Foodlinks America – January 29, 2010
Foodlinks America – January 29, 2010 
Tell a Friend about Foodlinks America.
In this issue:
• New Data Reveals “Pervasive Food Hardship” Throughout the Country
• Most Nutrition Programs Exempt from Spending Freeze
• FEEDBAG: A Compendium of Notes on Nutrition Assistance Programs
• Proposed Legislation
• Obesity Round-Up
• Reports from the Field – Dallas, TX
• Small Bites
Foodlinks America is published 24 times a year by California Emergency Foodlink in Sacramento, CA and distributed by Weinberg & Vauthier Consulting, 122 South Main Street, No. 9, Burnet, TX 78611; Zy Weinberg and Barbara Vauthier, Editors; email: bvauthier@tefapalliance.org.
Foodlinks America is not copyrighted, so the information can be freely shared with colleagues and friends, though attribution for reprinted articles is appreciated. For archived issues of Foodlinks America, go to: www.tefapalliance.org. To request a free subscription to the newsletter, submit story ideas, or unsubscribe, contact Barbara Vauthier at: bvauthier@tefapalliance.org.
New Data Reveals “Pervasive Food Hardship” Throughout the Country
A new report on “food hardship” in the U.S. shows that “millions of American households in every part of the country are struggling with hunger in the recession” in 2008 and 2009, according to the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) in Washington, D.C. in a January 26, 2010 release. The FRAC analysis examined food hardship in every state, metropolitan statistical area (MSA) and congressional district.
“The data in this report show that food hardship – running out of money to buy the food that families need – is truly a national problem. It is a national problem in the sense that the rate for the nation is so high,” said Jim Weill, President of FRAC. “And it is a national problem in the sense that rates are high in virtually every state, Metropolitan Statistical Area, and Congressional District,” he added.
The report is based on responses from more than half a million people surveyed by the Gallup polling organization in its Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index project and provided to FRAC. The data is recent and localized due to the fact that Gallup has been interviewing 1,000 households per day almost every day since January 2, 2008. Through December 2009, more than 650,000 people have been asked a series of questions on a range of topics including emotional health, physical health, healthy behavior, work environment and access to basic services. Specific to the FRAC report, more than 530,000 people were asked: “Have there been times in the past twelve months when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?”
At one point last year, nearly one in five households was experiencing food hardship. Food hardship in the Gallup survey for the nation as a whole rose from 16.3 percent of respondent households in the first quarter of 2008 to 19.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. In 2009, the rate dropped slightly, hovering between 17.9 and 18.8 percent. In the fourth quarter of 2009, it was 18.5 percent. The food hardship rate is even worse – nearly two-thirds higher – for households with children. Respondents in such households reported a food hardship rate of 24.1 percent.
FRAC noted that while the economic crisis continued in 2009, several factors likely were responsible for keeping the food hardship rate from continuing to climb: Food prices stopped their rapid growth, and increases in benefits for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps benefits, provided needed help to struggling families. SNAP participation is currently at an all-time high with nearly 38 million people enrolled in the program.
States with the highest rates of food hardship in 2009 were Mississippi, at 26.2 percent; Arkansas at 24.0 percent; Alabama, 23.9 percent; and Tennessee, 23.1 percent. MSAs with the largest food hardship rates were Memphis, TN-MS-AR, Bakersfield, CA, Youngsown-Warrren-Boardman, OH-PA, Fresno, CA, and Orlando-Kissimmee, FL. Only 23 of the nation’s 436 congressional districts recorded food hardship of less than 10 percent.
For additional details, see the report at: http://www.frac.org/Press_Release/food_hardship_report_jan2010.htm
Most Nutrition Programs Exempt from Spending Freeze
Facing rapidly rising deficits, President Barack Obama said in late January 2010 that he will propose a spending freeze on some government discretionary programs, beginning in fiscal year 2011. Although details of the proposed freeze are still being clarified, initial indications are that it would be in place for three years.
Discretionary programs compose a relatively small segment of federal spending – about $450 billion out of a $3.5 trillion budget. But with the federal deficit predicted to total $1.35 trillion next year, political pressures are mounting for the President to take action to begin to reduce it.
The proposed spending freeze would not affect most food assistance programs, as they are entitlements that will be automatically funded, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or food stamps, school meals, and child care feeding. However, there are two nutrition programs that would be vulnerable under a discretionary cuts only scenario: the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC and the Elderly Nutrition Program in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration on Aging. Both are funded under discretionary authority.
Further information on proposed spending freezes and budget cuts will likely be provided in the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget proposal, due to be delivered to Congress on February 1. “To make sure that we are spending money wisely, we’re going to be ending programs that don’t work, we’re streamlining those that do, and we’re cracking down on special-interest access,” commented Rob Nabors, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in discussing the proposal.
FEEDBAG: A Compendium of Notes on Nutrition Assistance Programs
More equipment money in the pipeline: School food service efforts to incorporate local produce in meal programs were given another boost earlier this month. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the distribution of $25 million in equipment assistance for schools, an amount equal to that provided last year in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) or stimulus legislation.
“President Obama and I are committed to ensuring that America’s children have access to safe and nutritious food through our National School Lunch Program,” said Vilsack. “These grants will help schools obtain much needed infrastructure to better serve their students and will focus on equipment that helps schools provide nutritious meals, support food safety efforts, improve energy efficiency, and expand participation in school nutrition programs.”
The new funds, a one-time fiscal year 2010 appropriation to state educational agencies, will go toward replacing outdated equipment with new, energy efficient appliances such as refrigerators, ovens, and other food service related equipment. Priority for distribution of the funds will be given to schools that did not receive funds last year and where 50 percent or more of the students are eligible for free or reduced price lunch.
State allocations range from $48,505 for Wyoming and Guam to more than $3.2 million for California. For more details on this latest round of equipment funding, go to: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.retrievecontent/.c/6_2_1UH/.ce/7_2_5JM/.p/5_2_4TQ/.d/2/_th/J_2_9D/_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?PC_7_2_5JM_contentid=2010%2F01%2F0015.xml&PC_7_2_5JM_parentnav=LATEST_RELEASES&PC_7_2_5JM_navid=NEWS_RELEASE#7_2_5JM.
Using it all: USDA is also monitoring the use of equipment assistance funds under the ARRA and recently issued a memorandum providing guidance to states on the recovery and reallocation of those monies, which can go to additional school food authorities. States are being given until February 5, 2010 to recover unliquidated funds from schools funded last year. Read more at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/whatsnew.htm by clicking on the second item listed.
Planning ahead for summer: It may be the middle of winter, but USDA and anti-hunger activists are thinking summer and promoting expansion of the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). Each summer, 18 million children who get free lunches during the school year go hungry during the months that the school cafeteria is closed. The SFSP can help close the gap by reimbursing schools, churches, recreation programs, and community organizations for the meals served to children.
USDA will hold three general, public, Internet seminars in February to provide more information and answer questions on the SFSP. These “webinars” are scheduled for February 8, 23, and 25 and are open and accessible to anyone with a phone line and a computer, though pre-registration is requested. Learn more and register at: http://vovici.com/wsb.dll/s/17fb9g426e9.
Updated summer food rates announced: USDA recently published annual adjustments to the reimbursement rates for meals and snacks served in the SFSP, along with administrative rates. The new rates reflect a 2.1 percent increase over last year to counter inflation. The 2010 SFSP rates appeared in a notice in the January 20, 2010 Federal Register and may be viewed at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-978.htm.
WIC demographics summarized: Detailed information about women and children participating in the WIC Program was recently shared by USDA in a report entitled “WIC Participant and Program Characteristics 2008: Summary.” The data show that 49.5 percent of WIC enrollees are children, 25.5 percent are infants, and 25 percent are women. Hispanics made up 42.1 percent of all participants. Two-thirds of WIC participants had income at or below the poverty line compared to 12.3 percent of the general population. For additional information, go to:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/published/wic/wic.htm.
Indian program rules updated: In a January 28, 2010 notice in the Federal Register, USDA has implemented several changes in the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) to improve program access and more closely align the FDPIR with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Changes promulgated include: increasing the maximum level of allowable resources in the FDPIR to the same levels permitted under SNAP; allowing a resource exclusion of $1,500 in pre-paid funeral arrangements per person; and allowing households consisting of all elderly and/or disabled members to be certified for up to 24 months. To learn more, see the Federal Register notice at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/2010-1708.htm.
Proposed Legislation
Among bills recently introduced in the 111th session of the U.S. Congress are the following:
House Resolution (H.R.) 4452: Introduced by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), the Lifelong Improvements in Food and Exercise (LIFE) Act would direct the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to carry out a national program to support obesity reduction activities.
H.R. 4417: Introduced by Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA), the SNAP Outreach and Education Act would provide grants to improve outreach and enrollment for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Senate (S.) 2805: Introduced by Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), this legislation would increase annual funding for food purchases under The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) in fiscal year 2010 to $500 million.
For bill summary and status information, along with the text of legislation, visit: http://thomas.loc.gov/ and enter the bill number.
Obesity Round-Up
Becoming the top factor in life expectancy: New research predicts that as smoking rates decline and life expectancy rises, obesity numbers will continue to increase, ultimately leading obesity to become America’s most important life-shortening factor. An article in the December 3, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine notes that, “If past obesity trends continue unchecked, the negative effects on the health of the U.S. population will increasingly outweigh the positive effects gained from declining smoking rates.” The authors warn that, “Failure to address continued increases in obesity could result in an erosion of the pattern of steady gains in health observed since early in the 20th century.” For more details, go to: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/361/23/2252.
Not getting any larger: After years of being on an upward trajectory, U.S. obesity rates may have finally reached a plateau. The latest statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that although more than two-thirds of adults and nearly a third of children are overweight, the numbers have remained fairly constant for the past five years. “Right now we’ve halted the progress of the obesity epidemic,” said Dr. William Dietz, director of the division of nutrition, physical activity, and obesity at the CDC. “The data are really promising,” Dietz added.
Others were more skeptical. It is possible “we’ve reached a biological limit” on how obese people can get, commented Dr. David Ludwig, an obesity expert at Children’s Hospital in Boston. “A population doesn’t keep getting heavier and heavier indefinitely.” Nonetheless, “We’re at the corner,” proclaimed CDC’s Dietz, but “We haven’t turned the corner” yet, he added.
Mated and weighted: Among both childless women and those who have children, living with a partner adds more pounds than living without one, according to a new Australian study from the University of Queensland that was published in the February 2010 issue of The American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Researchers followed nearly 6,500 women for a 10-year period and found that, on average, women gained weight at the rate of 0.93 percent per year. Interestingly, partnered women with one baby gained almost four kilograms (approximately 10 pounds) more, and those with a partner but no baby gained 1.8 kilograms more, than unpartnered childless women.
Although having a baby had a marked effect on 10-year weight gain, there is also an effect attributable to getting married or living with a partner, the study found. Social and lifestyle as well as energy balance variables should be considered when developing strategies to prevent weight gain in young adult women, researchers concluded.
However, the findings do not explain the still larger weight gain in women who became pregnant, and the study’s lead author, Annette Dobson, a Queensland professor of biostatistics, suggested that physiological changes might be at work. “Women’s bodies may adjust to the increased weight associated with having a baby,” Dr. Dobson said. “There may be a metabolic adjustment that goes on when women are pregnant that is hard to reverse. This would be more consistent with our findings than any other explanation.” For further information, click on: http://www.ajpm-online.net/article/S0749-3797(09)00764-8/abstract.
Screen and treat early: School-age children should be screened for obesity and directed to intensive behavior treatment to lose weight, according to the updated recommendations of a federal advisory panel. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, affiliated with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, issued revised advice on helping children control their weight through diet, activity, and behavioral counseling.
The Task Force recommends that clinicians screen children aged six years and older for obesity and offer them comprehensive, intensive behavioral interventions to promote improvement in weight status. The good news is, “You don’t have to throw your arms up and say you can’t do anything,” counseled Dr. Ned Calonge of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Task Force chair. “This is a recommendation that says there are things that work.”
More details may be found at: http://www.ahrq.gov/CLINIC/uspstf/uspschobes.htm.
Reports from the Field – Dallas, TX
Many states have been challenged to keep up with the huge number of people applying for benefits in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, but few have fallen as far behind as Texas. Underfunded staff coupled with a costly and unsuccessful effort to privatize the welfare system has caused major problems that have not been overcome, in spite of prodding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees food stamps on the federal level. The following story by Robert Garrett, which appeared in the January 13, 2010 edition of The Dallas Morning News, gives an overview of USDA concerns and the state’s response:
Texas’ botched experiment with privatization of welfare application screening has caused “a five-year slide” in how fast and accurately the state handles food stamp applications, the federal government’s top food and nutrition official says. Now, the problems are punishing middle-class Texans who’ve recently lost jobs and are seeking government help – many, for the first time, says U.S. Agriculture Undersecretary Kevin Concannon.
Concannon met Tuesday in Austin with state Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner Tom Suehs and leaders of a state eligibility division that runs about 300 local welfare offices. “This is a blot on the state’s performance record,” said Concannon, the Obama administration’s top food stamp official.
In an interview late Monday, he said Texas has fallen to “the back of the pack” among states in timely, accurate eligibility decisions. Before four privately operated call centers launched in 2005, the state performed well, Concannon said. The state is far from meeting federal benchmarks, but Concannon was vague about what punishments Texas might face, saying he wanted to make sure vulnerable Texans didn’t suffer more.
The Dallas Morning News has reported in recent years that paperwork for applicants was lost, needy Texans received little help from state workers when they complained of mistakes, and many who should have qualified for various kinds of public assistance were refused because of such errors.
Stephanie Goodman, a spokeswoman for the state commission, disputed Concannon’s analysis. “I don’t see that [privatization] has a role” in discussions of the state’s 56,000 unresolved food stamp applications, she said. Goodman argued that privately run call centers worked well after Texas launched its Children’s Health Insurance Program in 2000. It was programs created five years later – for food stamps, cash assistance and Medicaid as well as CHIP – that didn’t go as planned, Goodman said.
Since then, the state pulled back to its workers many of the outsourced duties and assured state eligibility-determination workers, who left in droves after threatened layoffs five years ago, that staff would not be reduced. Despite that, “we’ve still had trouble keeping and retaining good staff,” Goodman said. “There are more fundamental issues that play in our offices that we have to address,” such as an archaic system that makes aid applicants go to a state office, she said. “The system has sort of buckled under a host of issues that weren’t caused by call centers or privatization,” Goodman said. But, she acknowledged: “They weren’t fixed by it, either.”
Over the past 18 months, the state’s food stamp rolls have soared by 665,000 people, to 3 million recipients, as prolonged unemployment exhausted tens of thousands of Texans’ jobless benefits and left their finances in shambles. In Dallas County, there were almost 272,000 recipients last month, up from about 215,000 in June 2008. Some food stamp applicants have had to wait several months just to be interviewed, and many have reported encountering long lines and a lack of courtesy and competence among the state and private company workers now staffing the eligibility system.
Last fall, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, which Concannon heads, threatened to dock Texas $173 million a year in food stamp program administration grants if the state doesn’t speed processing of applications. Still, last month, 37 percent of applicants – and more than half in greater Dallas and Houston – weren’t told whether they qualified within 30 days of filing, as federal law requires. And applications from 13 percent of the truly destitute – people virtually out of cash who can’t afford groceries and seek emergency food stamps – weren’t processed in the seven days allowed by federal law.
Concannon praised the state’s recent hiring of nearly 700 field office employees since Suehs took over the commission Sept. 1. He also commended its elimination of two-month-plus waits for interviews at certain big-city offices, including several in North Texas. “But we’re not about to award any gold ribbons at this point,” Concannon said.
A federal rule requires that at least 95 percent of a state’s applications be processed before deadlines. Concannon, asked how long he’ll let Texas not meet that standard, declined to say. Concannon explained that he doesn’t want to hurt needy Texans even more by yanking federal administrative money and causing further delays and uncertainty. The federal government pays for all food benefits, while the state and federal governments split administrative costs.
Goodman, the state spokeswoman, doubts Washington will impose a large fine. “We all know that we have to improve our timeliness,” she said. “But [a large fine] has not been a step that we’ve seen taken in other states. It’s counterproductive. We can’t improve our ability to serve Texans with even fewer resources, and they know that.”
Small Bites
Food costs stay low: Americans spend a lower percentage of their household budget on food and beverages – currently 16 percent – than people in most other countries.
Keeping a roof overhead: The largest portion of U.S. household budgets is spent on housing at 43 percent.
Getting around: Fifteen percent of household budgets are devoted to transportation.
Staying healthy: Medical care continues to be a significant household expenditure taking six percent of the household budget.
Keeping up: Another six percent of the family budget goes to support education and communication.
And a little for other purposes: The remaining 13 percent of the household budget must cover all other costs.
mvauthier :: Jan.28.2010 :: Foodlinks America :: No Comments »:: Print This Post