A Small Victory for SNAP

Yesterday, the Senate voted down an amendment that would have gotten rid of the mechanism that allows states to eliminate asset tests for SNAP.  Nearly forty states have lifted their asset tests for most applicants to the program through the challenged policy, known as broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE). It’s not a big surprise that the amendment failed; a similar proposal was defeated in the Senate last year. However, in light of the vote, it’s worth taking a moment to recognize many of the ways in which this policy has played a positive role, both in helping families access the benefits they qualify for and in easing administrative burdens at a time when state budgets are in crisis. Despite frequent statements to the contrary, BBCE has actually increased state flexibility and allowed for greater efficiency and associated cost savings.

One of the primary benefits of lifting the SNAP asset test is that it has helped families that have suffered job losses as a result of the Recession access assistance before spending down all of their savings and rendering themselves financially vulnerable. An administrator I recently spoke to from California, which expanded its eligibility in stages, explained that the state chose to lift its asset test for all eligible applicants after observing a growing population of laid-off workers who had a small amount in savings, but were in need of assistance. The program’s low income limits ($1863 net income/month for a family of four) still kept benefits going to people in need.

This example illustrates how the economic downturn has caused many families who have never before turned to public assistance finding themselves temporarily in need of SNAP to put food on the table. Since most states that have implemented BBCE have taken the opportunity to lift or liberalize their asset tests, these households no longer have to deplete the savings they’ve worked for for years to get through a period of unemployment. Consequently, these families will be able to get back on their feet sooner, which in turn will help the economy bounce back as a whole.

Second, BBCE is one of the ways that states can eliminate their vehicle limits for SNAP applicants. States have the flexibility to align their SNAP vehicle policy with that of a non-cash TANF-funded service with no vehicle limit in place. Many states have used this option to expand the number or value of vehicles a family receiving SNAP can own. Under the federal rules, the value of a household’s vehicles exceeding $4650 counts towards the $2000 asset limit. Before states had the flexibility to set their own vehicle policies, one of the most common reasons for SNAP disqualification was owning a vehicle.

Ironically, recent research has shown that car ownership is essential to moving off of public assistance; a survey of recipients of loans from a low-income car ownership program, Ways to Work, revealed that 82% of respondents were able to leave public assistance as a result of obtaining a car. In most parts of the country, public transportation is unreliable or non-existent; BBCE’s flexibility with respect to vehicles is an acknowledgment that cars are essential to securing and maintaining employment and moving toward self-sufficiency.

Finally, BBCE has been widely reported to ease the administrative burden on state human services agencies. By aligning SNAP eligibility with eligibility for a non-cash TANF-funded service, the policy has helped streamline the process of screening applications. This is especially important at a time when most state agencies have suffered significant cuts in staffing and resources due to state budgets in crisis. Recently, I’ve been reaching out to state administrators to learn more about how these policy changes have affected their work. In Ohio, a state administrator reported that removal of SNAP asset test “allows benefits to be approved in a more efficient manner,” while Illinois reported that lifting the SNAP asset test “greatly simplified the work for staff;” administrators in a range of other states have echoed these sentiments.

In the current political climate, it’s easy to fall into the trap of always being on the defensive about SNAP and other public benefits; at this point, it seems nearly everyone has heard the story of the anomalous lottery winner who continued to receive SNAP. The attacks are loud and persistent—although often not data-driven. Still, it’s crucial to remember and affirm all of the good that SNAP does, all of the help that it provides, for families across the country.