Rethinking the Welfare State: The prospects for ... - e-Library

Rethinking the selfare state 46
eliminated the controversial “purchase requirement.” Henceforth, recipients were no
longer obligated to purchase food stamps in order to receive their subsidy Rather, they
were to receive their entitlement directly, in the form of a book of coupons. By
eliminating the obligation to purchase stamps, supporters of the new Act argued that it
had removed a significant barrier to participation by needy families.
Modern developments: 1980 to the present day
In the late 1980s, both Congress and the Executive Branch advocated substantial
cutbacks to the FSP. Major legislation introduced more stringent eligibility requirements
in the form of new income eligibility test (IET) stipulations, prohibited the use of Federal
funds for FSP outreach, reduced participation by elderly persons by counting retirement
funds as resources, and allowed States to require FSP applicants and recipients to engage
in documented job searches. In the mid-1990s, general trends in welfare reform began to
effect changes in the FSP. The FSP became subject to the terms of the 1996 Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act, a change which entailed a
number of policy alterations for the FSP, including the elimination of eligibility for food
stamps for most legal immigrants, placing a time limit on food stamp receipt of 3 out of
36 months for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) who are not working at
least 20 hours a week or participating in a work program, and freezing certain IET
deductions. It also required States to implement electronic benefit transfer systems
(EBTs), a debit card-style alternative to the coupon system, by October 2002. Changes in
following years continued in the same vein, allowing States to deny food stamps to up to
15 percent of the estimated number of ABAWDs who would otherwise be eligible and
cutting administrative funding in view of overlap with other federal assistance programs.
The Farm Bill of 2002 responded to falling participation rates through minor changes
which emphasized program access and the simplification of rules. It also indexed the
standard IET deduction to inflation, and expanded the existing quality control system
which imposes financial sanctions for states with high administrative error rates, a policy
structure which at least one commentator has criticized on the grounds that it penalizes
poor administration instead of rewarding high participation rates. 26
Delivery systems
As its uniqueness among international food aid programs illustrates, the American FSP is
not the only way to provide nutritional assistance to the poor. Once the state decides to
take an interest in supplementing the diets of its poorer citizens, three distinct options are
available. The first involves the direct delivery of food by the state to eligible families.
This method was the basis of the Commodity Distribution Program (CDP) which was in
effect in America during the Great Depression. Under the CDP (1932–9), the government
purchased surplus farm products, warehoused them and distributed them directly to needy
families. 27 As a system under which the state is responsible for funding and distribution,
as well as for the infrastructure to accomplish both, the CDP is representative of the paradigmatic
in-kind benefit. Alternatively, the state may elect to provide untied cash
transfers. That is, needy families would be afforded monthly income supplements, which