Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

Warrantless Home Searches for Food Stamp Recipients

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 10:00:00 AM PDT

Want to make sure your citizens don't participate in food stamps even though they are eligible? It's a dumb idea because food stamps add so much to the economy, but apparently that's what San Diego wants to do. So, in addition to fingerprinting food stamp applicants they also check your home to ensure eligibility.

The San Diego district attorney adopted a policy in 1997 under which applicants for welfare benefits must agree to a "walk through" of their residence while they are present. The inspectors check on whether the applicant has an eligible dependent child and has the amount of assets claimed. They also check on whether a supposedly "absent" parent lives at the residence. If residents refuse to permit a home visit, they can lose their benefits.

So that's how you get the distinguished title of "lowest food stamp participation rate" in the U.S. And a judge ruled that this is legal because they aren't searching for evidence of a crime. Legal, perhaps - but smart? Definitely not. How many kids are going hungry because of this insane policy?

(Hat tip to Lucas for sending this story my way.)

Jill Richardson :: Warrantless Home Searches for Food Stamp Recipients

Tags: food stamps, SNAP, San Diego, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Warrantless Home Searches for Food Stamp Recipients | 1 comments

Well, they already do this here in NY... (4.00 / 5)

I live in central NY. When we applied for Food Stamps last year, we had two big, shoulder-holstered guys "from the district attorney's office" show up (we had been told they would, but not exactly when) and ask some questions. We happened to be on day three of 4 without electricity (and therefore water or heat) and had been living by the fireplace. I'm sure we didn't smell that good, and they didn't really want to look anymore (although they did peek around the corners where they were standing by the front door).

This does bring up an interesting ethical point, though, and that is that as tax-payers, what is our interest in helping people with food, and how far can we go to make sure that we're not pouring money into fraud? I would venture the theory that we could do more good by allowing food stamps to be used at farmer's markets, to get discounts for organic and local, and other cooperative measures we can take to ensure resilient communities, and that the positive educational influence of participating in your local community via farmer's markets, CSA's, and co-ops would be the optimum use of the Agriculture Department's funds on this issue (it is still the Ag Dept that runs this, right?).

Of course, a well-trained, well-funded, and well-paid social worker (triple oxymoron) could probably eliminate the need for any actual on-sight privacy invasion on the part of the taxpayer...

Further, I would argue that the taxpayer does have an interest in encouraging healthy food choices with food stamp purchases (thereby lowering the health costs). I did not receive a single piece of literature telling me how I could participate in my local food chain, how to make my money go further, how to stay healthy with my food choices, or how to grow my own food. Not even a rice and beans recipe (healthy and cheap)!

I guess my first comment should have been a diary?

"We are living in an interminable succession of absurdities imposed by the myopic logic of short-term thinking."-Jacques-Yves Cousteau

by: supak @ Mon Apr 20, 2009 at 21:28:50 PM UTC