Lucylastic
Posts: 40310
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
no, not obvious in the slightest.
and im usually completely conversant in gibberish bullshit from the right.
one in five kids live in poverty in the us, and malnutrition is huge.
Starvation is prevented by those "programs"
but the programs are being cut right and left
More Than 500,000 Adults Will Lose SNAP Benefits in 2016 as Waivers Expire
Affected Unemployed Childless Individuals Are Very Poor; Few Qualify for Other Help
http://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/more-than-500000-adults-will-lose-snap-benefits-in-2016-as-waivers-expire
As a result, at least 500,000 and as many as 1 million SNAP recipients will have their benefits cut off in 2016. A few southeastern states that are electing to re-implement the time limit statewide even though some or all of the state qualifies for a waiver, such as Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi, and North Carolina will be particularly hard hit. In most of these states the time limit took effect in January 2016 and the first people will be cut off three months later, in April. (We developed the estimate based on historical SNAP administrative data and Agriculture Department [USDA] data on states’ approved 2016 waivers.[2])
The loss of this food assistance, which averages approximately $150 to $170 per person per month for this group, will cause serious hardship among many. USDA data show that the individuals likely to be cut off by the three-month limit have average monthly income of approximately 17 percent of the poverty line, and they typically qualify for no other income support.
The indigent individuals at risk are diverse.[3] More than 40 percent are women. Close to one-third are over age 40. Among those who report their race, about half are white, a third are African American, and a tenth are Hispanic. Half have only a high school diploma or GED, and one-quarter have not completed high school. They live in all areas of the country, and among those for whom data on metropolitan status are available, close to 40 percent live in urban areas, 40 percent in suburban areas, and over 20 percent in rural areas.[4]
Many in this population, which generally has limited education and skills and limited job prospects, struggle to find employment even in normal economic times. And although the overall unemployment rate is slowly falling, other labor market data indicate that many people who want to work still cannot find jobs, while others who want to work full-time can find only part-time employment. Cutting off food assistance to poor unemployed and underemployed workers doesn’t enable them to find employment or secure more hours of work.
Congress could revise this harsh rule to better accomplish its stated goal of testing individuals’ willingness to work. For example, Congress could make the three-month limit in a given state contingent on the state offering a job or training position to all nondisabled childless adults subject to the limit who don’t otherwise find employment. Congress could also allow diligent job search to count toward the requirement, as it generally does under work requirements for other programs.
But such congressional action seems unlikely. Consequently, states and local charities that work with this population need to prepare for the return of the three-month cut-off provision on a large scale. States need to be prepared to reinstate this complex rule properly and to engage stakeholders and prepare them for the consequences as substantial numbers of indigent individuals in their communities lose food assistance.
Very Few States Provide Work or Job Training to All Who Need It
Under the 1996 welfare law, adults aged 18-49 who are not physically or mentally unfit for work or caring for a minor child are ineligible for SNAP if they have received three months of SNAP benefits while unemployed during the previous 36 months.[5] Months of SNAP receipt don’t count toward the limit if the individual is working at least half-time, participating in qualifying work or training program activities for at least 20 hours a week, doing workfare, or living in an area with high unemployment where the three-month limit is temporarily waived. When signing the welfare law in 1996, President Clinton singled out this as one of the bill’s most harmful provisions and called for it to be substantially changed.[6]
http://www.livestrong.com/article/487412-malnutrition-in-america/
More than 30 million Americans experience hunger regularly or are at risk of going hungry, according to the Child Welfare League of America. Some 8.5 million Americans, including nearly 3 million children, experience hunger on a daily basis Many of them must rely on food banks and church-sponsored hot meals programs to get by. Of course, those who don't get enough to eat run the risk of becoming malnourished.
Some 13 million American children live in homes with limited access to food, and an average one in three children receive food assistance via the food stamp program called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, according to the Louisiana State University Agricultural Center. Malnutrition leaves children vulnerable to illness and infection. It can also lead to higher levels of aggression, hyperactivity and anxiety. Malnutrition also affects a developing child’s ability to learn. Children in food-insufficient homes don't do as well in school as those whose nutrition is adequate, according to Louisiana State University. Long-term malnutrition in children can lead to stunted growth and mental and physical disabilities.
And now this....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gop-school-lunch_us_573c7e82e4b0ef86171cca10
House Republicans appear determined to advance an aggressive rollback of a program credited with helping low-income children get free school lunches.
The Committee on Education and the Workforce on Wednesday advanced a child nutrition reauthorization bill introduced by Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Indiana) to the House floor. The committee approved the legislation along party lines, 20-14, with Rep. Dave Brad (R-Virginia) the only Republican to join Democrats opposing it.
The legislation, called the Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016, has been widely panned by nutrition and hunger groups, which say it would reverse 2010 improvements to the national school lunch program. A letter opposing the bill released this week by the Center for Science in the Public Interest was signed by more than 750 local, state and national groups.
Criticisms have centered on proposed changes to the community eligibility provision, which currently allows high-poverty school districts, with 40 percent or more of their student population from families receiving government assistance like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, to offer free meals to all of their students.
The community eligibility provision, which began in the 2011-12 school year and expanded nationwide in 2014, has been considered a success. A U.S. Department of Agriculture evaluation of its first two years found that the program increased participation in the national school lunch program by 5.2 percent and in the school breakfast program by 9.4 percent.
The provision appears to be gaining popularity among school districts, too. According to a report co-authored by the think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the anti-hunger advocacy group Food and Research Action Center, more than 18,000 schools in 3,000 districts participated in the community eligibility provision last year.
The changes to the community eligibility provision, if they become law, would mean that nearly 3.4 million students at more than 7,000 schools would need to return to the previous application process in order to receive free meals at school, according to a separate analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That process, advocates argue, causes many low-income children to miss out on meals, due to problems like communication and resistance to being stigmatized by peers.
Sara Gasiorowski, child nutrition director at the Metropolitan School District of Wayne Township in Indianapolis, has seen how the community eligibility provision has affected her district’s students firsthand.
Since the district began the program at 11 of its 17 school sites, participation in the free lunch program has increased 6 percent, Gasiorowski said. If the GOP legislation becomes law, only four of the district’s schools would remain eligible, she said. Gasiorowski, whose school district lies just outside of Rokita’s congressional district, said that change would make a “huge impact” for the students and families.
“It’s hard to take something away once you’ve given that to people and your families have come to rely on that service,” Gasiorowski said. “I think it’s a terrible disservice to our families.”
Rokita, for his part, doesn’t see the problem.
In an op-ed provided to HuffPost ahead of Wednesday’s markup on his legislation, Rokita asserted that his proposal “in no way alters the eligibility requirements for students who receive free or reduced priced lunches.” He went on to describe the existing rules for the community eligibility provision as “perverse” and said savings would be used to increase reimbursement for the national breakfast program.
“Ensuring that students in actual need have these strong protections in place is how we the people should judge our success, not by how much paperwork an administrator has to do or how much money a school can make off of the entire school population,” Rokita wrote.
The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act expired last year but its reforms will remain in place until or if Congress passes alternative legislation.
Robert Campbell, director of nutrition assistance and budget policy at hunger nonprofit Feeding America, pointed out that an identified student population of 40 percent or 60 percent from families receiving assistance doesn’t accurately count students who need free lunches.
A multiplier of 1.6 is applied to a district’s identified student population to arrive at a better estimate. That means more students would be affected by the change than a straightforward percentage might suggest.
“We want to make sure that any reauthorization that moves forward sticks to the principle of first doing no harm,” Campbell told HuffPost.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit science advocacy group, also opposes the bill. Karen Perry Stillerman, deputy director of the group’s food and environment program, said the community eligibility provision was of deep concern.
“We know that children’s health is dependent on a healthy diet and that starts at school,” Perry Stillerman said. “School lunch programs and food programs are part of that equation of increasing kids’ access to healthy foods. What’s important to us is keeping the kids who are already in these programs in these programs.”
The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act expired in September, but its reforms to the national school lunch program continue until Congress reauthorizes it — which it is not required to do.
In January, the Senate Agriculture Committee advanced a child nutrition reauthorization bill in a unanimous, bipartisan vote. The Senate version of the bill did not contain a change to the community eligibility provision.
_____________________________
(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \
\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \
(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \
Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love
|
RE: Legal Latinos must like the wall idea very much! - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread