp regulations also prohibit workfare that endangers recipients' health or safety, 6 0 requires more than two hours' round trip commuting, 6 1 or is inaccessible by available transportation. 6 2 Some states have implemented "selfinitiated workfare" for able-bodied jobless adults. 63 In self-initiated programs an individual locates a volunteer opportunity with a nonprofit agency for the requisite number of hours. Confirmation by the agency of the individual's placement is sufficient to meet requirements for retaining food stamp benefits. USDA's guidance to states indicates that self-initiated workfare programs need not meet many of the stricter food stamp workfare protections. 64 Self-initiated workfare programs may use a range of food stamp allotments and corresponding fixed participation hours in lieu of requiring each participant to work only the number of hours equal to the allotment divided by the minimum wage. 65 In instances where a state is reluctant to create a workfare program for able-bodied jobless adults, a county or city may decide to institute a program. The maximum number of hours, however, may not exceed 30 hours a week. Also, while states are encouraged to provide worker protections and cost reimbursements, USDA will approve self-initiated workfare plans that do not provide such protections. 66 In instances where a state is reluctant to create a workfare program for ablebodied jobless adults, a county -or city may decide to institute a program. USDA has guidance authorizing political subdivisions, including but not limited to counties, cities, towns or parishes, to set up workfare programs. 67 While USDA encourages political subdivisions to submit 56 7 U.S.C. 2029(b)(2)(a). According to the Food Stamp Act, the number of hours that a food stamp recipient may be required to work in a workfare program is determined by dividing the value of the food stamp allotment by the state or federal minimum wage (whichever is higher), up to a maximum of 30 hours per week. 57 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., FOOD STAMP EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 1996: COMPONENT PARTICIPATION SUMMARY (June 19, 1997). 5 7 U.S.C. 2029(b)(2)(a). 59 1d. 2029(d)(3). 60 7 C.F.R. 273.22(f)(2)(iii), 273.7(i)(2)(i). 61 Id. 273.7(i)(2)(iv). 62 1d. 273.22(f)(2)(iii), 273.7(i)(2)(iv). 63FooD & CONSUMER SERV., FSP-WORKFARE GUIDANCE FOR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS (July 7, 1997). 6 4 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., REVISED FOOD STAMP PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR SELF-INITIATED WORKFARE PROGRAMS (from Yvette Jackson, deputy administrator, FSP, to all regional administrators) (Apr. 3, 1997). 65 7 U.S.C. 2079(b)(2)(a). 6 6 FooD & CONSUMER SERV., supra note 64. 67 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., supra note 63. JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998 1 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW 495

workfare proposals through their state agencies, subdivisions may submit their plans directly to FCS. Political subdivisions must adhere to food stamp workfare statutory requirements and provide all the requisite worker protections. 68 Political subdivisions may also establish self-initiated workfare programs. 69 III. Legal Immigrants The PRA bars most legal immigrants from receiving food stamps. 70 The only legal immigrants who retain eligibility are, during their first five years in the country, refugees, asylees, and persons whose deportation has been withheld; 71 persons on active military duty, veterans 72 and their spouses, 73 and children; 74 and persons who have worked at least 40 quarters in the United States. 7 5 A. Characteristics of Population Subject to Immigrant Bar The average number of permanent resident immigrant food stamp recipients numbered 1,414,000 per month in fiscal year 1995.76 The 1997 caseload was approximately one million. Of this population only a small percentage will likely naturalize or meet one of the limited exceptions, leaving hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants ineligible for food stamps. Here is a composite of some of the population: Nearly two-thirds of immigrant food stamp participants are female; one in six are under 18; one in six are aged 60 or older; 77 two-thirds of all households with permanent resident immigrants have children; 78 and nearly one quarter of permanent resident immigrant households have an elderly or disabled member. 79 B. Exemption for Persons with 40 Quarters of Work The PRA exempts from the food stamp bar legal immigrants who have worked or can be credited with 40 quarters of work in the United States. 8 Quarters worked by an applicant, his or her spouse, 81 or his or her parents before he or she reached age 18 count toward the 40-quarter requirement. 82 The total number of quarters from all these sources must equal or exceed 40 in order to retain eligibility. A qualifying quarter may not be credited for any quarter after December 31, 1996, during which the individual received a federal means-tested benefit. 83 The Social Security Administration (SSA) has established an electronic system to verify quarters of work and has 68 7 U.S.C. 2079(a)(1). 69 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., supra note 63. 7 0 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 402(a)(1), 110 Stat. 2262. Although the 1997 Budget Reconciliation Act restored Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for many legal immigrants, it did not restore any food stamp benefits for legal immigrants other than minor adjustments for Cuban and Haitian refugees. 71 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 402(a)(2), 110 Stat. 2262-63. 72 Id. 402(a)(2)(c), 110 Stat. 2263. 73 1d. 402(a)(2)(c)(iii). 74 Id. 75 1d. 402(a)(2)(B). 76 MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH, supra note 17, at 29. 77Id. at 37. 78 Id. at 41. 7 9 Id. 80 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 402(a)(2)(B). 81 Id. 435. Quarters of a spouse may not be counted after a divorce. Quarters of a deceased spouse may be counted. Id. 82 Id. Quarters worked by a parent before the child was born may be credited to the child (Pub. L. 105-33, 5573(b)). 83 Id. The Department of Health and Human Services has issued proposed regulations limiting the definition of "means-tested benefit" to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, food stamp, Medicaid, and SSI benefits (62 Fed. Reg. 45256 (1997)). 496 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW I JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998

issued guidance to states on accessing the system. 84 The SSA guidance instructs states to use the applicant interview to determine the potential effect of applying the qualifying quarters provision to an individual applicant. 8 5 States must ask applicants whether they, their spouses, or their parents have been in the United States a total of at least 10 years and how many of those years included earnings. If the interview indicates that the applicant might meet the 40 quarters exception, states may request verification through the SSA system. 86 The guidance also instructs states to access the SSA system whenever the applicant believes that he or she meets the 40-quarter exception, regardless of what the initial interview process indicates. 87 SSA requires that states receive a consent of release of information from each person for whom work history verification is needed. 88 Thus an applicant not only must sign the release but also must get the signatures of any spouse or parent whose work quarters he or she is claiming. SSA will not give any work history information on any person who has not signed a release. The SSA system gives states an array by year (beginning with 1937) of all qualifying quarters derived from work covered by the Social Security Act and all federal, state, or local Medicare-only wages beginning with 1983. 89 The SSA system does not give current-year earnings or, depending on the time of the request, last year's earnings. 90 Applicants must be permitted to furnish other verification of any recent work not reflected on the SSA statement. The SSA guidance also instructs states on procedures if the applicant does not agree with the SSA statement of work history. 91 If the problem is attributable to missing quarters in the current year, states are to accept a current employer-prepared wage statement. 92 If the problem is attributable to missing quarters in the previous taxable year, states are to accept W-2 forms or IRS copies of tax returns, in addition to any employer-prepared wage statements. 93 USDA instructs states to certify for six The Social Security Administration has established an electronic system to verify quarters of work and has issued guidance to states on accessing the system. months of food stamp benefits any applicant with a statement from SSA indicating that the applicant's case is under review. 94 In many instances immigrants, particularly migrant farmworkers or domestic workers, may have difficulty documenting sufficient work history. Immigrants may be able to supplement SSA records with other forms of verification such as pay stubs, employer statements, or statements from fellow workers. Applicants who disagree with any determination that they lack the requisite number of quarters may request a fair hearing, in addition to or in lieu of working with SSA to complete their records. 95 C. State Food Programs for Immigrants In 1997 legislative sessions a number of states approved spending state 8 4 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., FSP-IMMIGRANT ELIGIBILITY: GUIDELINES FOR MAKING DETERMIN- ATIONS BASED ON WORK HISTORY (from Arthur Foley, director, Program Development Division, to all program directors) (July 13, 1997), 85 Id. 86 I. 8 7 Id. 88 Id. 89 Id. 90ld. 9 1 Id. 921d. 9 3 Id. 94/Id. 95Id. JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998 1 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW 497

funds for food assistance for legal immigrants. Some states provide cash or emergency food assistance. For example: Minnesota provides cash and food vouchers to a number of immigrants losing food stamps. 96 Colorado has established a general fund for emergency assistance (including food) to legal immigrants who meet eligibility criteria for public assis- Washington and Nebraska fully assist all legal immigrants ineligible for the federal Food Stamp Program solely by virtue of their citizenship status. tance but who do not have citizenship status; 97 and Florida gives cash assistance to some elderly legal immigrants whose naturalization is under way. 98 A number of states have taken advantage of a new law authorizing the purchase of federal food stamp coupons with state funds. 99 The 1997 Supplemental Appropriations Act gives states the option of purchasing federal food stamps to use in state-funded food assistance programs for legal immigrants and childless ablebodied adults ineligible for the federal Food Stamp Program. 10 0 States choosing to purchase food stamp coupons from the federal government must submit a state plan to FCS that includes eligibility standards; benefit levels; and procedures for case tracking, household certification, and quality control. 10 1 The measures taken by states differ in approach and scope. Washington 10 2 and Nebraska 10 3 fully assist all legal immigrants ineligible for the federal Food Stamp Program solely by virtue of their citizenship status. 10 4 Massachusetts also assists all legal immigrants but at a reduced benefit rate. 10 5 Other states assist subgroups of immigrants. For example: California assists legal immigrant minors under 18 and elderly immigrants over the age of 65 who are not recipients of Supplemental Security Income and were in the United States before August 22,1996;106 Maryland provides benefits to all legal immigrant children under age 18;107 New York assists, at county option, children under age 18 and elderly and disabled immigrants who resided in the county of application on August 22, 1996;108 New Jersey assists all children and elderly and disabled legal immigrants; and Rhode Island assists all legal immigrants who entered the United States before August 22, 1996.109 States' efforts for vulnerable immigrants dramatically differ because of the enormous differences in states' immigrant caseloads. Advocacy Tips: (1) Continue to push legislatures to allocate some sort of food assistance for legal immigrants.(2) Push 96 H.F. 2150, 80th Leg., 1st regular sess. (Minn. 1997); S.F. 0001, 80th Leg., 1st regular sess. (Minn. 1997). 97 S.B. 171, 61st Leg., spec. sess. (Colo. 1997). 98 H.B. 1835, 1997 Leg., regular sess. (Fla. 1997). 99 As of October 15, 1997, the following states are negotiating to purchase coupons: Washington, New York, Rhode Island, Nebraska, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Florida, and California. 100 1997 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, tit. VII. Although the legislation authorized states to assist able-bodied jobless adults, by fall 1997 no state had taken advantage of this opportunity. 101 FOOD & CONSUMER SERV., GUIDANCE ON STATE OPTION FOOD STAMP PROGRAMS (Aug. 8, 1997). 102 S.B. 6098, 55th Leg., 1st regular sess. (Wash. 1997). 103L.B. 864, 95th Leg., 1st sess. (Neb. 1997). 104Most states providing food stamps to immigrants will do so according to current federal program rules, including food stamp deeming rules. 105S. 2000, 180th gen. ct., regular sess. (Mass. 1997). 106 A.B. 1576, 1997 Leg., regular sess. (Cal. 1997). 107S.B. 499, 411th Leg., regular sess. (Md. 1997). 108S. 5788, 220th annual leg. Sess. (N.Y. 1997). 1091997 N.J. Exec. Order No. 74 (Aug. 26, 1997). 498 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW I JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998

for continued funding for these programs because even states with programs in place have appropriated funding for only one or two years. D. Other Immigrant Issues The PRA has had specific impact on several legal immigrant populations. For example, even though Congress passed in the BBA a "Sense of the Senate" resolution stating that certain Hmong and Lao populations who fought with the U.S. military in Vietnam should be considered veterans, USDA considers the resolution nonbinding and is therefore denying continuing food stamp eligibility to them. These populations, therefore, remain ineligible for food stamps." 0 The BBA expanded the definition of refugee to include Cuban and Haitian entrants. 111 It also accorded food stamp eligibility to certain Amerasian immigrants. 112 IV. Food Stamp Shelter Deduction Cap In order to allow food stamp allotments more accurately to reflect actual household need, the Food Stamp Program takes into account a household's shelter expenses when determining the household's food stamp allotment. The program does this by allowing households to deduct high shelter costs from their income. 113 The amount of shelter costs that households with no elderly or disabled persons may deduct from their income is capped." 4 The Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act of 1993 provided for the elimination of the shelter deduction cap on January 1, 1997.115 The PRA, however, repealed this provision, thus maintaining a cap on the shelter deduction for most households with children.11 6 Approximately 1.1 million households receive lower food stamp benefits because of the shelter deduction cap than they would receive if the cap were eliminated. Over one million of these are households with children. 117 In total, affected households contain about 2.3 million children under the age of 18.118 Fifty-one percent of the affected households contain preschool-age children. 119 Households affected by the cap are more likely than other food stamp households to be headed by a single female; contain noncitizen members; have earned income; and be in urban areas. 120 Removal of the shelter cap would have increased benefits for affected households by about 12 percent, on average, or about $31 per month, in fiscal year 1995.121 Specifically, on average, removal Since the federal welfare law cut off thousands of immigrants from food stamps, hunger in New York City has worsened. (New York Times, Nov. 27, 1997.) 110Pub. L. No. 105-33, 5566(b). lll1d. 5302. l 12 1d. 5306. 1137 U.S.C. 2014(e). 114Pub. L. No. 104-193, 809(a). 115Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-166, 139.16 (codified at 7 U.S.C. 2014(e) (Supp. 1996)). 116Pub. L. No. 104-193, 809(a). The welfare reform law set the cap on the shelter deduction at $250 for fiscal year 1997-98 and will increase to $275 for fiscal year 1999-2000 and to $300 for fiscal year 2001 and subsequent years. 117 Estimates based on 1995 food stamp caseload data. See GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, FOOD STAMP PROGRAM, No. RCED-97-54, CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS AFFECTED BY LIMIT ON THE SHELTER DEDUCTION 6 (May 14, 1997). 118 id. 11 91d. 120Id. at 2. 1 21 1d. at 3. JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998 1 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW 499

While electronic benefits transfer (EBT) systems may reduce fraud, administrative costs, and lost and stolen benefits, problems stem from interoperability between states, limited consumer protection, and the scarcity of outlets with EBT systems. of the cap would have resulted in an increase from $261 to $292 in fiscal year 1995.122 Food stamp benefits for affected households with children would have increased from $271 to $303.123 V. Simplified Food Stamp Program The PRA allows states to create a "Simplified Food Stamp Program" for households in which all members are also receiving cash assistance under TANF.' 24 Such households would be automatically eligible for food stamps. The state has the option to use TANF rules, regular food stamp rules, or a combination of the two to determine food stamp benefits for households in the simplified option.' 2 5 The simplified program option requires that states at a minimum comply with certain basic food stamp rules.1 26 These rules include benefit issuance procedures; the calculation of benefits by assuming that 30 percent of household income is available for food purchases; the prohibition on counting food stamps as income or resources in other programs; state responsibilities for eligibility certification; and nondiscrimination and privacy requirements. The simplified program primarily allows states the option to design rules for determining income and resources of an applicant household. For example, a state may opt to eliminate all current food stamp deductions and simply base food stamp allotments on cash assistance levels and household size. Thus the simplified program could jeopardize the targeting of food stamp benefits to populations such as those with high shelter costs. Retaining the shelter deduction is essential to help protect recipients from having to choose between rent and food. The PRA prohibits states from providing more benefits to households under the Simplified Food Stamp Program than they would receive under the regular Food Stamp Program. 127 States may not use the simplified program to expand eligibility or benefit levels for some households unless they cut benefits for other households to offset the cost. FCS has contracted with Mathematica Policy Research to design methods of evaluating the cost neutrality of Simplified Food Stamp Program proposals. To date only a handful of states have contacted USDA to express interest in the Simplified Food Stamp Program and are working with Mathematica to design cost-neutral simplified program models. 128 VI. Electronic Benefits Transfer The PRA requires all states to have an operable electronic benefits transfer (EBT) system by 2002.129 To date, 23 states have operational on-line EBT systems, including seven with statewide systems. 130 Twenty percent of the food stamp caseload currently receives benefits through an EBT system. Eleven states and the District of Columbia have approved contracts for the statewide implementation of EBT. 13 1 All states are expected to be on line, at least for 1221d. at 14. 123 Id. 124 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 854, 110 Stat. 2340 (1996). 1 25 1d. 854(f)(1), 110 Stat. 2341 (1996). 1 26 id. 854(f)(3). 1271d. 854(e). 1 28 1n fall 1997 only North Dakota, South Carolina, and Arkansas were working with USDA to develop a simplified food stamp program. 129Pub. L. No. 104-193, 825(a)(1)(A), 110 Stat. 2324. 13 0 U.S. DEP'T OF AGRIC., FOOD STAMP PROGRAM ELECTRONIC BENEFITS TRANSFER (EBT) PROJECT STATUS HIGHLIGHTS (Sept. 1997) (see http://www.usda.gov/fcs/fs.htm). 1 31 Id. 500 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW I JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998

a portion of their caseload, by the 2002 deadline. The PRA exempts state EBT systems from Regulation E, 132 the Federal Reserve Board's policy that protects banking consumers by limiting consumer liability for monies improperly withdrawn from an account. 133 The exemption for state EBT systems means that persons who receive benefits through an EBT system have no such protection. Recipients and advocates have expressed concern about the lack of interoperability among EBT systems, making access to their benefits difficult for recipients across state lines. While current food stamp regulations require a state to place its EBT terminals in stores across its borders as necessary to meet recipient need, recipients currently cannot access their benefits out of state beyond these limited areas. 134 FCS has sought comments on the issue of interoperability but has not decided on interoperability requirements. 135 VII. Other State Options The PRA provides states with a number of other options in the food stamp area. For example, the law permits states to create wage supplementation projects, which would turn food stamp benefits into employer subsidies to hire recipients.13 6 The bill also includes a child support enforcement option allowing states to disqualify any adult living with and exercising parental control over a minor who has an absent parent unless the adult cooperates with the state's child support enforcement agency to establish paternity and obtain support for the child. 137 Most states have made few decisions as to which of the food stamp options, if any, to adopt. Now that states have designed much of their TANF programs, advocates should expect states to turn attention to these various food stamp options. Wage supplementation projects create a number of concerns for recipients and advocates. For example, diverting food stamp benefits from the purchase of food undermines the goal of a national nutrition safety net. Wage supplementation projects may not pay livable wages and may not lead to full-time nonsubsidized The simplified program option requires that states at a minimum comply with certain food stamp rules. employment when the subsidy ends. They may disadvantage subsidized workers with respect to other low-wage workers who are in the same company and remain eligible for food stamps on top of their wages. Advocacy Tip: Monitor wage supplementation projects to ensure that projects move recipients into long-term employment with livable wages and other recipient protections. VIII. Conclusion The PRA makes significant changes in the Food Stamp Program, including particularly harsh provisions concerning ablebodied jobless adults and legal immigrants. The need and the opportunity for advocacy on behalf of hungry families continue to increase as states implement 13 2 Pub. L. No. 104-193, 825(a)(10), 110 Stat. 2326 (1996). 13315 U.S.C. 1693b, 904. 1347 C.F.R. 274.12 (g)(4)(c). 135 Barbara Leyser and the National Consumer Law Center are working together to run an EBT advocacy project that serves as an information exchange for advocates concerned about the effects of the electronic delivery of government benefits on recipients. Persons with information about state EBT developments or problems may contact Leyser at 416 Deerfield Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910, or barbaraleyser@upn20email-com. See also EBT Watch (newsletter tracking EBT policies and issues). Write or call Public Voice for Food and Health Policy, 1101 14th St. NW, Suite 710, Washington, DC 20005 (202.371.1840), to subscribe. 136Pub. L. No. 104-193, 849. 1 37 1d. 822. JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998 1 CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW

the food stamp changes. While some states have attempted to fill some of the food assistance gap created by welfare reform, no state government has earmarked an amount of funding sufficient to fill the gap. In states that have acted to provide benefits for those losing federal food Three publications of the Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy highlight issues that have emerged because of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRA). They are addressed to legal services attorneys, state administrators, and legislators: Statement on Key Welfare Reform Issues--The Empirical Evidence summarizes scientific evidence that is at odds with the key welfare reform measures supported by Congress right before the PRA's passage. For example, the empirical evidence shows virtually no causal link between welfare and single-parent families. Far-reaching changes in the economy, not these families, have resulted in increased poverty.( $5.) Realities and Choices--Helping States Enbance Family Economic Security summarizes key research to help states design programs to provide cash assistance and support to poor families and guides state administrators and legislators who plan to help in the transistamps, advocates need to urge continued support and expansion of such state programs. In other states, advocates need to document the impact of the cuts on families, the food industry, and the local economy and urge states to step in and meet more of the need. Analyzing Welfare Reforin tion to self-sufficiency. Topics include barriers to employment; what states can do to enhance job opportunities for the poor; and what states can do to help the poor increase income and assets. ($8.) Five States' Innovative Approaches to Welfare- Promoting Economic Security Among America's Poor offers examples of how Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont have implemented changes in their welfare programs to help poor families achieve greater economic security. The examples illustrate five different approaches, but each emphasizes incentives and opportunities for the poor and contains few provisions for time limits, family caps, and punitive reductions of cash assistance grants. ($5.) Make checks payable to Trustees of Tufts College, and mail or fax orders to the Center on Hunger, Poverty and Nutrition Policy, Tufts School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Medford, MA 02155; 617.627.3956. fax 617.627.3020. CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW I JANUARY-FEBRUARY 1998