Food security for low-income Vermonters on the line in Farm Bill squabble

From left, DCF Deputy Commissioner Richard Giddings, Hunger Free Vermont program director Dorigen Keeney and Chris Saunders, a staff person for Sen. Patrick Leahy, field questions from a group of food advocates Thursday. Photo by Alicia Freese/VTDgger
From left, DCF Deputy Commissioner Richard Giddings, Hunger Free Vermont program director Dorigen Keeney and Chris Saunders, a staff person for Sen. Patrick Leahy, field questions from a group of food advocates Thursday. Photo by Alicia Freese/VTDgger

RANDOLPH CENTER — Competing farm bills in Congress could reduce food assistance for some low-income Vermonters and knock others off the program altogether, hunger advocates were told Thursday.

Sen. Patrick Leahy’s office and Vermont’s Department for Children and Families briefed nearly 100 food-security advocates at Vermont Technical College on what the 2013 Farm Bill will mean for Vermont’s food assistance program.

Vermont receives about $12 million a month from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly referred to as food stamps. 3Squares VT is the state program charged with disbursing these funds, which benefit roughly 101,000 Vermonters on a monthly basis.

The federal legislation is still in flux — the House and Senate Agriculture committees have passed different bills, and a lot hinges on how the two versions are reconciled. Both, however, contain cuts to SNAP.

The Senate bill cuts $4.1 billion nationwide over the next decade. The House version is more draconian — it cuts roughly five times that amount. Floor debate on the bill began in the Senate last week; both chambers will continue to debate the legislation during the month of June. If Congress fails to pass a new Farm Bill, the SNAP program will stay intact.

The speeches at the annual 3SquaresVT Outreach Conference on Thursday were part policy briefings, and part call-to-arms. Among the audience members were staff from veterans’ organizations, shelters, senior centers, community action groups, schools, farmers markets and government departments.

Dorigen Keeney, program director for Hunger Free Vermont, urged the advocates to push Vermont’s congressional delegation to preserve funding for 3SquaresVT.

“SNAP is being used as the punching bag to score political points in Washington.”

Dorigen Keeney, Hunger Free Vermont

“SNAP is being used as the punching bag to score political points in Washington,” Keeney said. “Last year, Sen. Leahy used your stories when he defended cuts to SNAP on the Senate floor. … He needs more of your stories now.”

On top of the potential cuts embedded in the Farm Bill, states will see an across-the-board reduction in SNAP dollars Nov. 1, when American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding for the program is terminated. As a result, Patricia Duda, the food and nutrition director for DCF, estimates a family of three in Vermont will see their monthly grant drop by $30 to $40.

The federal sequester does not impact SNAP.

Leahy supports the Senate Farm Bill. He released a statement earlier this month saying, “I am disappointed that this mark once again includes $4 billion in cuts to the SNAP program, which will predominately come from Northeastern states. I understand these cuts represent a compromise on behalf of the chairwoman, and they are certainly far more reasonable than the draft House mark, which includes $20 billion in food assistance reductions.”

Chris Saunders, a staff member from Leahy’s office, gave a scathing assessment of the House version at the gathering of food advocates. “We believe they are trying to balance the budget on the backs of low-income folks.”

DCF officials aren’t pleased about the cuts in either bill, but they agree the Senate version is “not as toxic.”

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that almost 2 million people will lose their benefits if the House version is passed. DCF officials say they aren’t sure yet how many Vermont households are at stake, but the deputy commissioner of DCF, Richard Giddings, said the impact would be “huge.”

The House bill eliminates “categorical eligibility,” a policy some states, including Vermont, have adopted to allow families to qualify for food assistance even if their gross income falls above the normal cutoff. In Vermont, for instance, people can qualify for food stamps if they receive Reach Up or the Earned Income Tax Credit. This has allowed the state to distribute SNAP money to families with incomes at 185 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) instead of using the federal standard, which is 130 percent of the FPL.

Duda, who describes categorical eligibility as “one of the greatest things that’s happened” in the program for reducing food insecurity, predicted, “a lot of people that are eligible now simply won’t be because their resources are going to be subject our review.”

The number of people receiving food assistance has skyrocketed at both the state and national level in recent years. In 2008, there were only about 55,000 people on 3Squares. That increase was driven by the economic downturn and the state’s decision to loosen eligibility standards.

Both the Senate and the House bills restrict what’s known as the “Heat and Eat” provision. If a family on 3Squares also gets fuel assistance, it automatically qualifies for a utility allowance, which increases the amount of food assistance they qualify for. Vermont is one of a host of states that doles out miniscule fuels benefits — think $3 a month — so families can get this allowance. The Senate bill would make the minimum fuel benefit $10; the House raises it to $20.

That will force states to choose between increasing the fuel benefit for these families and watching other benefits for these families drop.

Saunders said Leahy is confident the state can offset the benefit cuts that accompany the Senate bill.

“We believe that the state will step up, and if the threshold has to be put it in place, it will meet that threshold,” Saunders said.

Giddings said the governor’s office has asked his department to calculate how much it would cost for the state to pay those additional LIHEAP dollars. DCF doesn’t have firm figures yet, but Giddings gave an off-the-cuff approximation. Increasing the LIHEAP benefit to $10 for the 28,000 families that receive a smaller benefit would cost the state between $300,000 and $400,000. But, Giddings pointed out, it would allow Vermont to hold onto the $5 million to $6 million in federal funds that brings.

“Our department is committed to maintaining what we have and trying to figure out what would the governor potentially need to add back. But we don’t know yet where they are going to end up,” Giddings said.

If you read us, please support us.

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer.

We moderate every comment. Please go to our FAQ for the full policy.

Privacy policy
Alicia Freese

Recent Stories

  • MJ Farmer
  • John Sayles

    SNAP/3 Squares VT dollars are the first defense keeping children who would otherwise go hungry fed. The program is also the most effective economic stimulus out there – 90% of the dollars are spent at local merchants and farmers markets within 30 days. Talk to any retailer who accepts 3 Squares benefits about their importance. Oh, and the retailers won’t be telling you the urban myths about “those people” buying lobster and steak with benefits. It is just not the norm. These are our neighbors, and they are trying as hard as anyone to make the ends meet.

    • Avram Patt

      Thanks John Sayles, for answering the inevitable kneejerk response that a few Vermonters will thoughtlessly make about their neighbors.

  • kill god

    Food Security bill will not help poor but create more inflation and poverty!!!!!!!!!

  • Dianne Howard

    Please don’t cut SNAP benefits to low-income Vermonters. We are in our 60s and semi-disabled, I’ve just had a triple bypass and the SNAP program keeps us from starving!! We are unable to change our situation and are so grateful for the assistance! We never thought we’d find ourselves in this awful situation…no jobs, medical problems…it’s very scary!!

  • jay davis

    I have not knowledge here, except a news story I read about a year ago concerning this program.
    I found its controls lacking and its incredible generosity incredible. 1100 dollar A MONTH TO FEED A FAMILY OF TWO ADULTS. AND TWO KIDS?
    Seniors get less than 1000 a month for everything from SSI.

  • Dan Carver

    Actually Jay, at $12 million per month for 101,000 Vermonters, the average is just under $120 per week per person. So your family of 4 would receive closer to $1,920 per month. Note: The article does not state what percentage of the funds are used to adminster the program.

    I know the program is invaluable to many families, yet I’ve been in the grocery store and seen the adults talking on new iphones telling friends about their week of vacation on the beach, while buying a ton of groceries via the 3-squares plan.
    I am not rich and am very grateful for my own situation, yet my state tax burden grows far faster than my income, which leaves me as a supporter of a common comment: Vermont is a great state for the very rich and the poor, but sucks the life out of the middle class.

    • Chuck Lacy

      I think your calculation should be $120 per MONTH per person. The average per person benefit is lower in Vermont than the national average. Actually, we have the 10th lowest per person benefit in the country.


      The family of four you described must have an income below $28,665 to qualify.

  • Fred Woogmaster

    “Vermont is a great state for the rich and the poor…”

    The benefits in Vermont might be better than in some states, but I can assure you, Mr. Carver, that being poor in this country, in any state, is extremely unpleasant.

    The gentrification of Vermont; a haven for the wealthy, an endless keg of candy for the developers? Good thing or not such a good thing? The children of the future will know.

    You are not the only person who has related stories of apparent abuse of “the system”, Mr. Carver. I am certain, however, that those who are worthy and really do need the assistance – and use it wisely – far, far outnumber those who take unfair advantage.

    We seem to reach out a hand and simultaneously push the needy further down . Far too many children are hungry every day in this country – and in this state.

    It is adults who abuse the system and innocent children who pay the consequences which is one of the major reasons that abuse of this kind is hard to control. To err on the enforcement of such abuse, in order to protect children, is a humane gesture. Poverty is not a simple condition; lasting solutions are hard to come by, especially in a society in which money trumps kindness.