The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Effects of recession linger
(Editor’s Note: This is the first in a periodic series on poverty in the valley.)
Layoffs. Cuts in hours, wages and benefits. Economic recovery aside, these are still the reality for many Gunnison residents. Records at Gunnison County Health and Human Services show many in our community still struggling. Changes in the economic environment and in public policy since the onset of the recession have been “astounding,” says department director Renee Brown.
One program that illustrates this is SNAP: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps.
Public Health administers this federally funded program, which provides both money and education to eligible recipients. To qualify, applicants must show proof, Brown says, of “lawful presence” in the United States and earn 130 percent or less of the federal poverty income level. That’s a maximum gross salary of $1,245 per month for an individual, $2,554 for a family of four. In April 2008, SNAP benefits were provided to 601 individuals in the county. In April 2014, there were 1,473 recipients, nearly 10 percent of the county’s population.
“More people are eligible because of the recession and subsequent loss of income,” says Brown. The numbers suggest that, despite reports of economic recovery, the residual effects of wage and job loss are still being felt locally. The seasonal nature of our workforce has some impact on the numbers month to month, as folks go on and off the SNAP roles based on ebbs and flows in available work.
In 2012, SNAP accounted for nearly $1.5 million in assistance for Gunnison County residents, 71 percent of the county’s Self Sufficiency and Public Assistance Programs. Comparatively, Colorado Works, Child Welfare, LEAP (energy assistance) and OAP (Old Age Pension), AND (Aid to the Needy and Disabled) and other programs combined constituted the remaining 29 percent. In 2013, SNAP outlay rose to about $1.65 million.
The maximum benefit per person, says Brown, is $186 per month. Awards are based on income. Brown reports that Gunnison County received 70 new applications for SNAP in March of this year, and 69 in April. Most SNAP benefits are temporary. “The average beneficiary in our county is on the program for less than a year,” she says.
Despite rumors to the contrary, SNAP food assistance is just that: help with purchasing food and nothing more. Recipients are provided with what’s known as the Colorado Quest Card, a form of Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT).
SNAP recipients can buy food at the grocery store. Toiletries such as shampoo, paper products and toothpaste are excluded, as are all alcoholic beverages. The SNAP EBT card may not be used at fast food restaurants, nor will it allow purchase of any hot, prepared foods that can be eaten on-site. The card is loaded monthly with the recipient’s specific benefit amount. Eligibility is reviewed every six months on average. In between, Brown says, “Clients must report changes in income.” The county can recover and has recovered payments made to individuals who failed to report those income changes.
Brown says fraud in Gunnison County is low. “Do people occasionally lend their cards to ineligible friends to buy $20 worth of groceries in exchange for cash so they can buy beer?” she asks. “Probably.” This, Brown insists, is rare. The cards generally are used within their limited scope by the clients to whom they were issued.
Asset eligibility tests were once applied to applicants for SNAP benefits. Those were lifted in many states, as in Colorado, in response to the recession. Brown explains that it made little sense for someone who had been laid off or had their hours cut to go hungry in order to pay the mortgage. Eliminating the asset test was a way of expanding the program and streamlining the application process in a time of rapidly growing need.
Here’s an excerpt from a United States Department of Agriculture memo, written by Program Development Division Director Arthur T. Foley, sent to regional benefit administrators in 2009:
“In these times of rising caseloads and shrinking State budgets, expanded categorical eligibility can benefit States by simplifying policies, by reducing the amount of time States must devote to verifying resources, and by reducing errors. It can benefit families hurt by the economic crisis. For example, families with low incomes and modest assets will be eligible for benefits. It can extend food assistance to families with high expenses but gross incomes slightly higher than the normal gross income test. Applicants will not need to provide documentation verifying their resources. Finally, adopting expanded categorical eligibility can promote asset accumulation among low-income families.”
“Categorical eligibility” assumes that those who qualify for other programs based on income, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), automatically qualify for SNAP benefits by virtue of low or no income. “Categorical eligibility” also lifts the maximum $2,000 cash asset limit once required to qualify for SNAP benefits. It helps local governments process claims quickly, and at lower cost.
Today, Congress is reconsidering the asset tests. Some argue that without it, someone with $20,000 in savings who loses or quits their job can still qualify for benefits. This, they insist, is a loophole in the system that must be closed. Others say that the process of verifying assets is more costly than it’s worth, to root out the few asset-rich applicants who feel compelled to apply for a relatively small amount of SNAP assistance. The cost of implementing an asset test would likely be borne by the states, while a reduction in benefits outlay would be a savings for the federal government.
Gunnison County once also participated in a program called “Employment First.”
“If you received $100 in food assistance,” says Brown, “you would have to do equivalent work at minimum wage to earn that assistance.” It seemed like a good idea at the time, she adds, but it turned out to cost much more than it was worth in reciprocal sweat equity. “We were providing so much staff time in oversight. It wasn’t to our client’s advantage and it definitely wasn’t to the county’s advantage.”
“We have another nutrition program, too,” says Brown. WIC—Women, Infants and Children—is also a federally funded program that subsidizes food for low-income women with young children. “We have not seen an increase in the number of WIC recipients,” Brown says. That number has remained stable over the years in Gunnison County, at “a little over 200.”
Brown says Gunnison County’s emphasis is on health and nutrition, and to that end, education is a big piece of Public Health’s administration of SNAP and WIC. It is in this spirit that Public Health has partnered with Mountain Roots on several projects. “There’s a social movement toward eating well,” says Brown. “We’re not just going to hand out benefits.”
For example, Bill’s Park, located adjacent to the Mountain View Apartments, provides a garden for seniors. The local farmers markets now accept SNAP EBT cards. The two will also soon facilitate Share our Strength’s “Cooking Matters” program, a nationally recognized education and training system that teaches families to plan, shop and prepare nutritious meals on a tight budget. Share our Strength is a non-profit dedicated to eradicating child hunger in the United States.
Holly Conn of Mountain Roots and Public Health WIC coordinator Kim Bemis were away from town at press time, training with “Cooking Matters Colorado,” on how to run a program here. “Eric McPhail of Colorado State University’s Cooperative Extension office in Gunnison is also on board and excited about this,” says Brown. Classes will be held in the big kitchen at the Field House at the Rodeo Grounds. “We’ll have a dietitian and a culinary expert, a chef, as a part of this, targeting our SNAP clients,” says Brown. “I’d love to see this institutionalized.”
SNAP applications have plateaued in recent months, and the county has seen some evidence that growth in benefits may be slowing. However, to suggest a turnaround would be premature. “It’s still not enough to say definitely that things have stabilized,” says Brown.
