Walorski: USDA needs to change SNAP research
July 15, 2015 |11:59 PM
The Agriculture Department needs to make changes to its research on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, House Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee Chairwoman Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., said today at a hearing.
Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind.
“Unfortunately, most of the research currently funded by the Department of Agriculture revolves around the process, like application timing and accuracy, and recipient characteristics, such as gender, age, and family composition. This approach misses the forest through the trees,” Walorski said in an opening statement.
“Instead, the department must move beyond the basics of measuring the ‘number served’ and develop new data points that focus on outcomes like well-being, changes in earnings, and family stability. This shifts the conversation from ‘serving the most’ to ‘being the best’ leads to better outcomes for more people because we’re better able to judge what works and what doesn’t.”
“The 2014 farm bill planted the seeds of an outcome-based approach,” Walorski added, noting that the 10 states that got federal funds to test SNAP work pilots had to agree “to comprehensive, external evaluation aimed at measuring increases in employment and overall household incomes.”
“I look forward to monitoring the progress of these pilots, as they will help to provide a window into what works and what doesn’t so that limited taxpayer dollars can be used efficiently as possible in providing a safety net to those in need and means to climbing the economic ladder,” Walorski added.
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.
House Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee ranking member Jim McGovern, D-Mass., noted that the hearing is House Agriculture’s seventh on SNAP and that he has “a lot of questions as to where all of this is headed.”
McGovern said he worries that “’improvement’ is code for “cuts.”
“It makes me nervous that we’re going down a path that could actually make hunger worse,” he said.
McGovern added he is all for case management.
“But show me the money,” he said. “Case management is expensive. No one’s talking about increasing SNAP funding to pay for it. We shouldn’t take money away from the food benefit to pay for case management. We shouldn’t rob Peter to pay Paul.”
McGovern said that despite the subcommittee’s focus on work, SNAP “is not a jobs program, it’s a food program.” He also said he is frustrated that officials from the Agriculture Department’s Food and Nutrition Service have not been called to testify.
McGovern said there is a body of evidence that the SNAP benefit, commonly known as food stamps, is too low and that the committee should be looking evidence that seniors and veterans are experiencing hunger.
Walorski said during the hearing that “the committee has taken position consistently that we believe in SNAP” and “just wants to make it work better.”
But McGovern said in an interview afterward that he is still worried that there could be food stamp cuts in an omnibus appropriations bill or budget deal.
McGovern also participated in a new conference today releasing a guide to hunger that he and other members of an informal task force have distributed to House members. (See story below)
The subcommittee also heard testimony from a series of witnesses focused on SNAP research.
Jon Baron, the vice-president for evidence-based policy at the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, said that social science research shows that previous rigorous evaluation of SNAP state initiatives could produce results that could replicated in other states.
James Sullivan, a professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame, said that studying SNAP is difficult because it is too costly to compare the impact of its benefits with a control group of people who do not take the benefits. But Sullivan said that better access to data keep by SNAP program administrators could make evaluation easier.
McGovern noted that he considers food to be medicine and that he wants “more research on the adequacy of the dosage.”
Sullivan responded that he would like to study “the value of food stamp generosity.”
Jim Weill
Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, said that SNAP “is fundamentally sound and successful” but that it “has one serious shortcoming: benefit levels.”
Weill suggested that research should be done on the impact of the higher benefit levels that were effect between 2009 and 2013 under the Recovery Act, and what impact differing state asset tests and other eligibility requirements have on low-income people.
McGovern said he believes that the best way to get people off food stamps is to raise wages, but that there are too many people in the country working full-time who are paid so little that they still qualify for benefits.
Jeremy Everett, the director of the Texas Hunger Project, agreed, saying that the country now has the least amount of social mobility it has had since 1929. Everett said that SNAP is part of a “larger umbrella” of social programs including education, welfare and housing.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., noted that the War on Poverty has been going on for 50 years and that there are still poor people.
“We have to break the cycle,” Yoho said.
Yoho asked Everett, who has experience in public partnerships, whether it is important that programs be “faith-based.” Everett reported that it is “absolutely” important because congregations can help people with a range of needs.
Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-N.Mex., said she is concerned that government experiments in states whose leaders are not committed to the program could make it difficult for the needy to get benefits.
Baron said that if the federal government is going to allow innovations at the state level, the experiments would have to be “circumscribed” as they were under welfare reform.
During the George W. Bush administration, Baron said, states were allowed waivers to try innovations and President Bill Clinton continued the experiments because “they required rigorous randomized trials.”
“Unfortunately, most of the research currently funded by the Department of Agriculture revolves around the process, like application timing and accuracy, and recipient characteristics, such as gender, age, and family composition. This approach misses the forest through the trees,” Walorski said in an opening statement.
“Instead, the department must move beyond the basics of measuring the ‘number served’ and develop new data points that focus on outcomes like well-being, changes in earnings, and family stability. This shifts the conversation from ‘serving the most’ to ‘being the best’ leads to better outcomes for more people because we’re better able to judge what works and what doesn’t.”
“The 2014 farm bill planted the seeds of an outcome-based approach,” Walorski added, noting that the 10 states that got federal funds to test SNAP work pilots had to agree “to comprehensive, external evaluation aimed at measuring increases in employment and overall household incomes.”
“I look forward to monitoring the progress of these pilots, as they will help to provide a window into what works and what doesn’t so that limited taxpayer dollars can be used efficiently as possible in providing a safety net to those in need and means to climbing the economic ladder,” Walorski added.
House Agriculture Nutrition Subcommittee ranking member Jim McGovern, D-Mass., noted that the hearing is House Agriculture’s seventh on SNAP and that he has “a lot of questions as to where all of this is headed.”
McGovern said he worries that “’improvement’ is code for “cuts.”
“It makes me nervous that we’re going down a path that could actually make hunger worse,” he said.
McGovern added he is all for case management.
“But show me the money,” he said. “Case management is expensive. No one’s talking about increasing SNAP funding to pay for it. We shouldn’t take money away from the food benefit to pay for case management. We shouldn’t rob Peter to pay Paul.”
McGovern said that despite the subcommittee’s focus on work, SNAP “is not a jobs program, it’s a food program.” He also said he is frustrated that officials from the Agriculture Department’s Food and Nutrition Service have not been called to testify.
McGovern said there is a body of evidence that the SNAP benefit, commonly known as food stamps, is too low and that the committee should be looking evidence that seniors and veterans are experiencing hunger.
Walorski said during the hearing that “the committee has taken position consistently that we believe in SNAP” and “just wants to make it work better.”
But McGovern said in an interview afterward that he is still worried that there could be food stamp cuts in an omnibus appropriations bill or budget deal.
McGovern also participated in a new conference today releasing a guide to hunger that he and other members of an informal task force have distributed to House members. (See story below)
The subcommittee also heard testimony from a series of witnesses focused on SNAP research.
Jon Baron, the vice-president for evidence-based policy at the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, said that social science research shows that previous rigorous evaluation of SNAP state initiatives could produce results that could replicated in other states.
James Sullivan, a professor of economics at the University of Notre Dame, said that studying SNAP is difficult because it is too costly to compare the impact of its benefits with a control group of people who do not take the benefits. But Sullivan said that better access to data keep by SNAP program administrators could make evaluation easier.
McGovern noted that he considers food to be medicine and that he wants “more research on the adequacy of the dosage.”
Sullivan responded that he would like to study “the value of food stamp generosity.”
Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, said that SNAP “is fundamentally sound and successful” but that it “has one serious shortcoming: benefit levels.”
Weill suggested that research should be done on the impact of the higher benefit levels that were effect between 2009 and 2013 under the Recovery Act, and what impact differing state asset tests and other eligibility requirements have on low-income people.
McGovern said he believes that the best way to get people off food stamps is to raise wages, but that there are too many people in the country working full-time who are paid so little that they still qualify for benefits.
Jeremy Everett, the director of the Texas Hunger Project, agreed, saying that the country now has the least amount of social mobility it has had since 1929. Everett said that SNAP is part of a “larger umbrella” of social programs including education, welfare and housing.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., noted that the War on Poverty has been going on for 50 years and that there are still poor people.
“We have to break the cycle,” Yoho said.
Yoho asked Everett, who has experience in public partnerships, whether it is important that programs be “faith-based.” Everett reported that it is “absolutely” important because congregations can help people with a range of needs.
Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-N.Mex., said she is concerned that government experiments in states whose leaders are not committed to the program could make it difficult for the needy to get benefits.
Baron said that if the federal government is going to allow innovations at the state level, the experiments would have to be “circumscribed” as they were under welfare reform.
During the George W. Bush administration, Baron said, states were allowed waivers to try innovations and President Bill Clinton continued the experiments because “they required rigorous randomized trials.”
Witness testimony
- Jon Baron, vice president for evidence-based policy, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Washington
- Jim Weill, president, Food Research and Action Center, Washington
- Jim Sullivan, professor of economics, University of Notre Dame and Lab for Economic Opportunity, Sound Bend, Ind.
- Jeremy Everett, director, Texas Hunger Initiative, Waco, Texas
