Print 🖨

The House Committee on Human Services met on March 5 to take up and consider bills. This report focuses on discussions on HB 1218 relating to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and HB 1483 relating to a pilot program for individuals on benefits programs.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics the committee took up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the hearing, but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

 

HB 1218 (Klick) Relating to the distribution of benefits under the supplemental nutrition assistance program.

  • Klick – Directs HHSC to establish new SNAP schedule that distributes benefits evenly over 28 days; HHSC
  • Retailers believe that by spreading out SNAP distribution, would see greater product availability & would be better for business & customers
  • Miller – You had this bill last session? What happened
    • When the Calendar went down, it went down with it

 

Dya Campos, HEB – For

  • HB 1218 will allow us to further protect the food supply chain through the month and create a better shopping experience for regular & SNAP customers
  • Will also allow us to create more full-time position in the store
  • Frank – What is the problem with having the benefits come out all at once?
    • During an activation day, we schedule our stores to be able to support SNAP customers, we are needing to increase staff and product availability during the 10-day initial period and seeing this fall off later in the month

 

George Kelemen, Texas Retailers Association – For

  • Many of TRAs retail grocery members participate in the SNAP program & want to ensure product availability while also managing inventory and staff resources
  • Condensed distribution schedule under SNAP makes inventory and staff needs difficult to predict, can leave wasted overstock or limits on access for fresh produce, etc.
  • HB 1218 would broaden distribution schedule to 28 days which would provide a more predictable shopping experience

 

Celia Cole, Feeding Texas – For

  • HB 1218 is good for the retailers as well as the people served by SNAP
  • We want to ensure that when the schedule is implemented we are adhering to federal law that requires no more than 40 days pass between SNAP issuances; HHSC has provided reassurances that they could do this

 

Rachel Cooper, Center for Public Policy Priorities – On

  • Spoke about this bill last session
  • No issue with the concept of expanding distribution to 28 days, concern is that the current HHSC computer system will cause an issue for recipients between the 1st and 2nd month & it will cause us to go beyond the 40-day federal requirement, unsure if HHSC has fixed this
  • HB 1218 could be amended to say that implementation would be delayed until a fix for this issue is found
  • Hinojosa – Asks for HHSC to be called to respond

 

Tod Byrnes, HHSC – Resource

  • Hinojosa – Asks for Burns to respond to concern that HHSC’s system could not accommodate the new schedule and comply with federal 40-day requirement
    • New applications after Sept. 2020 would fall within a 30-day cycle
  • Hinojosa – So you don’t anticipate an issue with either new or continuing recipients?
    • Correct, because new recipients would be on the new schedule and old recipients would be on the old schedule

 

HB 1218 left pending.

 

 

HB 1483 (Frank) Relating to a pilot program for assisting certain recipients of public benefits to gain permanent self-sufficiency.

  • Frank – Aim to realign support for families in poverty; allows for HHSC to create pilot program to partner with community organizations to waive income limits for welfare services & create a gradual tapering off as income rising or as job training is accomplished
  • Several requirements like obtaining living wage, savings in excess of $1,000, no significant debt
  • Will not prohibit participants from obtaining services in the future, federal time limits apply
  • Program is defined by those working to pull people out of poverty

 

Shannon Rosedale, Catholic Charities Fort Worth – For

  • Shares example of individual who cannot afford to go to work and is caught between receiving benefits and working
  • Without a tapered system, few are able to pursue work, takes time for hourly wages to accrue in bank accounts and working represents a financial loss
  • Need solutions to support families on the journey out of poverty

 

Cindy Casey, Catholic Charities of Fort Worth – For

  • Many in receiving assistance face barriers to succeeding, shares account of individual who received a significant reduction in SNAP benefits upon gaining employments & needed to quit to receive benefits again
  • Catholic Charities worked with this individual to help their family maintain employment
  • Significant case management has helped individuals obtain employment, group receiving Catholic Charities’ support was 28% more likely to be employed than comparison group
  • Case management and tapered reduction of benefits will help many out of poverty

 

Jennifer Allmon, Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops – For

  • Pilot is targeted for group of individuals who can and want to work, but the system is currently built against them
  • Pilot is for those that want to experience the dignity of work, providing for family, and are able to do so
  • This is not an immediate fix; case management portion is there to support families along the way

 

Celia Cole, Feeding Texas – For

  • This is a great approach for helping families in poverty
  • One point of concern, would require federal waivers to implement the pilot and these waivers would disappear under HB 285 (Springer), urges support for this and opposition to HB 285
  • Would allow state to take advantage of 50/50 matching funds reimbursement model by partnering with universities, charities, etc.; essentially 50% from private organizations and 50% from federal government
  • Frank – Failing to understand the tie between HB 285 and this bill? Can discuss this offline as we are only taking comments on HB 1483
    • Withdraws comments on HB 285

 

Rep. Frank closes

  • This is expanding benefits to get people off of benefits, goal is to have people who work more be better off
  • Deshotel – Appreciates this bill, have had rules and barriers in place that were preventing people from succeeding
    • Trying to remove financial barriers, this doesn’t work without people in the community working alongside
  • Rose – A lot of times we make things harder for people who need assistance, appreciates the bill; is it your hope that once this pilot program goes it can be spread?
    • My hope is that things that are successful at getting people out of poverty are expanded
    • Comparing results between two groups
  • Miller – Also like the bill, asks about the fiscal note, is it correct?
    • I think it is, it contemplates one TWC caseworker per every 50 people, not sure what coordination needs to be done and most of work is done be volunteers
  • Miller – Is there anything to cover the fiscal note?
    • Not at this time
  • Miller – Would be happy to help
  • Clardy – Has this been run in other states and what success have you seen?
    • There are other programs in other states, one at Notre dame & Catholic Charities Fort Worth
  • Clardy – One concern is who looks at the sliding scale and makes the reductions, wondering if there are ways to simplify it
  • Meza – Commends Catholic Charities for the program model

 

HB 1483 left pending.