As Washington DC nears a potential decision on deficit reduction, St. Anthony’s joined with our friends at the California Partnership and the California Association for Retired Americans to talk to Senator Dianne Feinstein about how a potential deficit reduction deal would affect seniors, people with disabilities,  low-income people, and those experiencing hunger.

St. Anthony’s role in this meeting was to talk about how potential cuts to the SNAP program , known as CalFresh (formerly “food stamps”) in California, would affect poor people in our state.  If the SNAP cuts that have been discussed by Congress are approved, 200,000 Californians face CalFresh benefit reductions averaging $43/month if a proposal to limit the “heat and eat” program is adopted as part of a deficit reduction deal.  In addition, a proposal to limit categorical eligibility would affect 2 to 3 million Americans, and a significant number of California households.  These families would lose eligibility for CalFresh and children in those households would no longer be directly certified for free school meals.

With the SNAP minimum benefit at $16 per month and the average CalFresh benefit worth $1.61 per meal, hungry Californians can’t afford to lose out on additional benefits.  And, with only 53% of eligible Californians participating in the CalFresh program, California can’t afford to lose categorical eligibility, which simplifies the process for enrolling in CalFresh benefits.

St. Anthony’s Dining Room serves low income people who don’t qualify for CalFresh, like the low-income seniors and people with disabilities who receive SSI benefits, as well as people who do qualify for benefits but find that it is near impossible to survive on benefit levels of less than $2 per meal.

If you’re concerned about these issues, too, the time to speak up is now.  Click here to find the contact information for your Senators.  Call them or send them an email and let them know what you think our country’s budget priorities should be.

Today is the deadline for Californians  to register to vote.  This year, for the first time ever, Californians can register to vote online!  Online voter registration is great, because the online form is much simpler to access and to use than the paper form.   But what about people who don’t have access to computers?  We’re lucky to have our Tenderloin Technology Lab, a partnership between St. Anthony’s and Network Ministries, which provides free computer access and training to more than 1,000 homeless and low income people each year.  Our Tech Lab is so important because it allows people who wouldn’t usually have access to them to use computers to connect with loved ones, access services, learn employment skills, and even to register to vote.

We’ve also been reaching out to our guests the old fashioned way, by going to our programs with paper registration forms and asking our guests if they’d like to register.  We have been reaching out to our Dining Room guests while they wait in line for a meal, offering them information about voter registration and the chance to register.  Many of our guests are homeless, and some of our homeless guests are confused about how to register to vote.  The good news is that you don’t need a street address in order to be able to vote.  The California voter registration form allows people to describe where they live (using cross streets, for example) if they don’t have a residential address.  Homeless people can use a P.O. Box, General Delivery, or the address of a social service provider that accepts mail for them as their mailing address.

As a non-profit social service organization, St. Anthony’s participates only in non-partisan voter registration and education activities.  We never encourage our guests to vote for one candidate instead of another.  We do help people who may not otherwise have the opportunity to register to vote so that their voice, no matter who they’re voting for or where they sit on the political spectrum, is heard.

My favorite voter registration moment this year occurred about a month ago in our Dining Room waiting room.  A lady who was waiting in line for lunch saw me at the voter registration table and sat down.  She asked for a registration form and a pen, and then took a bottle of purple nail polish out of her pocket.  She painted her nails while filling out the form and singing a rousing version of Prince’s “Purple Rain”.   I was grateful for the concert and I’m glad that she will have the opportunity to vote on November 6.

On August 21, 2012, the Gallup Organization released their most recent food hardship data for the United States.  Gallop surveyed 177,000 people across the nation about their ability to afford food.   The results show that people all across the United States are experiencing food insecurity, with 18.2% of respondents nationwide indicating that they had difficulty affording food at some point during 2012.

The results of the survey also show that California is above the national  average in the number of people experiencing food insecurity.  Nearly 1 in 5 (19.4%) Californians  answered “yes” to the question: “Have there been times in the past 12 months  when you did not have enough money to buy food that you or your family needed?”

This year’s numbers show a modest improvement over the food insecurity rate from 2011, which was 18.6%, but the big question is: what will happen next year as the effects of this year’s drought are felt by consumers?

As Gallup states,

The U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts that consumers will notice price increases within two months for beef, pork, poultry, and dairy, but the full effects of the increase in corn prices for packaged and processed foods will likely take 10 to 12 months to appear on supermarket shelves. States in the Mountain Plains and Midwest regions, which have the largest corn yield in the nation, will likely continue to have the lowest percentages of residents who lack enough money to buy food. Those in the South will likely be hardest hit, as they are already the most likely in the nation to report struggling to afford food.

The SNAP program, known as “CalFresh” in California, is the nation’s first line of defense against food insecurity, and economists of all stripes agree that it is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus.  Unfortunately, the SNAP program is currently in jeopardy. As readers of this blog are already aware, Congress is currently considering making drastic reductions to SNAP through the Farm Bill.   With food prices on the rise and food insecurity still a problem that touches many Americans’ lives, now is not the time to reduce food assistance support to people in need.

As the hands below the government-funded safety net, St. Anthony’s sees the effect of food insecurity, increasing food costs, and poverty through rising numbers in our Dining Room and our food pantry program.  We think that it’s important not only to meet the needs of hungry people in our community, but also to educate our wider community about hunger and hunger-related policies so that together we can take a stand and help reduce hunger, poverty, and suffering for all those who are affected by it.

Today, August 14, 2012, is a state-wide call-in day in support of AB 828, the Nutrition Assistance for Families Act.  AB 828 would require California to opt out of the lifetime ban for CalFresh benefits for people convicted of a felony involving controlled substances.

This Wednesday, members of the Senate Appropriations Committee will decide whether to advance AB 828, the bill to lift the lifetime ban on receiving CalFresh assistance for people with a prior non-violent drug conviction.   We care about this bill because we see first-hand (through our Dining Room and our Father Alfred Center drug and alcohol rehab program) how this ban hurts the chances of people who are trying to change their lives and reenter society.

Take Action!

See below for a list of target committee members and their numbers. If you only have time to make one call, choose Senator Kehoe as your target. She is the Chair of the committee.

Here’s a sample message:

My name is_____ and I live in_____.

I’m calling to ask you to support AB 828, the bill to lift the lifetime ban on receiving CalFresh assistance for people with a prior drug-related conviction. People shouldn’t be sentenced to a lifetime of hunger for any crime. Food is a human right, and to put entire families at risk of hunger because one of them committed a crime for which they have already served their time is unjust and inhumane.

Target Senate Appropriations Committee Members

• Chair: Sen. Christine Kehoe (San Diego), 916-651-4039
• Sen. Elaine Alquist (Santa Clara), 916-651-4013
• Sen. Curran D. Price, Jr. (Los Angeles), 916-651-4026
• Sen. Darrell Steinberg (Sacramento), 916-651-4006
• Sen. Ted Lieu (Los Angeles), 916-651-4028

Our friends at the San Diego Hunger Coalition have made a little video showing just how easy it is to call in your support for AB 828.  Check it out and get inspired to make your call.

Join St. Anthony’s, the California Catholic Conference, the California Association of Food Banks, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, Western Center on Law and Poverty, and many others in asking the Senate Appropriations Committee to support AB 828 by making a simple phone call today!

(Pictured: Advocates for homeless services gather in City Hall after talking to Board members about increasing funding for shelter and homeless prevention programs.)

On July 24, 2012, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee signed a budget that does something that we haven’t seen in San Francisco for many years: increase City funding for homeless services.

St. Anthony’s joined with homeless families, shelter residents, the Coalition on Homelessness, Hamilton Family Residences, Episcopal Community Services, Central City Hospitality House, Compass Family Shelter, CATS, Mission Neighborhood Resource Center, Dolores Street Community Services, Providence Shelter, St. Vincent de Paul Society, and United Council of Human Services to ask the City to invest in emergency shelter and homeless prevention programs.

Why were we asking for an investment in shelters and resource centers?

Homeless shelters and resource centers provide are part of San Francisco’s basic safety net. Shelters help people who have no place to live to be able to have protection from the elements,and provide an opportunity to connect with basic social services that can help lift them out of homelessness.  Resource Centers offer a safe place sit down and rest, to use the bathroom, and to  get connected with social services, medical care, counseling.  After years of underfunding, increased need, increased costs, and loss of federal, state, and private funding, the City’s emergency shelters and resource centers are stretched to their limits and are struggling to meet the City’s standards of care.

What about homeless prevention and rapid rehousing?

As part of the 2009 economic stimulus package (also known as the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, or ARRA) San Francisco received $8.75 million over 32 months through the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program (HPRP).  This funding was meant to be temporary, and was scheduled to end in June 2012.   HPRP has prevented homelessness for 2,301 San Francisco households and has provided rapid rehousing for 106 San Francisco households since 2009.  With nearly 200 families on San Francisco’s family emergency shelter waiting list, San Francisco can’t afford to lose this program.

What happened?

Thanks to the hard work of advocates and homeless people themselves, the City is committing an extra $3 million to shelters, resource centers, and homeless prevention programs.  After years of cuts to homeless shelters and drop in services, we are thrilled that the City has chosen to make an investment in our emergency shelter system.  We are not done with our work, however.  We know that we need more permanent housing for people with low incomes and for people who are not able to participate in the workforce.  We need to improve the shelter system so that people who seek shelter are able to obtain it without waiting in line for hours in the middle of the night.  We’re going to keep working, but we are proud of what we’ve achieved together!

(Pictured: The line for public testimony on the City Budget, June 22, 2012.)

Thanks to everyone who joined in on the national call-in day to support SNAP in the Farm Bill.  Here’s an update on the Farm Bill action from July 11.

On Wednesday, July 11, the House Agriculture Committee voted to accept $16 billion in cuts over 10 years to SNAP (the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program”, also known as “food stamps” or “CalFresh” here in California).  A group of Representatives (Reps. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, Joe Baca of California, Peter Welch of Vermont, Marcia Fudge of Ohio and Terri Sewell of Alabama) attempted to reinstate $16 billion to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program, but their amendment failed on a 15 to 31 vote.

What would the $16 billion in cuts to SNAP mean for California?

• Put restrictions on the use of “Categorical Eligibility”.  In California, AB 433 of 2008 (one of our Hunger Action Day bills) implemented modified Categorical Eligibility in California, extending CalFresh to individuals whose income is low enough for them to qualify but who have assets (savings, retirement funds) that would make them ineligible.  Restricting the use of Categorical Eligibility in California  would make approximately 177,000 low-income households ineligible for CalFresh.
• Put restrictions on the use of the “Heat and Eat” option.  In California, AB 6 of 2011 (another one of our Hunger Action Day bills) will, starting January 1, 2013, increase CalFresh benefits by $43/month for about 200,000 California households by allowing them to automatically qualify for a deduction for utility payments.  The Farm Bill amendment to restrict the use of Heat and Eat will limit states’ abilities to automatically allow for a utility deduction.

What happened and why?

SNAP enrollment has risen from 19 million in 2002 to 46 million in 2012.  Those who favor cutting SNAP see SNAP spending as a drain on the economy and are trying to cut costs by identifying what they call “loopholes” used by states to ease SNAP enrollment.  Two of the “loopholes” they’re trying to close are Categorical Eligibility and Heat and Eat. As House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas stated, “SNAP’s resources have been stretched because this administration has encouraged states to take liberties in how the program is administered”.

Anti-Hunger advocates who support SNAP see the program as an important economic stimulus and point out that SNAP enrollment is supposed to rise during times of economic difficulty, when more people are experiencing job loss, poverty, and hunger.  As the economy improves, SNAP enrollment rates will go down.  The Congressional Budget Office projects that the share of the population that participates in SNAP will fall back to 2008 levels in coming years and that SNAP costs as a share of the economy will fall back to their 1995 level by 2019.

Anti-hunger advocates see streamlining efforts such as Categorical Eligibility and Heat and Eat not as loopholes, but as tools to reduce administrative burdens on states and on SNAP participants while helping to ensure that hungry low-income people are able to access nutrition benefits.  Categorical eligibility helps low-wage working families with children and seniors with modest savings to qualify for SNAP.   Heat and Eat helps reduce paperwork and allows low-income people who don’t have utility bills in their name, but who still pay utility costs, to receive a SNAP benefit that is above the minimum benefit level of $16 per month.  A cut to Heat and Eat would disproportionately affect seniors, the disabled, and working poor families with children.

Next Steps:

There is still a lot of dissention in the House of Representatives around the Farm Bill.  Although it has passed through the House Agriculture Committee, there doesn’t seem to be much support for the bill in the full House.  The more conservative members of the House would like to see the bill’s price tag cut down further.  The more liberal members of the House don’t like the Farm Bill in its current form because of the SNAP cuts.

To further complicate matters, the Senate’s version of the Farm Bill differs significantly from the House’s version.  It is unclear at this point whether either house of Congress will bring the Farm Bill to the floor for a vote before the current version of the bill expires in September. They may decide to extend the current Farm Bill until the November election and to deal with creating a new Farm Bill at a less politically contentious time.

We will continue to keep you updated on upcoming opportunities to contact your representatives and advocate for a fair Farm Bill that does not hurt hungry people.

The House Agriculture Committee will be voting on the Farm Bill on July 11.  The proposed version of the Farm Bill that they’ll be voting on would cut funding for SNAP (also known as “food stamps” or CalFresh here in California) by $16 billion.  This cut would result in a benefit reduction of $90 per month for 500,000 families nation-wide, and would also result in the elimination of benefits for an additional 2-3 million current SNAP recipients.

Here at St. Anthony’s, we’ve seen the impact of the recession in our Dining Room as the average numbers of meals served each day has climbed to 3,000.  SNAP is one of the most effective anti-poverty programs, and cuts to SNAP resulting in lower benefit levels and loss of eligibility will increase hunger, poverty, and malnutrition not only among our Dining Room guests, but also among low-income people across the nation.

Now is the time to take a moment to join with people across the country who want to promote a fair Farm Bill that doesn’t increase poverty and hunger.   Call or email your Congressional representative today!

Use this toll-free number (provided by the Half in Ten Campaign) to call right now and urge Congress to oppose cuts to nutrition programs in the Farm Bill!

• Dial 877.698.8228. When prompted, enter your zip code and listen to the brief instructions. You’ll then be automatically patched through to your Representative’s office. State that you are a constituent and give your name and the town you are calling from.
• Let them know you are calling about the Farm Bill and deliver this important message:

I strongly oppose cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and other nutrition assistance programs. Please vote against the proposed cuts to supplemental nutrition assistance in the House Farm Bill. Increasing hunger in America is the wrong vote.

Alternatively, click here to visit Half in Ten’s website and send your message via email.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of the United States announced their ruling to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. I spoke with Dr. Ana Valdes, Medical Director of St. Anthony Medical Clinic (pictured at left) about what this may mean for the future of health care in this country.

LC: How will this decision impact how we approach health care?

AV: The big picture for the future of health care is recognizing the importance of prevention and health outcomes. If we don’t address prevention and community health, the costs of care are just going to keep spiraling. The big costs aren’t at the front end (around prevention and community health) they’re at the back end, they’re at the end of life, they’re at the most expensive kind of care, they’re at the hospital end, and the more specialized and expensive testing. The realization of this has been building for a long time, not just from a health care perspective, but from a financial perspective as well.

 This decision recognizes that everyone needs health care and should have access to health care, but it also takes a step back and says what really is health care? Health care is health, not just treating illness. Health care reform is also pushing us in that direction, by really looking at prevention, really looking at community health centers as the basis for building up that foundation of a healthy population. We can see this reflected also in the efforts around Healthy People 2010 and Healthy People 2020, where they’re talking about not just individual things like cervical cancer screening rates in your health center, but they actually set those goals around the community.

 LC: What challenges do you see down the road?

AV: The one piece of it that needs to be figured out is reimbursement. Because right now we’re not reimbursing for outcomes, we’re reimbursing for widgets, and those widgets are visits. But if we’re really going to move this country to being healthier, we need to look at the financial aspect and how we reimburse. We need to reward the outcomes, not the widgets. It doesn’t make sense for health care to be a widget-driven industry.

Payment reform will have to happen down the line, because with this economy people can’t afford the widget system any more. The only thing is, we have to see how that payment reform will play out and if it’s really going to be fair to those with the most need i.e. the safety net. They’re the ones with the smallest voice, they have no lobbies, they generally don’t vote. If reforms are driven by those with the biggest voice and the lobbies, which means the hospitals, and the HMOs, and the insurance companies, then it’s going to be a little harder for them.

 LC: Everyone has been waiting for so long for this verdict to come out, now that it has, what can we do to ensure the best outcomes?

AV: People should educate themselves about what this means, not just for themselves but overall, because the overall picture also affects us. We have to be aware that we don’t live in a bubble, we live in a community, and everything that goes on in that community affects us. So we all need to educate ourselves; we don’t need to understand all of the details, but we do need to understand the impact, not just for you but for your community. Then I think it’s giving a voice to those who aren’t heard, and that’s where some of the advocacy work that St. Anthony’s does through JEVA can come in. I do this myself by going to Sacramento with CPCA (California Primary Care Association) and by going to Day on the Hill with NACHC (National Association of Community Health Centers) and speaking for those who don’t have a voice in those venues.

My name is Andrew Nauer, and this summer I’ll be working as St. Anthony’s Communications and Outreach Intern.

Volunteerism and working toward social justice were somewhat foreign to me before coming to St. Anthony’s. I remember visiting the old Dining Room my sophomore year of high school at De la Salle for the immersion program.  I served food to the guests, conversed with some of the surrounding community, washed dishes, and then I suddenly was on my way home. I had only gotten a taste of the St. Anthony’s experience and what their foundation is all about. I have come to understand that this place goes beyond the free meal to an individual in need, and that’s what inspired me to take this internship.

I began volunteering several months ago when my mom had been offered a position at St. Anthony’s. My desire to help the Tenderloin district and the San Francisco community as a whole led me here. I am very interested in experiencing all that the St. Anthony Foundation has to offer in order to better understand what area of the social justice field I want to pursue a career in.

My personal goals for this internship include gaining a stronger understanding of the causes and effects of the poverty issues that the Tenderloin experiences, and exploring the different possibilities for future career in the social justice field. Furthermore, I plan on doing my best to help people on the outside understand what goes on at St. Anthony’s through Facebook, Twitter, and other popular foms of social media. I am very excited for all that St. Anthony’s has to offer the community and I look forward to begin sharing that with others.