Federal Hunger Programs

According to the most recent US Department of Agriculture analysis of hunger in America, an increasing number of Americans (35.1 million) live with food insecurity (low food security and very low food security). The Children's Hunger Alliance estimates 1.3 million Ohioans fit into that statistic, including one in six who are hungry or at risk of hunger as the percentage of families with incomes at or below the federal poverty level has climbed 5 points in recent years

Although these figures may be broken down to reflect local disparities, many congregations measure the amount of hunger in local communities by the increasing numbers of people who come to them regularly to put a few groceries on their shelves. The Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks which supplies food to over 3000 pantries and soup kitchens across the state reports that more than 1.2 million Ohioans, including more than one-third who are children, receive food assistance through their network. This accounts for more than 207,000 individuals in a given week. According to the federal government's "food security" scale, 78 percent of those Ohio households served are classified as "food insecure." More than one-third of households are currently experiencing hunger, meaning that someone in that household is going without food, and almost one third of households with children are also experiencing hunger.

So what is the source of the problem and what can be done to reduce it?

The primary source is, of course, 

(a) more and more people with less and less income; and the long-term answer 

(b) reversing that trend (see Issue # 3). 

Effectively addressing these immediate needs requires no less than an encompassing national nutrition strategy and massive resources. These considerations are addressed for the most part in three major food assistance programs--The Federal Food Stamp Program; The National School Lunch Program; and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

Food Stamps

The renamed Food Stamp Program (now the "Food and Nutrition Program" or FaNP) within the Administration's 2008 proposed budget calls for positive though modest changes in FaNP by eliminating previous rules that have previously disqualified a variety of potential recipients:

Yet, even with these accommodations, the government's proposal budget for next year would eliminate food stamps for approximately 329,000 people in low-income working families. Under current federal law, states have the option to treat as ineligible for food stamps some families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program services. Although the families may have modest savings or "gross income" that slightly exceeds the Food Stamp Program's regular rules, this proposal would make these families ineligible for food stamps unless the state take this option.

In addition, by eliminating food stamp eligibility, the proposal would raise school lunch fees or keep from eligibility for free school meals many needy children in those families whose food stamp status now results in direct certification for the school meals. This change will result in an $8 million reduction in School Lunch and Breakfast Program spending, which translates into a drop in participation by tens of thousands of low-income children.

All told, the proposed 2008 budget for the Food Stamp Program represent a net negative for participation and leave households' allotments short of that needed to purchase a healthy diet. Moreover missing from the Administration package are eligibility restorations for legal immigrants and jobless adults willing to work. Also absent are meaningful raises in food stamp allotment levels from the $1 dollar per person per meal average and decades-old $10 monthly minimum benefit.

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children - better known as the WIC Program - serves to safeguard the health of low-income women, infants, & children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk by providing nutritious foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating, and referrals to health care

Under the proposed budget, the WIC funding will not be enough to meet expected need because the proposal depends on savings from a suggested cut to nutrition education and WIC services funds. The proposed cap will cut freeze the WIC nutrition education and WIC services funds at FY06 levels: $14.12 per person. Lowering the spending limit for WIC's nutrition education and services funding will reduce access and quality of services to low-income mothers, infants, and children who are nutritionally at risk.

The Administration says its budget proposal is adequate to serve a monthly average of 8.3 million recipients, but that is true only if nutrition education and WIC services are also reduced as it recommends. It proposes to limit automatic WIC eligibility for Medicaid recipients by restricting it to those with income below 250 percent of the poverty level.

The Commodity Supplemental Food Program

Annually, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) has provided more than 5.8 million food packages for mothers, infants, children and seniors (aged 60 and older). Over 91 percent of CSFP recipients (approximately 442,000) are seniors. CSFP food packages provide a supplement which includes much needed sources of nutrients typically lacking in the diets of the target population. While CSFP participants can also receive food stamps, they cannot also receive WIC. The typical CSFP food package includes items such as canned tuna fish, meat and poultry, peanut butter, formula, milk, juice, oats, rice, beans, cheese, cereal, and canned fruits and vegetables. To be eligible, seniors must have income at or below 130 percent of the Federal Poverty Level. (currently about $12,744 a year for a single person and $17,160 for a couple).

CSFP has also provided food packages to low-income pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children up to age six, generally up to 185 percent of the Federal poverty line. Some low-income postpartum mothers and six-year olds are eligible for CSFP but not for WIC. The budget would eliminate the CSFP, thus, cutting off these nutritious commodities to needy segment of the population.

Impacted too are many of the local agencies distributing CSFP products are grassroots community-based nonprofit organizations. In addition to food distribution, these agencies provide nutrition education and referrals for additional assistance such as food stamps, Medicaid, emergency food, low-income energy assistance and the Earned Income Tax Credit. These services would be in jeopardy as well.

Although the Administration proposes to lessen the negative impact of eliminating CSFP by providing transitional food stamp, this will not safeguard the needs of CSFP's vulnerable beneficiaries. This temporary benefit will not fill the nutrition gap that would be widened by CSFP's elimination. Epecially many vulnerable elderly need both food stamps and CSFP to put food on the table.

The Community Food and Nutrition Program

These proposal would also eliminate the Community Services Block Grant and the Community Food and Nutrition Program (CFNP). CFNP is one of the primary sources of federal support for anti-hunger and nutrition advocacy groups at the local, state and national level. This small program has provided critical seed money for a range of local and state projects to alleviate hunger and food insecurity. Funds coordinate existing private and public food assistance efforts; assist low-income communities in identifying and recruiting sponsors for programs; and develop innovative approaches to meet the nutritional needs of low-income families.

Farm Bill: Changing Rural Landscape, Persistent Poverty, and Hunger

Ironically, areas where farming is widespread are not immuned from food deficiency as the picture of poverty is especially grim in rural America. The poverty rate in rural areas is 14 percent-2 percent higher than in urban areas. The number is even greater for child poverty: 20 percent, compared to 17 percent in urban areas. Nearly 400 counties across the United States have experienced poverty rates of more than 20 percent for the past 30 years. Nine out of 10 of these "persistent poverty" counties are rural. Unemployment and underemployment rates are higher too, and rural America has higher concentrations of substandard housing.

Broad reform of U.S. food and farm policy is important to progress against hunger and poverty in this country and around the world. The Administration's new (reauthorization occurs every five years) Farm Bill proposes a strict cap on payments to individual farmers as part of a larger effort to hold down traditional subsidies. It seeks to help smaller and younger farmers and poor rural communities. This represents a significant break from past farm bills, which have traditionally provided heavy subsidies for big growers of corn, wheat, soybeans, cotton and rice who are concentrated in a handful of states. Half of all farm spending, which amounts to about $12.5 billion annually, now flows to just 22 Congressional districts.

The problems with this system are legion. At home, it drives small farmers out of business and compromises the environment. Abroad, it penalizes third-world farmers and jeopardizes trade talks.

Most of these changes in the overall budget as it pertains to nutrition would have a positive impact rural America. But these proposals will be under heavy pressure from the traditional farm lobbying to preserve the old system. Countering these self-interests, we will be doing the environment, small farmers and the cause of free trade a great favor by embracing these humanitarian emphases in the Farm Bill.

Advocacy for Positive Changes in the Proposed Budget

To maintain a more secure safety net for persons struggling to feed their families, here is a list of positions requiring advocacy:

1. Increasing funding for overall nutrition program
2. Underwriting and promoting FaNP o Increase benefit levels o Expand eligibility and increase program participation o Undertake measures to reduce the stigma associated with food stamps
3. Strengthen TEFAP (The Emergency Food Assistance Program) and CSFP (Commodity Supplemental Food Program)
4. Maintaining Community Food and Nutrition Program (CFNP), expanding local programs that improve nutrition for poor people
5. Tailoring the these programs to rural communities most impacted through Farm Bill

Income and Spending Perspective: Decisions! Decisions! Decisions!

While budgets necessarily pit priorities against each other, critics of reductions to nutrition programs point to particular inequities in the overall $2.9 trillion budget request for fiscal year 2008. Promising to reduce the budget deficit, it includes cuts in non-security related discretionary spending. Compared to fiscal year 2006, $13 billion would be cut from these programs, or 3 percent, once inflation is taken into account. At the same time, the administration is requesting another $100 billion in war related spending. If Congress passes the war spending request as proposed, another $78 billion would be added to the total cost of the Iraq War. This would bring the Iraq War's cost in fiscal year 2007 to more than $140 billion, and nearly a half trillion ($456 billion) for the entire length of the war. Total 'national defense' spending would reach $647.2 billion in fiscal year 2008. In 2000, the national defense budget was less than half that amount ($304 billion). National defense would comprise 59% of total discretionary spending. Even while talking about balanced budgets, the administration proposes to make permanent the very costly tax cuts which primarily benefited the wealthy. In 2008, the richest 20 percent of Americans will receive two-thirds of the tax cuts, or $143 billion. The top 5 percent will receive 44 percent of the tax cuts, or $92 billion, according to the Tax Policy Center. In other words, seven times the amount of money slated for cuts to domestic services will go toward the wealthiest Americans.

These are priorities our nation will weigh in upcoming months. The amount of support for the nutrition programs will be determined within the debate over the federal budget and the reauthorization of the Farm Bill. As congregations struggle largely on their own to bring in more jars of peanut butter or cans of tuna for giving out to the "poor," our society is challenged to weight the increasing need for a comprehensive and urgent--often emergency--assistance of desperate families alongside of other national interest. Ultimately, through action or inaction, each of us will decide the outcome.

Back to top