| July 14, 2005: Just
two years ago, Maine’s innovative approach to the Senior
Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) was highly
praised by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). Now the same
agency has written rules that will all but break the program.
“If [the rules] go into effect as they are now stated,
it will probably dismantle the program,” says Deane
Herman, Marketing Manager at the Maine Department of Agriculture.
SFMNP started in 2001 with $15 million, 30 states, 5 Indian
tribal governments and three stated purposes: provide fresh,
local, nutritious produce to low-income seniors; support local
farmers and existing farm markets; and help create new markets
for local produce. Today the program serves 43 states, 3 Indian
tribal governments and the District of Columbia. In most cases,
participants receive coupons which they can use to by fruits
and vegetables at accredited farm stands and farmers' markets
in their state. Modeled on the earlier WIC (Women, Infant
and Children) program, the SFMNP included two relatively minor
innovations. First, it added Community Supported Agriculture
farms (CSAs) to the list of acceptable marketplaces, and second,
it set no maximum benefit level for seniors. These changes,
coupled with the fact that SFMNP has remained in a sense a
pilot program for nearly four years, have led to a variety
of interpretations on how best to meet the three stated objectives.
Maine’s program was one of the first to take advantage
of the new possibilities, creating a system that paid farmers
upfront, eliminated the need for coupons and made it possible
to reach areas where no farmers’ markets existed. “Program
flexibility allows us to open [the SFMNP] up to farmers in
the boondocks that may not have access to farmers' markets,”
Herman explains.
The final rules, which came out in May and gave the SFMNP
permanent status, threaten to change all that. The flexibility
that was allowed--and in fact encouraged--during the concept
phase has as all but been eliminated, and the innovative programs
that once earned so much praise are now being punished. Apparently
the nationwide program is being squeezed into a one-size-fits-all
approach for easy management.
Perhaps the most significant change being made is the limit
on individual benefits.
The reasoning behind the benefit cap is simple: the lower
the benefit amount, the more seniors served. This model has
worked for Pennsylvania, where a $20 limit per person per
season allowed the state to reach 174,656 seniors in 2004.
SFMNP administrator Sandy Hopple, who has been with the program
for three years, reports she has not received any complaints
from seniors or farmers over benefit size. “A lot of
farmers say this is the ‘best program the state’s
implemented,’” Hopple reports.
In fact this approach works for the majority of the participating
states and municipalities, but it also threatens to eliminate
some of SFMNP’s most innovative programs.
The CSA approach
At the start of the season, farmers in Maine receive a benefit
check from the state for each senior signup and in return
provide a minimum of five fruits and vegetables over a period
of at least ten weeks.
While in a traditional CSA operation members buy into the
yearly yield at the start of the season and in return get
a weekly ‘share’ of the harvest, the Maine program
uses a loose interpretation of CSA model--essentially meaning
that the farmer is paid upfront. Some farmers do operate under
the traditional method, packing weekly shares and requiring
seniors, like all members, to come to the farm or to a designated
drop-off site. However, many have developed variations on
this arrangement. Some farmers customize the shares to the
senior’s likes and dislikes. Others deliver the shares
to individual homes or, more commonly, to housing communities
with large populations of participating seniors. Still others
have implemented a "draw-down" method where seniors
are given a credit at a farmers' market stand or on-farm market.
The produce they purchase is deducted from their balance until
it zeroes out. More than half of the participants are using
the draw-down method.
A share in the Maine CSA program is $100.
That figure--which now threatens the future of this award-winning
program--was the result of considerable planning and discussion.
“We. . . felt $100 was a good amount of produce to make
a difference in the health of an elder person. We just didn’t
feel that $10-20 over the course of a season could do that,"
explains Mary Walsh, manager of community programs at Maine's
Bureau of Elder and Adult Services and a member of the initial
planning committee.
The program serves 7,500 seniors. This represents roughly
10 percent of Maine's total eligible population, a fact the
committee did consider when they set their limit. “We
are aware of the trade off,” Walsh says, “but
we feel we make a difference.”
According to a satisfaction survey sent out by the Maine
Department of Agriculture to participating seniors, 92 percent
reported eating more produce and over 90 percent found the
program of high quality and said they enjoyed participating
in it.
“It’s party time. Besides providing good food
there is this whole socializing aspect to the program. A farm
may deliver to a senior center, a housing site, to shut-ins,
to seniors that may never get out to a farmers’ market
and they are thrilled,” Herman reports.
Farmers have also been happy with the program, with 90 percent
reporting participation was good for business and more than
half saying they would like to increase their participation—if
benefit levels remain where they are. For $100, farmers are
responsible not only for providing produce but also signing
up seniors, monitoring participation, arranging for food distribution
and handing out nutritional information. According to a 2004
survey, only 9.3 percent of farmers said $50 a share would
be a large enough amount to justify their participation.
“The USDA doesn’t have a clue,” Herman
says, “A [CSA] share costs an average $450 a season.
We are asking them to accept $100.”
An island unto itself
“They are going to kill the program in Hawaii,”
reports Judy Lenthall, Executive Director of the Kaua’i
Food Bank, which runs the SFMNP for the Hawaii Department
of Labor and Industrial Relations. Lenthall is so floored
by the $50 cap, which represents a 65 percent reduction in
benefits for the seniors she serves, she hasn’t even
read the rest of the rules. “Fifty dollars a year is
so cruel,” she laments.
In Hawaii, where the average annual income of participating
seniors is just under $10,000, the statement loses some of
its melodramatic undertones. The cut will mean a loss of one
percent of their incomes. Before the program began many of
these seniors were forced to choose between buying medication
and buying food. Medication usually won. Lenthall says she's
received letters from doctors reporting that seniors in the
program find themselves taking fewer medications as a result
of eating more healthful foods. Lenthall, who often delivers
to shut-ins herself, has seen the difference first hand.
“There’s spring in their step,” she says.
Where it once took ten minutes for a senior to come to the
door they now make it in five.
Hawaii has other challenges too, including a high cost of
living--Honolulu ranks among the most expensive cities in
the U.S., and outlying areas can be even pricier--a year-round
growing season and, perhaps the biggest problem of all, the
less is more mantra does not work in Hawaii.
Hawaii's program serves 2,900 seniors, and operates though
the Kaua’i Food Bank, which gathers the produce from
farmers. The Food Bank stores the food, packs the baskets
and distributes the food to seniors. Hawaii threw out the
basic model early since, as Lenthall explains, a hot tropical
sun, farmers' markets and seniors don’t mix. The solution
has worked for the farmers too. Kaua’i agreed to mix
different shares for different drop off points so small farmers
don’t have to provide for the entire program just enough
to serve all participants at a drop-off-point. To expand the
program would mean heading to another island, says Lenthall,
and even with the benefit cuts there wouldn't be enough funds
to make a new operation possible. As a result, lower payments
will not translate into more participants.
Other challenges
Hawaii and the Maine are not the only programs facing major
overhauls, loss of benefits or even closure. California, Puerto
Rico and Florida must also find ways to address a near year-round
growing season with benefits that amount to less than a $1.00
a week.
There are other concerns with the rule too. Delivering fresh
produce to prepared meal services will no longer be an option.
This will be another blow to the Maine program, which uses
the option to reach more seniors and more farmers. By dedicating
between a tenth and a quarter of their funds to programs such
as Meals on Wheels, Maine allows farmers who specialize in
a single crop to participate and at the same time reaches
seniors who would never make it a farmers’ market or
even a drop-off site--and these seniors are often the ones
who need the program most.
Walsh explains how this aspect of the program works: A farmer
who grows blueberries, for example, would bring $100 worth
of blueberries to the participating organization. which then
uses them in a recipe or delivers them fresh to the seniors.
“Blueberries are something a homebound person may not
be getting otherwise,” she explains. “The bulk
shares really allow us to stretch the program further.”
The new rules also make the 185 percent poverty ceiling mandatory.
Previously, states could petition to raise the limit. This
is an option the New York program exercised, using the state's
high cost of living to justify using a 200% poverty ceiling.
Finally, the new rules have come under criticism for allowing
only 8 percent of the funding to pay administrative costs.
According to a report by the agriculture policy group the
Northeast Midwest Institute, this is lower than all federal
safety net programs and much lower than the 17 percent allowed
for the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition program.
Titled “SFMNP: Legislative History and New USDA Proposed
Rule,” the report also identifies programs using the
CSA model and those with a longer growing season as those
most likely to be affected by the new share limit.
“The USDA has made the assumption that a CSA program
is somehow inferior to coupon programs but [the Maine program]
is probably meeting the objective better than any other program
in the country,” Herman challenges.
When the program began in 2000, there were only about twenty
CSAs in operation in Maine. Today there are 178 CSA farmers
participating in the program, many of whom had no idea what
a CSA was before they learned of the SFMNP.
In the end probably the greatest fault of the new rules is
that they try to make fifty unique states abide by a strict
interpretation of a single program. The SFMNP's initial flexibility
led to the development of many highly praised programs while
the similar but more restrictive WIC program still struggles
to find its niche.
“It’s the best thing we’ve ever done. Ever,”
says Lenthall. “The seniors love it. I’ve actually
seen benefits in their health.”
Now facing a $244 cut per senior, Hawaii’s program
is in serious danger of having to close its doors.
“This one size program just won’t fit our lu’au
feet,” Lenthall sighs.
|
