SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Privatization is often touted as a solution to bureaucratic red tape or cutting “wasteful” government spending, but in practice, it can mean cutting the experienced public workforce who administer complicated government programs.
The country’s largest and most important government anti-hunger program faces a renewed threat as Congress returns from recess next week: privatization.
Congress needs to reauthorize the now-expired Farm Bill—the enormous legislative package that includes funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, also known as food stamps)—but a privatization scheme was attached to the bill.
Congress should not be using much-needed disaster relief as a back door to privatize the SNAP program’s workforce.
Earlier this Congress, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) introduced the “SNAP Staffing Flexibility Act,” which was also adopted as an amendment to the current version of the Farm Bill. The bill would allow state agencies to hire outside contractors to administer key requirements of the SNAP program under certain conditions, such as in the aftermath of natural disasters or during pandemics and public health emergencies. Rep. Bacon and supporters of this proposal now aim to tack this provision onto the emergency disaster relief package under consideration this year. Make no mistake: This is an attempt to use emergency disaster relief as cover to privatize the SNAP program and workforce, instead of giving the SNAP program enough money to operate effectively.
Privatization is often touted as a solution to bureaucratic red tape or cutting “wasteful” government spending, but in practice, it can mean cutting the experienced public workforce who administer complicated government programs. This can result in prolonged delays, more people wrongly denied benefits, and ultimately worse outcomes for people who need the benefits most.
SNAP serves tens of millions of low-paid working families and other households with low incomes (including disabled and older adults). Like unemployment insurance, SNAP is responsive to the business cycle—meaning SNAP is particularly important during economic downturns when poverty and food insecurity rise. Between fiscal years 1980 and 2008, anywhere from 7 to 11% of U.S. households received SNAP. Participation grew dramatically during the Great Recession, peaking at 18.8% in fiscal year 2013 (47.6 million people).
Participation spiked again during the Covid-19 pandemic amid increased poverty and food insecurity. In fiscal year 2022, although total participation was lower than during the Great Recession (12.4% of all U.S. households participated in the program), SNAP saw a record-high participation rate among eligible individuals, equivalent to 41.2 million people receiving benefits in an average month. Expanded SNAP eligibility—alongside other relief measures such as Child Tax Credit expansions, universal free school lunches, and federal stimulus payments—kept food insecurity at bay during the height of the pandemic in 2021. However, as those programs expired—and the shocks of pandemic reopening and the Russian invasion of Ukraine led to food prices growing at an unprecedented rate—food insecurity increased in 2022.
As part of the SNAP quality control process, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) examines each state’s application processing timeliness (APT). The rate is calculated by dividing the number of SNAP applications processed by the number of applications that were expected to be processed during that period, typically 30 days since the application was submitted. In fiscal year 2023, APT rates ranged from a low of 39% in Alaska to a high of 98% in Idaho, with a median rate of 85% across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. In 2023, only four states met the FNS benchmark rate of 95%. Failure to meet this benchmark is not a new phenomenon. Based on available data, no more than a third of all states have ever met the 95% timeliness standard in any given year.
Proponents of SNAP privatization often point to slow application processing rates as evidence that the existing program is inefficient and in need of “reform.” However, this argument ignores important context on these rates and its connection to declining federal funding for SNAP and shrinking public-sector employment.
SNAP is a federal-state partnership, so the federal government pays the full cost of nutrition benefits and splits the costs of administration with states, but federal spending on SNAP administration has declined over time. Meanwhile, SNAP administrators’ caseloads have grown dramatically. Many states point to administrative problems—including low staffing, hiring freezes, and high turnover—as one of the biggest barriers to improving slow processing times and backlogs.
To be clear, low APT rates are a cause for concern because they indicate that many eligible households in need of food assistance are not quickly receiving those benefits. But the solution to ensuring applicants receive their benefits quickly is simple: Policymakers must increase funding for SNAP and restore sufficient staffing levels so that case workers can process applications effectively and efficiently.
The push to privatize SNAP eligibility determinations is decades-old and has produced serious problems in states that have contracted out these services or automated certain functions of the process. When Texas outsourced its SNAP eligibility determinations to a for-profit company in 2006, thousands of people were unable to apply or were given incorrect information and many were wrongly denied benefits. Public-sector staff were then forced to fix mistakes, and eligible SNAP participants were subject to long delays to receive benefits.
Efforts to defraud the SNAP program, including misuse of benefits or selling them for cash, is very rare. However, attention to purported fraud has increased in recent years, and SNAP workers have been forced to take on additional anti-fraud measures, further delaying processing and potentially contributing to low APT rates.
Congress should not be using much-needed disaster relief as a back door to privatize the SNAP program’s workforce. There are other real and urgent problems with the SNAP program this year—for instance, families have had their SNAP benefits stolen by card “skimmers” when they swipe their cards at grocery store cash registers. In 2022, Congress passed a provision that would allow states to pay back the stolen benefits to victims of theft, but that has since expired.
Farm Bill reauthorization should focus on preserving nutrition assistance benefits without cuts and on reducing administrative burdens and red tape for SNAP recipients, applicants, and staff—all of which could help reduce backlogs and improve how quickly people can receive their benefits. And disaster relief spending should focus on providing aid to vulnerable communities trying to rebuild after storms—not opportunistically trying to cut corners and privatize vital services.
If we help families survive rocky times rather than fall deeper into poverty, all of us benefit as a society; if we don’t, then millions of stories like mine won’t be possible.
Life is unpredictable. And sometimes, no matter how hard you work, life throws curve balls that hit you in the gut.
That’s what our tax dollars are supposed to be for—a helping hand when we’re most in need. More than once in my life, the social safety net came through for my family. And thanks to that help, we’re able to give back today.
My mother worked hard as a carpenter and educator for most of the years I was growing up. But her income just wasn’t enough to pay for rent, food, childcare, and other basic needs.
Imagine what our nation would look like if we fully invested in the programs most of us need at one time or another rather than constantly fighting to keep the little we have.
Thankfully, she kept us fed with WIC (the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition assistance program), SNAP (then called “food stamps”), and frequent visits to food pantries. And after living in a shelter for the first three years of my life, we were able to get Section 8 housing.
But life continued to throw curve balls.
My mom suffered a stroke while pregnant with my brother, who was born prematurely in 2002. She had to relearn how to walk and talk—and my brother needed serious health interventions due to complications of his premature birth. Thankfully, we got some help from Social Security and Medicare.
All of these supports enabled me to get an education, get into college, and help my family.
When my mother’s health failed to the point that she was on dialysis, my 10-year-old little brother needed to be cared for. So I moved him halfway across the country to live with me. Suddenly, I was a student, a worker, and a young single caretaker.
My mother recently passed away. But thanks to her hard work and the help we got from public programs, I was able to get a master’s degree. After experiencing the vital importance of those programs, I knew I had to devote my life to helping others access the same assistance that had been life-saving for me and my family.
I now work at an organization in Indianapolis, where I help residents achieve their family goals through basic needs support, community engagement, and case management. Ultimately, we explore the barriers keeping families from economic stability and work with them to find solutions.
My little brother, meanwhile, is 21 and a trade school graduate. He’s gainfully employed as an aircraft cleaner at the local airport and a production associate at a manufacturing company. I’m so proud of all that we’ve been able to accomplish because help was there for us when we needed it.
Yet even as I tell my story, there are lawmakers who would cut affordable housing and rental assistance programs. They would slash nutrition programs and Medicaid. There are even lawmakers and cities who seek to criminalize homelessness, which has now gotten the attention of the Supreme Court.
The deep cuts to social programs the House majority has proposed would slash investments that are already insufficient. Due to the lack of affordable housing in this country, only 1 in 4 eligible families actually receive housing vouchers like my family relied on. These cuts would make it even harder.
Thanks to the help we got, we give back as good as we received and more—that’s how a healthy system works. If we help families survive rocky times rather than fall deeper into poverty, all of us benefit as a society. If we don’t, then millions of stories like mine won’t be possible.
Imagine what our nation would look like if we fully invested in the programs most of us need at one time or another rather than constantly fighting to keep the little we have. We shouldn’t be cutting our public programs—we should be expanding them.
Lawmakers have allowed life-saving programs collapse and poor families like mine are the ones paying the price. It's time to fight back.
As a 32 year-old mother, I understand the extreme challenges my single mom faced better than ever. But I’ve also seen the life-changing difference a strong social safety net can make.
Above all, I’ve learned that poverty is a policy choice, not a personal one. We can reverse it — if we choose.
I grew up poor and lost my mother to suicide when I was just 14. Mostly homeless, I floated between sofas, cars, and the streets for years. Eventually I got food stamps, which were a tremendous help. With help from a friend, I got a job as a supervisor at an insurance company. And with help from a county program, my partner and I were able to secure an apartment.
Lawmakers and middle-class voters need to understand that poor people work as hard as humanly possible. We have families, we go to school, we access every resource we can find. It takes tremendous mental strength to survive poverty.
At nearly 30, it was my first real break from homelessness. Then the pandemic hit and I lost my job. But thankfully, we received the expanded Child Tax Credit for my partner’s children and other income supports that helped us stay in our apartment.
Then my partner hit, too. When the abuse began, I had to flee.
It was a challenging time, but the expansion of the safety net in the early days of the Biden administration offered hope. Even as I was trying to find a new job and place to live — and hiding from my abuser — the pandemic assistance made it possible for me to do that.
My story isn’t unique. The investments in the American Rescue Plan, including the expanded Child Tax Credit, reduced poverty and unemployment to record lows, kept small businesses afloat, avoided a recession, and staved off hunger. Nearly 40 million families — including over 60 million children — were helped, and child poverty was cut nearly in half.
Unfortunately, lawmakers let these programs expire. And now those gains are being reversed — poverty made a record jump last year.
Now I have a baby and my resources are thin. My landlord threatens me with eviction nearly every month. I’ve borrowed money. I’ve searched for every church, every charity, and every government resource so I can feed, clothe, and house my baby. You won’t find more resourceful people than mothers trying to feed their children.
But with our shredded safety net, it’s not enough — for me or many others. Average rents are unaffordable for working families across the country, and where I live there’s a 12-15 year waiting list for Section 8 housing. Nationally, a child care funding cliff is expected to close over 70,000 child care centers nationwide unless lawmakers act.
And the hardline conservatives now running the House are threatening to cut even more programs, like Women, Infants and Children (WIC) benefits, that parents like me rely on.
Lawmakers and middle-class voters need to understand that poor people work as hard as humanly possible. We have families, we go to school, we access every resource we can find. It takes tremendous mental strength to survive poverty.
I don’t want other mothers to suffer — I want more for my child and theirs. And together, we can win it.
I found an advocacy organization called Parent Voices and began volunteering with them. I learned how to help other poor people advocate for better child care and budgets that prioritize children and families. I feel more empowered and hopeful now.
I’ve come to see that though life is a struggle, it’s a beautiful struggle when we all come together to make the change we want to see. Now we need lawmakers to hear our voices.