Thanks to the Lopez lawsuit, DSS is required to automatically restore folks after their administrative disqualification ends. To celebrate (and document) the rules, check out the new section! Restoring Benefits After an IPV.
The Food Research and Action Center has released new poll results that show widespread support for anti-hunger programs, with 77% opposing cuts to SNAP to balance the federal budget.
ACL 12-03 was issued, setting out the changes from SB 43, which adds additional, mandatory deferral criteria. By mandating additional bases for deferral, more CalFresh recipients will be able to avoid any problems with CFET sanctions (as sanctions are only for mandatory, and not volunteer, CFET folks). Unfortunately, all work registrants who are currently in sanction for noncompliance with E&T, who would otherwise deferred from E&T given the passage of SB 43, must continue in sanction until their minimum durational sanction ends or if they would qualify for an exemption to work registration. (The deferral is not an exemption that can end a sanction.)
The New York Times has summarized some interesting USDA SNAP demographic info: 1/3 are White; 96% are citizens (versus other lawful residents); adults without either children or a disability are only 9.7%, and only 12% of recipients also get cash assistance (8% TANF and 4% General Assistance).
On November 16, 2011 the U.S. District Court in Hawaii granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction in Booth v. McManaman, a class action challenge to Hawaii’s failure to timely process SNAP applications. The Court found that plaintiffs have a strong likelihood of success on the merits, noting that the state’s timely processing had fallen from 83.7% in October 2009 to 69% in January 2011. Rejecting the state agency’s arguments that injunctive relief should not be granted because the state is taking corrective action, the Court said that a “wait and see” approach is not appropriate since the agency is only in the beginning stages of implementing its new business process changes and the effectiveness of such an effort on program administration cannot be determined.
Almost a third of people who qualify for food stamps aren’t getting them, the U.S. Agriculture Department estimates. In California and Colorado, about half of those who are eligible aren’t being served. In California, which ranks last in food-aid use, the numbers are far higher. If 100 percent of those who qualify for food stamps participated, the state would collect $4.9 billion in additional federal benefits each year, according to a 2010 study by Oakland-based California Food Policy Advocates. Read the Business Week article in full…
Get the latest hunger info by county!
USDA has released the latest SNAP characteristics, via an interactive map. Click on the state, and then see the characteristics by Congressional District. (This is a test of your civics knowledge, too! The info is listed by District number, but has no other identifying information. So remember/look up your District, and you are good to go.)
AB 6 implements the “Heat and Eat” program, which provides LIHEAP assistance to households, thus qualifying them for the full SUA (utility allotment) and to promote awareness of the LIHEAP utility assistance program.
Governor Brown has signed AB 6, which, among other things, eliminates finger imaging for CalFresh applicants and recipients.
The California Guide to the Food Stamp Program is a special project of Legal Services of Northern California, in collaboration with California Food Policy Advocates, Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County and the Western Center on Law and Poverty. This Guide is designed for use as a legal resource and research tool. None of the information or links provided at this site should be regarded as legal advice. Your use of this Guide is authorized for personal, non-commercial use only. This Guide is protected by copyright and may not be republished or redistributed in any form for any other purpose without the express permission of Legal Services of Northern California.
