The Next Farm Bill:
Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Analyst in Nutrition Assistance Policy
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
September 17, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42591
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
Summary
As Congress formulates the next farm bill—an omnibus bill that reauthorizes a range of
agriculture and nutrition programs—program integrity and deficit reduction have been leading
themes. One of the cost-saving measures in the 113th Congress’s farm bill proposals would
address the way in which Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits are
calculated. The SNAP statute allows for certain deductions from income when calculating a
household’s benefit level, including an excess shelter deduction which incorporates utility costs.
If a family receives benefits through another federal program, the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP), this deduction from income can be higher, allowing for a higher
SNAP benefit for the household. Bills in both the Senate and House would limit the deduction
associated with LIHEAP, particularly seeking to end a practice that has been referred to as “Heat
and Eat.” Similar proposals were considered in the 112th Congress but were not enacted.
Under current law, a SNAP household can use a LIHEAP payment (regardless of the amount of
that payment) to document that the household has incurred heating and cooling costs. This
documentation triggers a standard utility allowance (SUA), a figure intended to represent typical
state-specific utility costs that enters into the SNAP benefit calculation equation. Unless the
household is receiving the maximum SNAP benefit already, a household’s monthly benefit can
increase if the inclusion of an SUA results in an excess shelter deduction.
In addition to current law, current practice of, most recently, 17 states also affects the interaction
between these benefit programs. While virtually all SNAP states consider LIHEAP in their
calculation, approximately 16 states have implemented the so-called “Heat and Eat” policy. “Heat
and Eat” is a phrase that the low-income and anti-hunger advocacy community has used to
describe state and program policies that leverage nominal (as little as $1) LIHEAP payments into
an increase in households’ SNAP benefits that is larger than the initial LIHEAP payment. Also,
one state allows SNAP applicants to benefit from an SUA if the household applies for LIHEAP.
In the 113th Congress, farm bills in the Senate and House would limit “Heat and Eat” policies:
• Under S. 954, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, which was
passed by the Senate on June 10, 2013, only LIHEAP payments above $10
annually would confer this potential advantage. Payments of $10 and below
would no longer entitle a household to earn an SUA during the benefit
calculation process. If a household received less than $10 in energy assistance,
households would have to present alternate documentation of heating and cooling
costs in order to have utilities factored into calculating their excess shelter
deduction.
• Under both H.R. 1947, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management
Act of 2013, which was defeated on the House floor on June 20, 2013, and H.R.
3102, the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013, only LIHEAP
payments above $20 annually would confer this potential advantage.
In addition, several bills have been introduced in the 113th Congress that would go further than
the proposals in S. 954, H.R. 1947, and H.R. 3102 and eliminate the ability of households to
qualify for the SNAP SUA based on receipt of LIHEAP. Instead, households would have to
present alternative documentation of utility costs. These bills include S. 458/H.R. 1510 and S.
762 /H.R. 1657.
Congressional Research Service
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Current Law and Background.................................................................................................... 2
Brief Overview of SNAP Benefit Calculation .................................................................... 2
LIHEAP’s Role in SNAP Deductions and Benefit Calculation .......................................... 3
Background on LIHEAP ..................................................................................................... 5
What is “Heat and Eat”? ...................................................................................................... 6
How Would the 113th Congress Threshold Proposals Change Current Law?............................ 8
What May Be the Impacts of a Threshold Requirement? .......................................................... 8
Impact on Households ......................................................................................................... 8
Impact on Program Administration ..................................................................................... 9
Aside from a Threshold Benefit Requirement, has Congress Proposed Other
Changes to the Treatment of LIHEAP in Benefit Calculation? ..................................... 12
Figures
Figure 1. Calculating the Monthly Benefit for a Hypothetical Household in FY2013 .................... 3
Figure 2. LIHEAP’s Impact in the SNAP Benefit Calculation Process ........................................... 4
Tables
Table 1. SNAP Households with SUAs Due to LIHEAP Benefits, FY2011 ................................. 10
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 12
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 12
Congressional Research Service
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
Introduction
Most provisions of the 2008 farm bill expired at the end of FY2012. While the House and Senate
formulated five-year bills in the 112th Congress, ultimately the session ended with a one-year
extension of some farm bill programs in P.L. 112-240, the American Taxpayer Relief Act. Please
see CRS Report R42442, Expiration and Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill for expiration and
extension issues. Similar proposals are also part of the farm bills that have been marked up in the
113th Congress.
This report was prepared to explain the interrelationship of policies and practices in the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP). Under current law SNAP recipients who also receive benefits from LIHEAP
may see increased SNAP benefits, no matter the amount of LIHEAP received. In the 113th
Congress, Section 4002 of S. 954 (Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013), Section
4007 of H.R. 1947, (Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013), and
Section 107 of H.R. 3102 (Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013), contain similar
proposals that would attempt to limit this relationship. As of the date of this report, the Senate had
passed S. 954, the House had defeated H.R. 1947, and H.R. 3102 had been introduced for
consideration.
Because SNAP benefits are 100% federally funded and because SNAP is an open-ended
entitlement, policy changes to benefit amounts or eligibility can generate substantial changes in
spending. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the policy change in S. 954
would garner savings of $4.1 billion over 10 years (FY2014-FY2023),1 and that the change in
H.R. 1947 and H.R. 3102 would result in savings of $8.7 billion over the same 10-year period.2
The change in policy would constitute approximately 98% of the reduction in spending in the
nutrition title of S. 954, 41% of the reduction in spending in the nutrition title of H.R. 1947, and
22% of the reduction in spending in H.R. 3102, where changes to SNAP make up the entire bill.3
The 2013 farm bill proposals focus on deficit reduction as well as agricultural program reforms.4
Supporters of the policies in S. 954, H.R. 1947, and H.R. 3102 have framed it as a tightening of
SNAP, assuring that LIHEAP is treated uniformly and according to congressional intent.
Detractors argue that by ending the so-called “Heat and Eat” practice, it reduces benefits for those
in need.
1 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate: Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, May 17, 2013,
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s954_StabenowLtr.pdf.
2 Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate: Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013, June 7, 2013,
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr1947Goodlatteltr.pdf and Congressional Budget Office,
Cost Estimate: Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013, September 16, 2013, http://cbo.gov/sites/default/
files/cbofiles/attachments/HR3102.pdf.
3 See Cost Estimate: Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, Cost Estimate: Agriculture Reform and Risk
Management Act of 2013, and Cost Estimate: Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013.
4 See, e.g., Markup: Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013, Opening Statement of Chairwoman Debbie
Stabenow (D-Mich), May 14, 2013, http://www.ag.senate.gov/download/?id=015677cc-dc6c-4730-b588-
1ca399a863d0.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
In addition to the significance of this provision for a farm bill’s cost estimate, the current law
policy is complex, and it can be difficult to untangle how the farm bill change would work and
which states and households may be affected. This report provides current law background on the
interaction between SNAP and LIHEAP, an explanation of proposed changes, as well as the
potential impact of this change on households and administration of SNAP. This report begins
with the background topics and terminology that contribute to the state of current law: a brief
overview of benefit calculation, LIHEAP’s role in SNAP deductions and benefit calculation,
background on LIHEAP, and the practice of so-called “Heat and Eat.” Next, it explains how
recent legislative proposals would change current law. Finally, the report discusses how those
changes could affect SNAP households and states’ administration, but also acknowledges the
ways in which CRS is limited in gauging the policy’s true impact.5
For further information on the farm bill and SNAP in general, please see
CRS Report R42829, Domestic Food Assistance in 112th Congress 2012 Farm Bill Proposals:
S. 3240 and H.R. 6083
CRS Report R42552, The 2012 Farm Bill: A Comparison of Senate-Passed S. 3240 and the
House Agriculture Committee’s H.R. 6083 with Current Law
CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs
CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on
Eligibility and Benefits
CRS Report R42357, Previewing the Next Farm Bill
CRS Report R42442, Expiration and Extension of the 2008 Farm Bill
Current Law and Background
Brief Overview of SNAP Benefit Calculation6
SNAP benefits are a function of a household’s size, its net (counted) monthly income, and
inflation-indexed maximum monthly benefit levels (in some cases, adjusted for geographic
location). An eligible household’s net income is determined (i.e., certain deductions are subtracted
from gross income), its maximum benefit level is established, and a benefit is calculated by
subtracting its expected contribution (by law, 30% of its net income) from its maximum benefit.
This equation is illustrated in Figure 1. As an example, in most states, a three-person household
with $400 in counted net income (after deductions) would receive a monthly allotment of $406 in
FY2013 (i.e., the 2012 maximum three-person benefit in the 48 states or DC,7 $526, less 30% of
5 Please note that the territories Guam and Virgin Islands also operate SNAP. This memo consistently uses terms like
“states” and “state agencies” with the assumption that such phrases include Guam and Virgin Islands in the context of
SNAP.
6 Please see CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and
Benefits, by Randy Alison Aussenberg for greater discussion of these and other basic SNAP concepts.
7 The basis for calculating the maximum benefit, the thrifty food plan (and its adjustment for inflation), is slightly
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
the household’s net income, $120). Likewise, a three-person household with no counted income
would receive the maximum allotment.
Figure 1. Calculating the Monthly Benefit for a Hypothetical Household in FY2013
This Illustration Depicts a Three-person Household in the 48 States with Net Income of $400
Maxim
M
u
axim m Monthly
u
m Monthly Be
B nefit
ne
($526
($
)
526
30% of
30
Net M
Ne
ont
t M
hly I
hl
n
y I come
-
n
- (.(30 x $400 = $120)0
SNAP Mont
SNAP M
hly Be
hl
ne
y Be
f
ne it
i ($
t 406
($
)
406
Source: Figure generated by CRS, based on benefit calculation rules.
LIHEAP’s Role in SNAP Deductions and Benefit Calculation
Under current law, if a SNAP household receives a LIHEAP payment, then that household may
receive a higher SNAP benefit than if the household had not received LIHEAP.8
Figure 2 depicts an overview of LIHEAP’s role in the SNAP benefit calculation. The discussion
after Figure 2 elaborates on the definitions of various deductions used in calculating SNAP
benefits, potentially including LIHEAP receipt, and how they interact in the benefit calculation
process.
(...continued)
different for Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, which means that the maximum benefit in these
jurisdictions is not $526 for a family of three. http://www.fns.usda.gov/SNAP/government/
FY12_Allot_Deduct_AKHIGUVI.htm.
8 For more information about LIHEAP, please see CRS Report RL31865, LIHEAP: Program and Funding, by Libby
Perl.
Congressional Research Service
3
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
Figure 2. LIHEAP’s Impact in the SNAP Benefit Calculation Process
Source: Figure generated by CRS, based on SNAP law.
Notes: This figure focuses on the excess shelter deduction, which is conducted after the deduction of other
non-shelter deductible expenses such as the standard deduction, dependent care, earned income.
As shown earlier in Figure 1, the amount of SNAP benefits that an eligible household receives is
based, in part, on the maximum benefit and also in part on the household’s net income. The SNAP
agency computes net monthly income by subtracting certain “deductions” from a household’s
basic (or gross) monthly income. This calculation is based on the recognition that not all of a
household’s income is available for food purchases. Thus, a standard portion of income, plus
amounts representing costs such as work expenses or high non-food living expenses, is deducted
from the gross income.
For households without an elderly or disabled member, net monthly income equals gross monthly
income minus the following deductions,9 if applicable:
• Standard deduction: A “standard” monthly deduction that varies by household
size and is indexed for inflation. Every applicant household gets this deduction;
• Earned income deduction: 20% of any earned income, in recognition of taxes
and work expenses;
• Child support deduction: Any amounts paid out as legally obligated child
support;
9 Tables that list the FY2012 amounts of the standard deduction (and other deduction amounts set in the Food and
Nutrition Act) can be found in CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on
Eligibility and Benefits, by Randy Alison Aussenberg.
Congressional Research Service
4
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
• Dependent care deduction: Out-of-pocket dependent care expenses, when
related to work or training;10 and
• Excess shelter deduction: The amount of shelter expenses (including utility
costs, which states may standardize with a “standard utility allowance” (SUA)
calculation) that exceed 50% of net income after all other deductions. This
deduction is capped for households that do not contain an elderly or disabled
member.
• NOTE: Households that receive LIHEAP may automatically qualify for a
higher SUA, no matter the amount of LIHEAP received. The higher SUA is
based on the assumption that households incur expenses for heating and
cooling. Absent receipt of LIHEAP, households must document
heating/cooling expenses another way.
For households with an elderly or disabled member, net monthly income equals gross monthly
income minus:
• The same standard, child support, earned income, and dependent care
deductions noted above;
• An uncapped excess shelter deduction, to the extent such expenses exceed 50%
of counted income after all other deductions; and
• Any out-of-pocket medical expenses (other than those for special diets) that are
incurred by an elderly or disabled household member, to the extent they exceed a
threshold of $35 a month.
Key points for understanding SNAP’s current LIHEAP policy and its impact are
1. A standard utility allowance (SUA) is not something tangible and is a number
that states use in place of gathering all of an applicant’s utility cost and usage
information. The methodology and the amounts of an SUA vary by state, and
many states have several different utility allowances based upon whether a
household incurs heating/cooling costs or not. An SUA often “tips the scale”
toward enabling an applicant household to qualify for an excess shelter
deduction.
2. Households with elderly or disabled members have no limit on the amount of
their excess shelter deduction, whereas those without an elderly or disabled
member have a cap (that adjusts for inflation) on their excess shelter expenses.
Background on LIHEAP
LIHEAP is a formula grant program under which the federal government gives annual grants to
states, tribes, and territories (collectively referred to in this report as “states”) to operate home
energy assistance programs for low-income households.11 States may use funds to help eligible
households pay for heating and cooling costs, for crisis assistance, and to weatherize their
10 Limits on SNAP deductions for dependent care were lifted under the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246).
11 LIHEAP is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§8621-8630.
Congressional Research Service
5
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
homes.12 Both renters and homeowners are eligible for LIHEAP.13 Federal LIHEAP requirements
are minimal and leave most important program decisions to the states, including eligibility
guidelines, types of assistance provided, and benefit levels.14
• Regarding eligibility, states may set maximum LIHEAP eligibility for
households up to 150% of the federal poverty income guidelines (or, if greater,
60% of the state median income), but they may not go below 110% of the
poverty guidelines.15 States may also choose to make eligible for LIHEAP
assistance any household of which at least one member is a recipient of
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security
Income (SSI), benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP), or certain needs-tested veterans’ programs.16
• In terms of benefits, states decide the types of assistance that households receive
and the amount. For example, while all states provide heating assistance, only a
portion provide assistance for cooling. The amount of benefits also varies; in
FY2008, the most recent year for which information is available from the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the average LIHEAP benefit
for heating assistance was $293 with a range from $73 to $1,172.17
Unlike SNAP, LIHEAP is not an open-ended entitlement, and funding is not sufficient to assist
every household that is eligible for the program. In FY2009, 7.4 million households received
heating and/or winter crisis assistance and 900,000 received cooling assistance.18 The number of
households assisted may now be lower. FY2009 was a year in which states received a total of
$5.1 billion for LIHEAP, compared to about $3.5 billion in FY2012.
What is “Heat and Eat”?
“Heat and Eat” is a phrase that the low-income and hunger advocacy community has used to
describe state and program policies that leverage nominal (as low as $1) LIHEAP payments into
an increase in households’ SNAP benefits that is larger than the initial LIHEAP payment.19
Certain states have implemented or are scheduled to implement this policy. In June 2012, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) surveyed states and
12 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(1).
13 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(8).
14 The LIHEAP Clearinghouse, a website administered by the National Center for Appropriate Technology through a
contract with the Department of Health and Human Services, contains a good deal of information about how states
operate their programs. See http://www.liheap.ncat.org/.
15 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2).
16 Ibid.
17 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FY2008 LIHEAP Report to Congress, September 6, 2011, p. 36,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/publications/liheap08rc.pdf.
18 There is likely some overlap in these numbers, and HHS does not de-duplicate. U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook for Fiscal Year 2009,
September 2011, pp. 30-31.
19 Food Research and Action Center, Heat and Eat: Using Federal Nutrition Programs to Soften Low-Income
Households’ Food/Fuel Dilemma, March 2009, http://frac.org/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/
heat_and_eat09.pdf. See also, “SNAP cuts = Cuts in Meals for Americans Struggling to Heat and Eat,” http://frac.org/
pdf/snap_cuts_and_heat_and_eat.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
determined that 16 states (including the District of Columbia) implement or will soon implement
“Heat and Eat,” and one state provides the standard utility allowance based on LIHEAP
application (see Text Box, below).
Part of the rationale for the nominal LIHEAP benefits (vs. more substantive benefits) is that
LIHEAP is not an entitlement, and states may not be able to assist every household that is eligible
for the program, particularly because the statute requires that states prioritize “households with
the highest home energy costs or needs in relation to household income.”20 On the other hand,
SNAP is open-ended and the benefits are financed 100% by the federal government, so “Heat and
Eat” policies are a net gain for states in times of limited state and LIHEAP resources. Providing
increased food assistance would then appear to free up more income for other household
expenses.
Criticism for this practice arises, as some say that it broadens the connection between SNAP and
LIHEAP beyond congressional intent.21 When state law makes all SNAP participants eligible for
LIHEAP, such participants receive LIHEAP assistance legally, but the logical result is that some
households are receiving energy assistance (and therefore the potentially higher levels of nutrition
assistance that may go with it) who might not otherwise have the highest energy need in the state.
Is Your State a “Heat and Eat” State?
Based on a June 2012 survey by USDA-FNS, there are 16 “heat and eat” states and one state
that does not transmit nominal payments but would be affected by proposals aimed at “heat
and eat” states.
The 16 so-called “heat and eat” states are California (which passed a law requiring
implementation by October 2013 and implemented it on January 1, 2013), Connecticut,
Delaware (although no nominal payment was issued in FY2012), District of Columbia,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana (issues a $50 payment every five years to
those living in subsidized housing with rent included), New Jersey, New York, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
A 17th state, New Hampshire, does not distribute nominal LIHEAP payments but does al ow
an application for LIHEAP to qualify the household for the Standard Utility Allowance (which
can result in a higher SNAP benefit).
Are Recipients of These Nominal Payments Ineligible for LIHEAP?
If states adhere to LIHEAP law, then only households that are eligible for LIHEAP qualify for
benefits. This involves two determinations: (1) household eligibility based on income or
enrollment in another means-tested program (including SNAP) and (2) appropriate use of
LIHEAP funds. Regarding the first determination, there are no separate eligibility criteria for
20 42 U.S.C. §8624(b)(2).
21 Sen. Stabenow, “Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, June 19, 2012, p.
S4278 (“In a handful of States, they have found a way to increase the SNAP benefits for people in their States by
sending $1 checks in heating assistance to everyone who gets food assistance. Now, it is important to consider what a
family’s heating bill is when determining how much help they need, which is why the two programs are linked. But
sending out $1 checks to everyone is not the intent of Congress. For the small number of States that are doing that, it is
undermining the integrity of the program, in my judgment. I appreciate we have turned down those amendments that
would, in fact, change this structure and lower benefits. But this is about accountability and integrity within the
program, and I must oppose the amendment [striking Section 4002].”). Sen. Roberts, “Agriculture Reform, Food, and
Jobs Act,” Senate debate, Congressional Record, June 19, 2012, p. S4278 (” ... closing the LIHEAP loophole.”).
Congressional Research Service
7
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
recipients of nominal LIHEAP benefits. Therefore, a household would not receive LIHEAP
benefits unless they are eligible for the program. In states that use receipt of SNAP to determine
eligibility, SNAP participants are eligible for LIHEAP. Otherwise, households would have to
meet LIHEAP income eligibility requirements.
Regarding the second determination, states may use LIHEAP funds to provide direct assistance to
households in several ways: to help meet “home energy costs” (defined as heating or cooling), to
assist in energy crisis situations, and for home weatherization. Payments to households that are
not used for one of these purposes could be inappropriate.
How Would the 113th Congress Threshold Proposals Change
Current Law?
In the 113th Congress, the Senate-passed farm bill (S. 954) would require that LIHEAP payments
be in amounts larger than $10 per year in order to trigger the heating and cooling standard utility
allowance in the SNAP benefit calculation process. Both the House-defeated bill (H.R. 1947)
and H.R. 3102 would set a higher threshold at more than $20 per year in order to trigger the
SUA. Each provision would take effect October 1, 2013, and the bills include provisions that
would give states the option to protect affected households from a change in benefits due to this
policy for as long as 180 days.
What May Be the Impacts of a Threshold Requirement?
Regarding federal spending, CBO estimates that the LIHEAP SUA policy in the Senate-passed
bill (S. 954) would reduce spending by $1.8 billion over five years (FY2014-FY2018) and $4.1
billion over 10 years (FY2014-FY2023).22 CBO estimates that the LIHEAP SUA policy in both
the House-defeated farm bill (H.R. 1947) and H.R. 3102 would reduce spending by $3.9 billion
over five years (FY2014-FY2018) and $8.7 billion over 10 years (FY2014-FY2023).23
Impact on Households
CBO did not release estimates of the numbers of SNAP-recipient households that would be
affected by the proposals in S. 954 and H.R. 1947. However, for H.R. 3102, CBO estimates
that 850,000 SNAP-recipient households would have their benefits reduced by an average of $90
per household per month.24 A policy change could result in a reduction of benefits for some
households that either currently receive the excess shelter deduction or receive a higher excess
shelter deduction due to LIHEAP payments that are lower than the $10 or $20 proposed
thresholds. However, under these proposed changes, some households might still qualify for the
standard utility allowance, and then the excess shelter deduction, by documenting their utility
22 Cost Estimate: Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013, see footnote 1 for full citation.
23 Cost Estimate: Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 and Cost Estimate: Nutrition Reform and
Work Opportunity Act of 2013. See footnote 2 for full citations. Note that the estimates in H.R. 1947 and H.R. 3102 for
the SNAP SUA policy change on its own do not include the interactions between the SNAP SUA provision and the
bills’ respective provisions that affect eligibility and benefit calculations. It is estimated that implementation of all of
the provisions would reduce the savings generated by just one of the provisions.
24 Cost Estimate: Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act of 2013.
Congressional Research Service
8
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
costs in other ways. Applicants would have to be aware of the need to present utility bills or other
documentation.
Table 1 shows state-by-state estimates of the number and percentage of all SNAP households that
received their heating and cooling SUA in FY2011 due to receipt of LIHEAP, no matter the
amount of LIHEAP. This table does not reflect the amount of LIHEAP that these households
received because collected data do not include this information. As a result, the table does not
indicate the number of households that might be affected by a $10 or $20 threshold policy. In
addition, if a state adopted a “Heat and Eat” policy after FY2011, that impact will not be reflected
in this table (i.e., the additional households qualifying for the SUA would not be captured). It is
expected that a $10 or $20 threshold policy would most impact households in the so-called “Heat
and Eat” states (see Text Box, above), but it should be said that the states ultimately affected
would also depend upon state choices (states might choose to transmit $11 or $21 payments, for
instance) as well as the details of USDA-FNS implementation of the policy. In addition, these
data do not capture the extent to which households would be able to provide alternative utility
cost documentation and therefore have their benefit amounts unchanged.
S. 954, H.R. 1947, and H.R. 3102 would give states the option for “grandfathering” those
households that would be affected for as long as 180 days after October 1, 2013 (the provision’s
effective date). This would appear to possibly temporarily protect those who would experience a
reduction in benefits due to this change of LIHEAP treatment.
Impact on Program Administration
Modifying the treatment of LIHEAP in SNAP might create changes in the program application
process, but it is difficult to know just what the results would be. The so-called “Heat and Eat”
states would appear to no longer have any reason to issue LIHEAP payments below an enacted
threshold requirement of $10 or $20 to SNAP participants, since such sums would neither
substantially assist with utility costs nor generate larger SNAP benefits. In addition, compared to
a $1 payment, a payment greater than $10 or $20 to multiple recipients could strain state LIHEAP
budgets. Under this provision, state agencies, applicants, and participants would seem to have an
added burden of determining all utility costs for the households that had previously received
nominal LIHEAP payments; this can be more complicated where utility costs are included in rent.
Further, advocates contend that presenting LIHEAP documentation is an administrative
simplification that makes sure that eligible households are getting all of the deductions—or at
least credit for all the deductions—that such households are due, especially in “Heat and Eat”
states where the LIHEAP payment may be communicated to SNAP computer systems through a
data-matching process.25
25 Food Research and Action Center, Heat and Eat: Using Federal Nutrition Programs to Soften Low-Income
Households’ Food/Fuel Dilemma, March 2009, http://frac.org/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/
heat_and_eat09.pdf, p. 11 (“even if this [heating and cooling cost] information is reported, advocates report many
SNAP/Food Stamp workers are too busy to record the information in the case record. By providing this special
LIHEAP-funded benefit through an automated data exchange and direct mailing, states like Massachusetts have been
able to apply the heating/cooling SUA to increase the SNAP/Food Stamp benefit for thousands of needy households.”).
Congressional Research Service
9
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
Table 1. SNAP Households with SUAs Due to LIHEAP Benefits, FY2011
Based on SNAP Quality Control Data
# Households
% of State’s
with SUA Due
SNAP
State
to LIHEAP
Households
Alabama 885
0.2%
Alaska 6,572
18.9
Arizona 0
0.0
Arkansas 1,140
0.6
California 91,786
5.7
Colorado 52,868
26.8
Connecticut 97,926
48.8
Delaware 8,604
14.1
District of Columbia
25,532
33.7
Florida 1,423
0.1
Georgia 1,586
0.2
Hawai 69
0.1
Idaho 26,401
27.8
Illinois 99,003
11.6
Indiana 32,905
8.8
Iowa 22,014
12.8
Kansas 41,005
30.1
Kentucky 99,308
26.5
Louisiana 3,775
1.0
Maine 57,098
45.5
Maryland 34,365
10.6
Massachusetts 202,154
45.6
Michigan 651,795
67.6
Minnesota 35,555
14.6
Mississippi 0
0.0
Missouri 95,211
22.3
Montana 12,804
22.8
Nebraska 31,965
42.8
Congressional Research Service
10
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
# Households
% of State’s
with SUA Due
SNAP
State
to LIHEAP
Households
Nevada 16,087
10.4
New Hampshire
35,014
65.6
New Jersey
336,850
91.9
New Mexico
48,324
27.4
New York
870,771
55.3
North Carolina
219,521
30.3
North Dakota
10,288
37.7
Ohio 127,519
15.2
Oklahoma 23,097
8.6
Oregon 77,526
18.6
Pennsylvania 646,758
79.7
Rhode Island
56,961
67.3
South Carolina
0
0.0
South Dakota
17,132
39.9
Tennessee 8,683
1.5
Texas 7,496
0.5
Utah 20,236
18.3
Vermont 27,409
61.1
Virginia 92,913
23.3
Washington 425,362
79.5
West Virginia
45,726
29.2
Wisconsin 366,360
99.3
Wyoming 4,695
32.3
Guam 0
0.0
Virgin Islands
0
0.0
Total 5,218,478
25.1
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) tabulations of the SNAP FY2011 Quality Control (QC) data file.
Notes: Because these data are from FY2011, they will not reflect the impact from state so-called “Heat and Eat”
policies implemented in subsequent fiscal years. For example, California implemented its program in 2013. If
LIHEAP benefits were to no longer qualify households for a standard utility al owance, some portion of these
households would be able to document utility costs by another means that would qualify them for the SUA.
Congressional Research Service
11
The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt
Aside from a Threshold Benefit Requirement, has Congress Proposed Other
Changes to the Treatment of LIHEAP in Benefit Calculation?
In the 113th Congress, bills have been introduced that would entirely end the benefit calculation
relationship between LIHEAP and SNAP. These include S. 458/H.R. 1510 and S. 762 /H.R.
1657. Under these proposals, presentation of LIHEAP documentation during the SNAP
application process would not trigger the inclusion of a Standard Utility Allowance in the benefit
calculation process. This would be a broader change than those proposed in S. 954, H.R. 1947,
and H.R. 3102, and it would affect more households. CBO estimated that Section 2 of S. 458
would save $12 billion over 10 years.26
Author Contact Information
Randy Alison Aussenberg
Libby Perl
Analyst in Nutrition Assistance Policy
Specialist in Housing Policy
raussenberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-8641
eperl@crs.loc.gov, 7-7806
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Gene Falk, Specialist in Social Policy, and Amber Wilhelm, Graphics
Specialist, for their assistance with this report.
26 http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s458.pdf (March 8, 2013). To achieve this cost estimate,
CBO assumes that SNAP would be extended.
Congressional Research Service
12