MONROE - Proposed federal budget cuts of nearly $200 million to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program over the next 10 years would require Second Harvest Foodbank of Southern Wisconsin to double its output, according to a company official.
President and CEO Dan Stein pointed to work done in conjunction with Feeding Wisconsin, a statewide association of food banks with roughly 1,000 local food pantries. Second Harvest, based in Madison, provides food to 16 counties in southwestern Wisconsin. In 2016, the bank provided roughly 475,000 meals to Green County.
"The reason this is a concern to us ... is because of all the work we did last year," Stein said. "If this 25 percent cut that's being proposed took place with the SNAP or FoodShare program, the meals that are lost with that money, if they came to us to replace them we'd have to double our output to meet that need."
Referred to as FoodShare in Wisconsin, the program provided assistance to 2,994 recipients as of June with an average total of $281,272 distributed this year, according to the state Department of Health Services.
In order for a family of four to receive benefits, household monthly take-home pay must not exceed $2,025. Two-thirds of recipients are children and elderly individuals.
In the proposed 2018 fiscal budget, "A New Foundation for American Greatness," the document proposes a "re-balance" of the "State-Federal partnership" through the establishment of a state match for benefit costs, which would allow states to make up for the loss in funding. The budget outlines that in addition to currently available options on how to utilize the funds to address hunger issues, states can also "establish locally appropriate benefit levels" which "will be considered."
The federal government funding requires states meet certain standards but if the programs are converted into block grants, the number of participants can be limited, and state discretion could redirect the funds to other projects still deemed connected to nutrition assistance.
That notion makes Feeding Wisconsin Executive Director David Lee nervous.
"We should just ensure people are graduating out of the program by making more money, not by having less eligibility," Lee said. "The block grant would change that by capping the amount of benefits coming to the state and changing the eligibility. That fundamentally breaks the promise of this program."
Stein and Lee both expressed concerns about the effects on local economies. Feeding America found that every $5 of FoodShare spent generates $9 throughout a community. Lee said the assistance may help families pay rent or be able to fix their car; all funding sources that will cycle back throughout the area. Stein pointed to local grocers losing sales and the ripple effect on transportation to the stores and other merchants.
Lee encouraged residents to contact legislators and express their disapproval of the idea.
Proponents of the proposed budget cuts point to a post-recession economy and cite the enrollment numbers in programs like FoodShare and SNAP in the early 2000s as a reason to cut funding. They believe it is simply returning the programs to the way they were before the economy went bad, and tamps down the expansion that was necessary during the recession.
The program is counter-cyclical, Lee said. The point of FoodShare is to aid those in need until solid paying occupations are filled, allowing the individuals or families that needed help to revoke enrollment. The amount of aid fluctuates with economic need. But higher employment rates do not necessarily translate to solid incomes, leaving a number of people working more than one job for hourly wages and still struggling to feed themselves or their families.
"It's designed that the amount that's being paid out increases when the need increases and comes down when the need decreases," Stein said. "That's the job it plays, and I think it does that very well."
President and CEO Dan Stein pointed to work done in conjunction with Feeding Wisconsin, a statewide association of food banks with roughly 1,000 local food pantries. Second Harvest, based in Madison, provides food to 16 counties in southwestern Wisconsin. In 2016, the bank provided roughly 475,000 meals to Green County.
"The reason this is a concern to us ... is because of all the work we did last year," Stein said. "If this 25 percent cut that's being proposed took place with the SNAP or FoodShare program, the meals that are lost with that money, if they came to us to replace them we'd have to double our output to meet that need."
Referred to as FoodShare in Wisconsin, the program provided assistance to 2,994 recipients as of June with an average total of $281,272 distributed this year, according to the state Department of Health Services.
In order for a family of four to receive benefits, household monthly take-home pay must not exceed $2,025. Two-thirds of recipients are children and elderly individuals.
In the proposed 2018 fiscal budget, "A New Foundation for American Greatness," the document proposes a "re-balance" of the "State-Federal partnership" through the establishment of a state match for benefit costs, which would allow states to make up for the loss in funding. The budget outlines that in addition to currently available options on how to utilize the funds to address hunger issues, states can also "establish locally appropriate benefit levels" which "will be considered."
The federal government funding requires states meet certain standards but if the programs are converted into block grants, the number of participants can be limited, and state discretion could redirect the funds to other projects still deemed connected to nutrition assistance.
That notion makes Feeding Wisconsin Executive Director David Lee nervous.
"We should just ensure people are graduating out of the program by making more money, not by having less eligibility," Lee said. "The block grant would change that by capping the amount of benefits coming to the state and changing the eligibility. That fundamentally breaks the promise of this program."
Stein and Lee both expressed concerns about the effects on local economies. Feeding America found that every $5 of FoodShare spent generates $9 throughout a community. Lee said the assistance may help families pay rent or be able to fix their car; all funding sources that will cycle back throughout the area. Stein pointed to local grocers losing sales and the ripple effect on transportation to the stores and other merchants.
Lee encouraged residents to contact legislators and express their disapproval of the idea.
Proponents of the proposed budget cuts point to a post-recession economy and cite the enrollment numbers in programs like FoodShare and SNAP in the early 2000s as a reason to cut funding. They believe it is simply returning the programs to the way they were before the economy went bad, and tamps down the expansion that was necessary during the recession.
The program is counter-cyclical, Lee said. The point of FoodShare is to aid those in need until solid paying occupations are filled, allowing the individuals or families that needed help to revoke enrollment. The amount of aid fluctuates with economic need. But higher employment rates do not necessarily translate to solid incomes, leaving a number of people working more than one job for hourly wages and still struggling to feed themselves or their families.
"It's designed that the amount that's being paid out increases when the need increases and comes down when the need decreases," Stein said. "That's the job it plays, and I think it does that very well."