Frederica Freyberg:

Other bills in motion this week at the state capitol include Assembly passage of an $80 million juvenile corrections plan. The bill now heads to the Senate where the outcome is uncertain. Also this week the Senate passed a bill that allows developers to fill non-federal wetlands without a permit. Also nine of Governor Walker’s ten special session welfare bills saw final passage this week, mostly along party lines. The governor called the raft of bills “Wisconsin Works for Everyone” welfare reform. Several of the measures made changes to Wisconsin's food stamp program called FoodShare. Multimedia journalist Marisa Wojcik explains the changes in tonight’s fast facts segment.

Marisa Wojcik:

An average of 682,000 people received FoodShare benefits in Wisconsin in 2017. Wisconsin FoodShare benefits are entirely federally-funded. In 2015, work requirements were established for enrollees to receive benefits. Since then, 85,981 people have lost their benefits due to not meeting work requirements. Just over 25,000 have gained employment under the program. New legislation would require able-bodied parents to work if their child is over the age of six. Legislation would also change a minimum work requirement from 20 hours per week to 30.

Frederica Freyberg:

Multimedia journalist Marisa Wojcik on the FoodShare changes.

In tonight’s inside look, some of those numbers stand out, like four times as many people losing benefits as gaining employment. And that’s before the latest changes take effect. We turn to reaction from Feeding Wisconsin, the statewide network of food banks and its Executive Director David Lee. Thanks very much for being here.

David Lee:

Thank you so much for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

So why in your understanding are more than 85,000 people not meeting the work requirement and then being ineligible for their FoodShare benefit?

David Lee:

Well, I think there are a lot of people in our state that experience some challenges to engaging with the labor market, whether that’s job training as provided by FSET or just regular jobs, right. So while the state has allowed people to satisfy their work requirement over the last few years by participating in FSET, people may not be able to get to the FSET office or they might lack transportation or child care in order to be able to participate.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, you say FSET and that stands for FoodShare Employment and Training Program?

David Lee:

That's correct, the work training program.

Frederica Freyberg:

You have spoken favorably about that program.

David Lee:

Well, we believe that a good job is the best way to fight hunger and the best way out of poverty. I think when the program works for the 25,000 people who have been connected to jobs, I think we can all agree that is a great outcome for them and we hope that they are on the way towards a better tomorrow. But as you mentioned, far too many people have either been referred to the program and have been aged out of the program or just didn’t participate. And I think while the program works for the folks who got connected to jobs, for the folks who didn’t, I think understanding and fine-tuning how the program works can actually lead to better outcomes for those folks. I think the question that we’re really wrestling with is how do we ensure the program works better for everybody?

Frederica Freyberg:

Are people listening at the state level in terms of fine-tuning to make it work better?

David Lee:

I think, well, we — during the special session on welfare reform, we asked our legislators to really slow down on this process, because good policy takes time. And from the introduction of the special session bills that really changed how the FoodShare program works, the whole process took about three weeks. And I don’t know that three weeks is a good enough time to make good policy.

Frederica Freyberg:

How in your mind will increasing the required number of work hours affect the numbers of people who either gain employment or lose eligibility?

David Lee:

We are really, really concerned about this. Right now the work requirements at 20 hours. By increasing it to 30 and also expanding it to families with children, we believe that really increases the amount of challenges that people will experience, right? So we help people with FoodShare through our organization. We give them good information to make a good decision on their own whether or not they to want apply. We hear from a lot of people that they’re already working and they’re working 20, 25 hours, 28 hours. They want more hours, but they just either aren’t available where they live or they can’t get them from their employer or due to scheduling. These are folks who are working hard, playing by the rules and just trying to utilize FoodShare as it’s intended, as an income support to help them have the nutrition they need to live a better life. And we believe that by increasing this work requirement, some of those folks are really going to sort of get caught in an unmanageable catch-22.

Frederica Freyberg:

What do you think of the asset test? If somebody has a house that’s $320,000 or a $20,000 car, should they be eligible for food stamps?

David Lee:

I think we shouldn’t make policy that incentivizes people to get rid of their assets if they fall on some temporary tough times, right. Like I think as we know in today’s dynamic economy, things can change on a dime. If you’ve done the right thing your whole life, built assets, I don’t think that if you lose a job or get into a medical situation that you would have to maybe sell your house in order to qualify for really temporary assistance, right? I think the asset test is really a policy aimed for that one or two bad stories about the person driving some expensive car. We don’t know that that person didn’t have that expensive car when they had a great job and suddenly may have lost a job due to a downturn in the economy and somehow still needs that car in order to take their kids to day care, look for new jobs. I think we want to create a system where people are building assets to guard against poverty, right, not liquidate assets so it’s harder to get out of poverty.

Frederica Freyberg:

Good point. David Lee, thanks very much.

David Lee:

Thank you so much.