Washington, D.C. - Today, Congressman Joe Donnelly and Congressman Brad Ellsworth will offer an amendment to the 2007 Farm Bill that would allow Indiana, which entered into a private contract to carry out the Food Stamp Act of 1977 prior to January 1, 2007, to proceed with an overhaul of its welfare eligibility processes if the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) finds that the state has consistently maintained or improved its performance. The amendment increases oversight of the Food Stamp program and requires Indiana to meet specific benchmarks that demonstrate improved performance. If passed, the amendment would save the State of Indiana (the State) from having to break or renegotiate its contract with IBM-ACS, an outcome that could cost Hoosier taxpayers millions of dollars.
The original language that Donnelly and Ellsworth are seeking to amend was introduced by Congressman Joe Baca (D-CA) and included in the nutrition title of the 2007 Farm Bill that was approved by the Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations Oversight, Nutrition, of which Baca is the chairman. The Baca proposal clarifies and reinforces the requirement in the Food Stamp program that public employees in merit-based personnel systems must make eligibility determinations for Food Stamp benefits.
This year, the State of Indiana began privatizing portions of its food stamp eligibility process to a private contractor, IBM-ACS. The Baca language included in the Farm Bill would force the state to break or renegotiate the contract, potentially costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
“Like many members of the Agriculture Committee, I have reservations about Indiana’s push to turn over to private contractors a significant portion of the state’s welfare eligibility process,” Donnelly said. “However, the State of Indiana is in a unique position, having already made a significant investment in overhauling its welfare eligibility process. I have worked very hard with all parties involved in drafting this amendment, and I am confident that it represents the best interests of the people of Indiana while also holding the State accountable for the performance of the private contractor. I urge this Committee to recognize the unique situation of the State of Indiana and to consider the consequences the current language coud have on the delivery of critical social services and taxpayers in my State.”
“There is a spirited debate in Indiana and across the country about how to best improve sluggish and unresponsive social services. While I do not support giving states free reign to privatize their social services, in this case, I believe the Governor and State of Indiana were making a good-faith effort to change the State’s unsatisfactory record in providing Hoosiers with the social services they need. They embarked on this plan in accordance with current law. I believe that changing the rules in the middle of the game is unfair to the Hoosier taxpayers we serve,” said Ellsworth. “I take seriously my responsibility to look out for the welfare of Hoosiers and Americans in need by supporting sound policy. I also take seriously the need to spend taxpayer dollars wisely. By providing critical oversight and accountability, this amendment strikes a proper balance between those responsibilities and represents a commonsense approach to a unique situation.”
In order to determine if Indiana has consistently maintained or improved its performance in carrying out the Food Stamp Act of 1977, the Secretary would be required to measure the Family and Social Services Administration’s (FSSA) performance on timeliness, error rates, program access rate, and the procedural denial rate for five subcategories of clients. In addition, the Secretary would be required to provide the State with quarterly reports comparing the FSSA’s performance to its performance in Fiscal Year 2005.
No later than June 30 of each year for the duration of the contract, the Secretary would have to report to the FSSA’s annualized performance on each measurement compared to the agency’s performance in fiscal year 2005; and to the extent that the data is available, the Secretary would have to compare Indiana’s performance with the performance of other state agencies.
If the Secretary finds that FSSA’s performance is inferior to its performance in fiscal year 2005 or determines that the FSSA’s performance is inferior to most other State agencies during the same period of time, the Secretary would require Indiana to renegotiate the contract to correct all deficiencies in performance.
If more than one annual report made by the Secretary finds that FSSA’s performance is inferior to its performance in fiscal year 2005 or determines that FSSA’s performance is inferior to most other state agencies, the Secretary would be required to withdraw all federal financial participation provided under the Act.
###
