Beyond the Headlines: A Deeper Look at New SNAP Rules in Vermont
A recent federal spending package has sparked concern across Vermont, with advocates warning that thousands could lose food assistance. While headlines suggest a straightforward cut, the reality of the legislation is a complex mix of new work requirements, shifting costs, and a long-standing philosophical debate about the role of government aid. A closer look reveals significant challenges ahead for the state and many of its most vulnerable residents, alongside a policy push intended to promote self-sufficiency.
The New Reality for 3SquaresVT
Vermont's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), known locally as 3SquaresVT, serves approximately 64,000 residents. The new federal law introduces several major changes:
Expanded Work Requirements: The most significant change extends the requirement to work or participate in a work-training program for at least 80 hours a month. This rule, which previously applied to Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) up to age 49, will be phased in for adults up to age 54. The law also tightens exemptions for parents, requiring them to meet work requirements if their children are over the age of 6, a change from the previous cutoff of age 18.
Shifting Administrative Costs: While the federal government will continue to fund the benefits themselves, it is changing how it shares the cost of administering the program. The state's Joint Fiscal Office (JFO) confirms this will increase the burden on Vermont taxpayers by an estimated $8 million annually starting in Fiscal Year 2026, as the state's share of administrative costs rises from 50% to 75%.
Restrictions on Non-Citizens: The law tightens eligibility for certain non-citizen groups, including refugees and asylum seekers who previously qualified for benefits.
"Cost-Neutral" Thrifty Food Plan: Future updates to the Thrifty Food Plan—the USDA model used to calculate benefit amounts—must remain "cost-neutral." Critics argue this will prevent benefit levels from keeping pace with the real cost of a healthy diet over time.
The "14,000" Figure: A Closer Look
The estimate that 14,000 Vermonters could lose benefits, publicized by the advocacy group Hunger Free Vermont, has become a central point of the debate. While the group has not released its precise methodology, the figure is a plausible projection based on the new rules and state demographics.
An analysis of Vermont's 3SquaresVT population shows how such a number is reached:
Approximately 5,000-7,000 older Vermonters fall into the newly expanded age range for work requirements.
Several thousand parents, primarily mothers, of teenage children will newly be subject to work requirements.
An estimated 1,600 non-citizen residents, including refugees, will lose eligibility.
Thousands more are at risk of losing benefits not because they refuse to work, but due to the complex paperwork and reporting requirements—a phenomenon known as "procedural churn."
While the final number remains to be seen, it is undeniable that a significant population of Vermonters who currently receive food assistance is now at risk.
The Argument for Reform: Promoting Work and Self-Sufficiency
Proponents of the new law argue it is a necessary reform to encourage work and ensure that taxpayer-funded benefits are reserved for the truly needy. Organizations like the Foundation for Government Accountability champion these changes, contending that work requirements are compassionate policies that help pull people out of poverty and into the workforce.
Their argument rests on several key points:
Connecting to Work: They believe that requiring work or training connects people to employment opportunities, leading to greater long-term financial stability.
Reducing Dependency: Proponents argue that robust safety nets can sometimes disincentivize work, and that these reforms will reduce dependency on government programs.
Preserving Resources: By tightening eligibility, the changes aim to preserve SNAP for those with the most significant barriers to self-sufficiency, such as individuals with disabilities or the elderly.
Supporters often point to state-level experiments, such as in Kansas and Maine, which they claim led to increased incomes and employment after similar requirements were implemented.
The Counterargument: Ineffective Rules and Harmful Outcomes
Opponents, including many non-partisan researchers and anti-hunger advocates, argue that these claims are not supported by broad evidence. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a left-leaning think tank, has published extensive research suggesting work requirements are largely ineffective.
Their counterarguments include:
Limited Impact on Employment: Most studies show that the vast majority of SNAP recipients who can work, do work. They are often in low-wage jobs with volatile hours, and SNAP helps them bridge the gaps between paychecks. Research on similar past requirements has found no significant long-term gains in employment or income.
Punishing the Vulnerable: Critics argue these rules disproportionately harm people who face high barriers to employment, such as those with undiagnosed health conditions, limited transportation in rural areas like Vermont, or caregiving responsibilities.
Bureaucratic Hurdles: The primary effect of work reporting requirements is often a loss of benefits due to difficulties navigating complex paperwork, not a refusal to work. This administrative burden falls on both the recipient and the state.
The Broader Economic Ripple Effect
The impact of reduced SNAP benefits extends beyond the individuals receiving them. The USDA estimates that for every $1 in SNAP benefits spent, it generates $1.54 in local economic activity. The benefits are spent quickly at local grocery stores, co-ops, and farmers markets, supporting jobs and businesses throughout the food system.
A significant reduction in the tens of millions of dollars flowing into Vermont via SNAP could therefore have a noticeable cooling effect on the state's economy, particularly impacting the grocery and agricultural sectors. Programs like Crop Cash, which doubles the value of SNAP dollars at farmers markets, could see a sharp decline in use, affecting the bottom line for many local Vermont farmers.