We at The Center for Community Solutions know that it can be confusing to keep straight the different proposed changes to federal programs that Ohioans depend on, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also called food stamps. Just in 2019 we saw three separate proposed changes to the SNAP program. Each of these proposals affects a slightly different group of people, and this piece aims to be a reference to keep the various proposals straight. [bctt tweet="Are you confused by ALL the proposed changes to the #SNAP program? Our #SNAP Proposals cheat sheet can help!" username="CommunitySols"]
SNAP Proposals
Title: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirements for Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents
Date Proposed: February 12, 2019
What it would do: States would no longer be able to waive a three-month limit within a 36-month period where able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) can receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits -- also called food stamps.
Right now 42 Ohio counties waive that three-month limit waived due to high county unemployment.
Right now 42 Ohio counties waive that three-month limit waived due to high county unemployment, but even ABAWDs who live in those counties still have to work or participate in job training or else be subject to a sanction. On January 10, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services submitted a plan to update the SNAP work requirement waiver – the number of Ohio counties that would be exempt would drop from 42 to 13.
Who it would most affect: Adults without dependents in Appalachia and urban areas like Cleveland, Toledo and Youngstown. Ohio’s economy overall and food retailers across the state would also be impacted.
Community Solutions’ stance: We oppose this measure because:
- It would increase food insecurity and poverty in Ohio, as well as stifle economic activity
- The proposed rule undermines states’ ability to respond to economic hardship
- The intent of the proposed rule is not supported by evidence
- The proposed rule would have a disparate impact on people of color in OhioStatus of rule: This rule will go into effect on April 1, 2020.
https://comsolutionst.wpengine.com/impact-snap-changes-will-ohio-medicaid/
Title: Proposed Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Date Proposed: July 24, 2019
What it would do: States would no longer be able to automatically grant SNAP eligibility to families who qualify for other government benefits, like Social Security Income and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Families would need to undergo asset verification and determination, interviews and recertification to qualify for SNAP.
Families would need to undergo asset verification and determination, interviews and recertification to qualify for SNAP.
Who it would most affect: Children, seniors and individuals with disabilities.
Community Solutions’ stance: We oppose this measure because:
- The proposed rule would worsen food insecurity for families
- Poor evidence to support rule’s assumptions
- The proposed rule would increase administrative costsStatus of rule: Pending.
Title: Proposed Standardization of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) State Heating and Cooling Standard Utility Allowances (SUA)
Date proposed: October 3, 2019
What it would do: Caseworkers deduct the cost of heating and cooling from a family’s earnings before determining how much food assistance they will receive. Under the new rule, every state would use a standard deduction -- the same dollar amount -- for those heating and cooling costs. This would hurt SNAP recipients in states like Ohio which have high heating and cooling costs and the standard deduction would be less than the actual cost of utilities.
This would hurt SNAP recipients in states like Ohio which have high heating and cooling costs and the standard deduction would be less than the actual cost of utilities.
Who it would most affect: Ohio’s SNAP households with children, older adults and those who have disabilities.
Community Solutions’ stance: We oppose this rule because low- income families with children, people older adults and individuals with disabilities would have less access to basic nutrition assistance.
Status of rule: Pending.
