By Jordan J. Phelan And Keith Whitcomb Jr.
[email protected]
WHITE RIVER JUNCTION, Vt. — At Upper Valley Haven, every day comes with its own series of new opportunities and challenges. Even after one full year at the helm of the nonprofit, private organization, Executive Director Michael Redmond still encounters the unexpected — or rather, the undesired.
This was the situation during the first week of December when Redmond learned of an announcement by the Trump Administration; a rule change to the food stamp program — expected to take effect April 1 — which is feared by some to be the first among several. This decision will now undoubtedly test the strength and perseverance of Upper Valley Haven and organizations like it as they attempt to overcome this newest reality.
Drake Turner, food security advocacy manager at Hunger Free Vermont, said in an interview Friday that the Trump Administration, through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), proposed several rules changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known in Vermont as 3SquaresVt, over the course of this past year.
Turner said there are three rules that were proposed. The public comment period for each has passed. The one taking effect in April affects work requirements for the 3SquaresVt program. It restricts states’ ability to waivers for people living in areas where unemployment is high or where there’s fewer jobs available. Turner said it limits the state’s ability to be more responsive to shifts in the economy.
The second rule, which hasn’t been approved yet, affects 3SquaresVt eligibility. It is estimated that 5,204 Vermont households, representing about 13,000 people, could lose 3SquaresVt benefits completely. Also, children would lose the ability to get free meals at school. Turner said this rule also restricts states’ ability to grant waivers for able-bodied adults between certain ages who have no dependents.
The third, and most recently proposed rule change, limits how much the cost of utilities can be factored into a person’s 3SquaresVt benefits. Turner said this rule would affect 26,000 households currently receiving benefits, or about 68% of them. These households would see an average loss of $82 per month.
“The community action agencies were really formed out of something called the War on Poverty, and I think right now the tables have turned so severely I can only call this a War on the Poor,” said Sue Minter, executive director at Capstone Community Action, a Montpelier-based nonprofit community action agency tasked with alleviating poverty. It runs a food shelf and assists people with 3SquaresVt applications.
Redmond reciprocated these sentiments. “What this [change] will result in is fewer people having access, people with access having fewer benefits, and the ultimate result is people will be hungry and food insecure. If this rule goes into effect in April as it is scheduled to now, all that money is going to be pulled out of the economy. And for people who are already working at [the] margins, as well as people in the working class, they will be driven to and past the margins.”
In pondering the possible motivations of the administration to enact such a change, Redmond noted that the Trump Administration’s potential reasoning for imposing this rule change was that the program imposed a financial strain on the federal government is not an acceptable rationale.
“[The program] does not have a large impact on the federal budget, so it cannot be said that it is being done for reasons of fiscal responsibility,” Redmond said. “There have been studies that show these [changes] are ineffective… and studies have shown that work requirements on SNAP benefits doesn’t improve people’s income, doesn’t improve their access to job markets. All it does it take away their food benefits.”
Minter said proposed cuts to SNAP aren’t popular among members of Congress, and that it appears the Trump Administration is getting around that by using the USDA to tighten SNAP rules instead.
“In my view this is frankly cruel. I do not think that taking food away from very poor people promotes better participation in the workforce, in fact it simply compounds the hardships people in poverty face every day, and I say that because of what I see here at our food shelf at Capstone,” Minter said. “The folks coming in our door are folks who are coming here not because they want a handout and that they’re lazy, they’re coming here because they’re in a crisis.”
Lori Wick, the food shelf coordinator at Upper Valley Haven, projects that the organization will need the community to step up even more than they currently do. And with 1,500 yearly volunteers — 170 of which are strictly devoted to the Food Shelf — this is a large demand.
“It is going to require us to have more volunteer help,” Wick said. “It is going to cause people we haven’t seen in years to come back because they are going to lose their benefits. Most people come through here on average four times a year. We will see that number change. We are already seeing new faces. The numbers are going to be scary.”
Many people who turn to assistance programs are doing so because of an unexpected expense, such as a medical bill, according to Minter.
“You’re not going to get more work out of people, which is, I think, is the goal of the Trump Administration, but you’re going to force thousands of more families to make that impossible choice between food, rent, or medical care,” said Minter.
BROC Community Action is another community action group, one that serves Rutland and Bennington counties. BROC Chief Executive Officer, Tom Donahue said the proposed change to the utility rule will affect Vermonters more than people in other states.
“Fuel bills in Vermont are higher than in other parts of the country, so this isn’t so uniform across the board that you can apply one rule to everybody and expect the impact to be the same,” he said. “The impact will be more damaging in Vermont.”
“Even without tightening restrictions, many people are no longer using food assistance programs because the economy is improving,” said Donahue, adding that those still using the benefits are people who need them. He said a far better method for encouraging people would be improving the earned income tax credit and reward people for work rather than punish them for needing assistance.
“[SNAP] is not going to be replaced. You just don’t have those resources to change this sharing of responsibility between communities and federal and state governments to shift more onto the local charities,” Redmond said.
“It is not right, it is unfair, it is mean-spirited, and it is going to be unsuccessful, if their goal is to increase the number of people that are working. It will reduce the number of people on SNAP benefits, congratulations. But it will improve people’s food insecurity.”
As your daily newspaper, we are committed to providing you with important local news coverage for Sullivan County and the surrounding areas.