Eric Angel, Executive Director

Legal Aid is pleased to announce that it has reached a settlement agreement with the District of Columbia Department of Human Services (DHS) and the District of Columbia Department of the Environment (DDOE) that will result in additional Food Stamps[1] benefits for thousands of District residents.  Working with the law firm of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP as a project of the firm’s Barbara McDowell Pro Bono Initiative, Legal Aid brought suit against DHS and DDOE at the Office of Administrative Hearings when the District failed to implement the Food Stamps Expansion Act of 2009 in a timely matter.

Jennifer Mezey, Legal Aid’s Public Benefits Unit Supervisor, was lead counsel on the case, and was assisted by Law Firm Fellows Henry Smith and David Young (deferred associates supported by the law firms of Steptoe & Johnson LLP and Ropes & Gray, respectively).  Jerry Hartman, Maureen Donahue Hardwick, and Courtney Abbott were key members of the team at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.  The team also received valuable assistance from David Reiser at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and Marc Cohan and Gina Mannix at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice.

Food Stamps are a critical benefit that enables thousands of District families to put food on the table.  This is a federal program that helps low-income families and individuals buy food and stimulates the District economy through these food purchases.  According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2010, there were approximately 119,000 individuals in approximately 66,000 households receiving Food Stamps in the District with each household receiving, on average, about $250 per month.[2]

The legal dispute centered on the date on which the Food Stamps Emergency Expansion Act of 2009 became effective.  The legislation had been spearheaded by Councilmembers Michael Brown and Tommy Wells, with support from a wide array of advocacy groups led by D.C. Hunger Solutions and its executive director Alexandra Ashbrook.  Among other changes, the Food Stamps Expansion Act increased Food Stamps allotments for thousands of beneficiaries by making all beneficiaries eligible to receive the maximum “Standard Utility Allowance” in their shelter cost calculations.  For some beneficiaries, this will result in a larger deduction from their countable income for shelter expenses which will lower their net income sufficiently to receive a higher Food Stamps allotment for the household.

Because the District government failed to begin implementing the Act by the spring of 2010, Legal Aid filed fair hearing requests with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in July 2010 challenging the failure to implement the benefits expansion.  In its brief to OAH, Legal Aid argued that Food Stamps beneficiaries were entitled to the expanded benefits as of October 15, 2009 – the effective date of the emergency legislation containing the Food Stamps Expansion Act.

The District government agreed to mediate the dispute, and after several months of negotiating, a settlement was reached.  Under terms of the settlement, the District agreed to recalculate Food Stamps benefits for all current and former beneficiaries who were receiving benefits at any time between January 2010 and the present using the maximum Standard Utility Allowance and award any resulting increased benefits.  In addition, DHS and DDOE finalized their memorandum of understanding so that the maximum Standard Utility Allowance is now being awarded to all beneficiaries prospectively as of February 1, 2011.  The agreement stated that the expected time frame for the recalculation of the retroactive payments is expected to be 24 months.

This is an important victory for Food Stamps beneficiaries.  Families with children and extremely low-income individuals, many of whom have no other source of income, will be able to feed themselves much better because of this case.  The fact that this settlement was obtained through a project created in the memory of our former colleague Barbara McDowell makes this settlement even more meaningful for Legal Aid.

[2] Preliminary program data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (as of March 2, 2011).  http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/snapmain.htm (visited March 12, 2011).

Until recently, the rules used to determine whether a household was financially eligible to receive Food Stamps were complex.  Federal law required state employees to calculate a household’s expenditures on certain goods and services, such as housing and utilities, and the value of certain household assets, such as personal savings, that could be used to purchase food.  Unsurprisingly, the states made a significant number of mistakes, resulting both in eligible households being denied benefits to which they were entitled, and in ineligible households receiving benefits to which they were not entitled.

The federal government realized it was inefficient to calculate households’ assets to the last penny, and simplified SNAP by allowing states to eliminate the asset requirement for certain Food Stamps households that are deemed “categorically eligible” for benefits.  Through the use of categorical eligibility, states can also increase the gross income level beneath which households will be eligible for Food Stamps to 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, a change that reflects much more realistic assumptions about the cost of nutritious food.  

Last fall, the District enacted the Food Stamps Expansion Act, co-sponsored by Councilmembers Michael Brown and Tommy Wells.  Through the Food Stamps Expansion Act, the District used the flexibility of categorical eligibility to eliminate the asset test and increase the gross income eligibility level to 200 percent of the federal poverty level.  Additionally, as of May 2010, the District has also simplified the Food Stamps program and increased benefits for many Food Stamps recipients by allowing individuals to get a higher deduction for utility expenses.  The Council and the Administration should be commended for taking these badly needed steps to expand Food Stamps eligibility in a time of economic crisis.  Legal Aid is concerned, though, about the timing of the implementation of these expansions and would call upon the District to ensure that all who were eligible for these benefits at the time of enactment receive them.     

In addition to expanding access to benefits, IMA also recently addressed a different problem: what to do when it mistakenly awards households more Food Stamps than they are entitled to receive.  Although it might seem obvious that IMA should recover money it mistakenly overpays, the problem is actually more complex.  Households that are overpaid receive benefits in the form of Food Stamps; but IMA frequently demands repayment in cash, even if the household was not at fault for the overpayment.  Cash is more valuable than Food Stamps (which can only be spent on food), but IMA does not discount the amount it seeks to recover in cash.  As a result, a household that mistakenly receives an overpayment of Food Stamps could end up losing money, or become saddled with a debt it cannot repay, worse off than had it never applied for Food Stamps at all. 

It is also inefficient for IMA to pursue every overpayment.  Many overpayments are for small dollar amounts; but the cost of pursuing an overpayment is essentially the same regardless of the dollar amount at stake.  As a result, it will frequently cost IMA far more than it is worth to recover small overpayments.  And, of course, many households that receive an overpayment have already spent the benefits by the time IMA catches its mistake, and cannot afford to pay back the debt. 

To fix these problems, federal law allows participating states to “compromise” (that is, to reduce or eliminate) Food Stamps overpayment claims if the state reasonably believes that a household will be unable to repay the benefits it received within three years.  Until recently, IMA denied it had such authority.  Instead, IMA argued that it was required to pursue every overpayment, no matter the circumstances or the dollar amount at stake.  This position was both inefficient and unfair to households that received overpayments of Food Stamps through no fault of their own.  It was also contrary to federal law. 

Thanks in large part to legal and policy advocacy by the Legal Aid Society and other public interest organizations, IMA has now reversed its position and adopted guidelines that will require it to consider households’ requests to compromise overpayment claims.  This change will benefit Food Stamp recipients, the District, and taxpayers alike.  IMA should exercise its compromise authority to promote fairness and good government, and focus its collection efforts on the largest overpayments and overpayments that are the result of fraud.  Households that receive Food Stamps in good faith should not be penalized because of the government’s errors. 

Peter Wilson, former Legal Aid Equal Justice Works Fellow
Jennifer Mezey, Supervising Attorney for Public Benefits

Executive Director

The Department of Human Services (DHS) is responsible for providing critical supports to people living in or near poverty.   During the recession, the demand for assistance has risen, but DHS has failed to meet the challenge.   Long lines at service centers, improperly denied benefits and too few staff plague the agency.   At the City Council Oversight Hearing for the Department of Human Services on February 17, the Director of DHS testified that the agency was hiring new staff and revising program operations to promote greater efficiency and accountability. 

However, it has taken the agency far too long to respond to this crisis.  Even now, the agency is still investing too many resources in  long-term planning that may or may not produce results at the expense of immediate, proven fixes.   Additionally, the District has also failed to expand the Food Stamps program and is limiting the Interim Disability Assistance (IDA) program although these benefits are urgently needed and paid for with federal dollars.   The District must take action to ensure that the District families, people with disabilities and the unemployed who rely on DHS for safety net benefits get this help immediately.

Jennifer Mezey, Supervising Attorney

Read the testimony of Legal Aid Public Benefits Supervisor Jennifer Mezey at the agency’s February 17 performance oversight hearing.

Executive Director

The school lunch program is an increasingly important source of nutrition for low income children.   In 2007-2008, 32,000 District children received free or reduced lunches each day and 16,000 received breakfast.  Thanks to recent legislation, the federal government will fund evening meals for low-income children as well.  The demand on these programs has likely increased with the recession.

Despite the high rate of participation in free and reduced lunch programs, hunger remains a problem in the District.  Nineteen percent of the District’s population participates in the Food Stamp program, yet a recent study found that one-in-four families with children had trouble securing adequate nutrition.

When it snows and schools are closed, this important source of food is cut off.  What happens to the children and their families who are already at risk from hunger when a week goes by and the breakfasts and lunches that they rely on are not available?

Despite all the criticism that the school lunch program receives – poor nutritional quality, inadequate funding, over-use of processed foods – it is an essential tool to make certain that children are fed.  But the storms last week show that there needs to be a strategy to ensure that there is more food in the home as well.

The District Council has already mandated that the Food Stamp program be expanded to serve people whose incomes are at or below 200% of poverty (up from 133%), but the Department of Human Services is dragging its heels.  An increase to the embarrassing low TANF payment would also assist families to have greater nutritional security.  Currently, a family that receives both TANF and Food Stamps survives at just 50% of the federal poverty level.

Executive Director

Talking (or not) About Race:   The Open Society Institute in Baltimore is engaged in a year-long set of conversations about race.  In the wake of the Obama election, they are taking on the issue from a broad range of perspectives by collecting stories, publishing blogs by thought leaders, and holding discussions on the radio.  They are looking closely at what people are saying and, importantly, not saying.  It is well worth checking out.  

 Legal Services Funding:  There is a great post on the Poverty and Policy Blog on the funding of the federal Legal Services Corporation.  If all goes well, Congress will substantially increase resources for federally funded programs and lift many of the restrictions on the use of the money.

 Child Poverty in the United States Much Worse than Most of the Industrialized World:  Legal Momentum just published a comparison of child poverty and public supports in the United States and other industrialized nations.  While our children are much poorer (21% of US children are poor), benefits usage rates are much lower in the United States. 

 New York Times Covers Rising Food Stamp Usage:  There was a great piece in the New York Times on the rising usage of Food Stamps in all communities across the county.  The recession had made Food Stamps so common that the stigma of public assistance is being diminished.

 Right to Counsel in Immigration Proceedings: This week, Human Rights Watch and the Constitution Project released reports calling for reform of the immigration detention process.   Both called for a right to appointed counsel in deportation and detention proceedings.