Kenya N. RahmaanKenya N. Rahmaan
Many people know the mandatory cooperation with child support enforcement requirements imposed on parents when applying for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Medicaid. Less known is that states can also mandate this exact requirement in exchange for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP benefits. Currently, only six states take advantage of the provision outlined in Section 6 of the Food and Nutrition Act, 7 U.S.C. of 2015. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently released a memo reminding states that this mandate was an available option for SNAP applicants. The SNAP/Child Support requirement, according to Cornell Law School (2019), reads in part that:
No natural or adoptive parent or other individual who is living with and exercising parental control over a child under the age of 18 who has an absent parent shall be eligible to participate in the SNAP program unless the individual cooperates with the state agencies administering the program established under Part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C 651, et seq.).
Food insecurity refers to the household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food (Feeding America). With the SNAP program designed to assist with replacing food deficiencies for those struggling to meet this life-sustaining need, it is counterproductive for states like Florida to make it more challenging to access these benefits. During Fiscal Year (F.Y.) 2017, Florida reported more than 64% of SNAP participants were families with children (Nchako & Cai, 2018). In comparison, Utah, Iowa, and Nebraska are three states that provide at least 70% or more of their families with children SNAP benefits. These states, unsurprisingly, have reported the lowest rates of impoverished children.
With the SNAP program reaching just over 3 million during F.Y. 2017 in Florida, including almost 39% of families with elderly or disabled members and more than 44% of working families, it is a wonder that legislators would not simply remove the cooperation mandates altogether. This removal would undoubtedly assist in curbing the hunger crisis being experienced by the most unprotected Floridians. According to Feeding America, it would take over $1.5 billion more per year to meet the food needs of Florida residents. The USDA obviously is not considering these realities when urging states to enforce the SNAP/Child Support mandate.
Mississippi is a state that has had its share of problems, including both record-high unemployment and poverty rates. In fact, according to Adam Barone of Investopedia (2019), Mississippi is ranked #1 for being the poorest State in the country when considering the median household income, poverty rate, and unemployment rate. Yet, the state legislators force its food-insecure citizens to cooperate with child support enforcement when seeking benefits. States enforce this requirement whether someone needs assistance once or for a few months.
The requirement has proven destructive to Mississippi children, as they ranked #4 in child food insecurity in 2017 at 22.5% (Feeding America). The average child food insecurity rate within the United States was slightly lower during the same year at 17%. Several known benefits are offered by the SNAP program, including food security and better health outcomes for the most financially disadvantaged children. Officials must consider how removing the cooperation mandate will benefit these children. This is because Mississippi ranked among the highest in the nation, with 92,036 needy children in 2017.
Instead, according to an article by Dal Kalsi (2019), the USDA claims that enforcing this cooperation will encourage non-custodial and custodial parents to provide more children with the support they deserve. This idea has been debunked by many experts, as most parents receiving public benefits have shown that failing to provide is not based on a blatant unwillingness to offer but due to a lack of resources. Unfortunately, it does not seem to matter who provides vital information or what the report uncovers, and officials will proceed in a manner that financially benefits the government.
The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has provided proof that most non-paying, non-residential parents suffer from a lack of income. In a blog written by Joey Arthur of the OCSE (2018), he reported that 60% of debtors with more than $100,000 in arrears (debt) had no reported income in the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). The child support agency routinely fails to count the financial support parents provide to their children by dismissing the monies spent as ‘gifts.’ Hence, the mandates will not increase collection amounts significantly enough to justify states implementing the requirement nationwide.
Bear in mind that there are different criteria that a non-custodial parent must meet to be deemed eligible to receive SNAP benefits. Individuals over 18 and under 50 without dependents are limited to three months of SNAP benefits every three years unless they are working or in a work or training program 20 hours a week (CBPP, 2018). Research shows that most parents receiving TANF and Medicaid benefits are already enrolled in the mandated child support program, so the additional SNAP requirement is a burden instead of an advantage. Especially considering that the average monthly SNAP benefit for each household member is $115 or $1.26, the federal government might consider encouraging the banning of the SNAP mandate so that more people can afford food.
A common denominator with all states that mandate the SNAP/Child Support cooperation is that none of the child support collected on behalf of ‘welfare’ families is ‘passed-through’ or distributed to those families. The National Conference of State Legislatures, or NCSL (2017), explains that states can allow some child support payments to be passed through from the government to the parent and the child. Less than half of the states have decided to pass through total child support payments to families. Instead, they pay a portion between $50 and $200. The $200 amount applies when a family has two or more children and only occurs in six states. Distributing at least a portion of these collections would be paramount in helping to raise low-income and work for low-income families out of poverty.
Ohio is the other State to use as an example of why states should not mandate the SNAP/Child Support requirement. Not only does The Buckeye State refuse to pass through any child support to its rightful owners, but the State also missed a chance to change this rule and the cooperation mandate in its new child support ‘reform’ laws. Arguably, recycling is a more appropriate term. Unsurprisingly, Ohio lawmakers did not consider the high number of children living in poverty and chose to rescind the SNAP/Child Support mandate while drafting and implementing the ‘new’ law.
Paige Pleger (2018) wrote that about one in five Ohio children, roughly 513,000, lived in poverty in 2016. When these statistics are dissected based on children living in extreme poverty, the numbers become even more unsettling. According to the Children’s Defense Fund, Ohio reported that 11.7% of its children under six lived in extreme poverty. The numbers increase staggeringly when separated by White, Hispanic, and Black children, reaching 13.8%, 34.3%, and 42.1%, respectively. This number will only increase with the state’s enforcement of the SNAP/Child Support cooperation mandate.
Since states are free to pay all or at least part of the child support collected by its rightful owners, the USDA must transfer its gentle nudge to an area that will better help the entire situation. A nudge in a different direction would greatly uplift the people residing within the Greater Cleveland Area. Cuyahoga County has 18.6% of its citizens reported as being food insecure. This population of people struggling with hunger is quite a bit higher than reported for the State and nationally, at 15.1% and 12.9%, respectively (United Way Cleveland). The USDA has decided to turn a blind eye to these startling numbers.
One issue that needs to be addressed by legislators when demanding that states rescind the SNAP/Child Support mandate is quashing the stereotype that people receiving government benefits are lazy minorities, unwilling to contribute to their households and their children. The typical Ohio household receiving SNAP is White and headed by a working single parent (United Way Cleveland). Another statistic that raises questions about why Ohio enforces the SNAP/Child Support cooperation is the cost it takes to feed an Ohioan. According to CBPP (2019), it costs a person an average of $1.35 daily or $123 monthly, with average monthly SNAP benefits for all households reported at $244. Even with this amount being on the lower side, experts claim this is insufficient to feed most hunger insecurity citizens.
According to Feeding America, the State of Ohio would require a little over $797 million more per year to meet food needs. Considering this, the USDA needs to find ways to feed and not starve the people needing this money. Parents and citizens must fight back and let lawmakers know that SNAP benefits sustain hunger, barring extraordinary circumstances, and should be provided without child support cooperation mandates. By fighting back, the citizens will help ensure that the nearly billion needed to meet food needs are at least acknowledged and may be addressed at the state level. When examining the amount of money the State generates through child support collections, legislators must consider investing the money into ensuring that more families can eat.
Based on the OCSE (2016), the cost-effectiveness ratio is the total amount of child support collected on behalf of families in the child support program divided by the amount spent. Ohio has reported a substantial return on investment (R.O.I.) between 2013 and 2017. Although there was a decrease from $7.50 to $6.51, that is still an extremely profitable R.O.I. Not to be outshined by Ohio, Mississippi touts its R.O.I. in 2017 at $9.50 (OCSE, 2018). Based on the $5.51 profit yielded by the R.O.I. by the Ohio government, it would have been beneficial to reduce the nearly $1 billion needed to feed the hungry.
R.O.I. is the only source of revenue that states can benefit from regarding the child support system. They receive incentive monies as long as they meet the five performance goals mandated by the Federal government. Ohio, for instance, received $28 million every year between 2013 and 2017 (OCSE, 2018). States are supposed to spend this money in specific areas based on Section 458(f) of the S.S.A. The Act,
allows states to use their incentive payments to either “carry out the state plan” or “for any activity” (including cost effective contracts with local agencies) approved by the Secretary, whether or not the expenditures for the activity are eligible for reimbursement under this part, which may contribute to improving the effectiveness or efficiency of the state program operated under this part.
Unfortunately, Ohio does not reinvest money into its low-income children, parents, or families. The opposite was discovered as accurate when reported by a non-profit policy research institute. Ohio lawmakers have reduced state investment in programs to support struggling families (Policy Matters Ohio, 2019). Even though reductions occurred, legislators enforced the SNAP/child support cooperation requirement that was made available by the federal government.
Ohio would rather spend the money on tax cuts, tax breaks, and growing the State’s rainy day fund (Policy Matters Ohio, 2019). The State has money to benefit its wealthy residents. That money can help SNAP families when they cannot, for whatever reason, meet the requirements to qualify for SNAP benefits. By implementing real solutions and using the incentives, R.O.I., and the money stashed in the rainy day funds, vulnerable people will be helped and not go hungry.
Staying with the Midwest, Michigan’s SNAP/Child Support mandate is particularly burdensome on its low-income children. Yes, the R.O.I. is quite impressive, reaching $5.56 in 2017, but something particularly interesting is happening with the pass-through policy. Previously, the State passed through $50 per month of child support collected on behalf of financially vulnerable families. However, this amount decreased from $341 in 2013 to -$2 in 2017 (OCSE, 2018). The reasoning behind this decrease to a negative amount is that Michigan officials decided to claim the child support collected for other reasons besides the children. Yet, there was no overturning of the SNAP/Child Support mandate, which may have saved the State some money.
Due to budgetary constraints, Michigan legislators discontinued implementing its $50 pass-through and disregarded the statute effective 10/1/2011 (NCSL, 2017). It’s a wonder that officials would break the pass-through policy to increase budgets when there are so many other ways that the State collects and retains money off children’s backs. Michigan can obtain other revenue streams by using the undistributed child support collections. To be clear, Michigan handles undistributed child support collections as if they were unclaimed property after a specific time has elapsed. Based on the Michigan Legislature Act 29 of 1995, 567.234, Section 14,
Property held for the owner by a court, state, or other government, governmental subdivision or agency, public corporation, or public authority that remains unclaimed by the owner for more than 1 year after becoming payable or distributable is presumed abandoned.
A process is in place when child support payments have been determined escheatable. According to the Michigan State Disbursement Unit or MiSDU (2015), escheatable is the transmission of unclaimed property to the State when the owner of that property is unidentified or their location is unknown. The State provides three reasons why child support monies will be considered escheatable, and they are the following:
The irony of this undeliverable aspect of the policy is that when the agencies attempt to locate a person to establish child support cases or arrest someone for allegedly failing to pay child support debt, there are systems available to find the person.
Instead, the State was able to claim, according to the OCSE, $151,089,179 in undistributed child support between 2013 and 2017. This money could, very effortlessly, be used by the government to feed the hungry. Especially when considering, according to Feeding Families, in 2017 alone, Michigan experienced an annual food budget shortfall of $652,838,000. Yes, the undistributed child support money for the five years would be a drop in the bucket; however, if coupled with a lift on the cooperation mandate, there would have been an impressive decrease in the amount of food-insecure Michiganians.
Additionally, Michigan is the only State that requires child support cooperation in exchange for the more than three aforementioned public benefits. Custodial parents must cooperate with the child support program in exchange for State Child Health Insurance (SCHIP) and child care assistance. The mandate begs the question of why the State would end distributing the initial $50 pass-through to its low-income parents. It could only be attributed to greed and the want to cushion its annual budgets. Equally as important, why has the state failed to end the SNAP/Child Support mandate, considering the high child poverty rate?
Based on KidsCount, which provided the most recent poverty rates in 2017, the rate for children living in 100% poverty around the country was 18% compared to 20% in Michigan. In addition to the number of Michigan residents participating in the SNAP program, legislators are harming their constituents by mandating cooperation requirements. During FY 2017, more than 62% of SNAP participants were in families with children, almost 39% were in families with members who were elderly or had disabilities, and more than 46% were in working families (CBPP, 2019). The assistance required to help people should and can only be practical without the stipulations that continuously cripple the effort to become self-sufficient, decrease hunger, and help curb poverty among the most vulnerable American citizens.
Before the release of the USDA memo, the CBPP (2019) published a report explaining why child support and the mandate for SNAP benefits was a bad deal for states and low-income households. The order is a bad deal because thousands of parents are survivors of domestic violence. For this reason, every State has a ‘good cause’ clause and must offer a possible waiver within its guidelines explaining public assistance programs and mandatory cooperation requirements. A possibly unhealthy and dangerous problem occurs when survivors need SNAP benefits but may be unaware of the possible waiver. And let’s face it, many caseworkers will not offer that information during the application process.
When exploring North Dakota and its cooperation requirements, there are stringent criteria for clients requesting a good cause waiver to be excused from suing the other parent for child support. The release includes, but is not limited to, proof of physical and emotional harm to the child or the caregiver applying for benefits. Unfortunately, according to the North Dakota guidelines (2011), the mere belief that cooperation might result in harm is not a sufficient basis for finding a “good cause.” The State has reported its share of domestic violence issues over the past few years.
There has been an increase in the number of reported new victim cases, with 4,722 and 5,172 in 2017 (Caws North Dakota). The increase did not, for some reason, send a red flag to the policymakers that the ability to receive public benefits, like SNAP, must be made more accessible for survivors of violent situations. They should have made access more friendly and safe for possible recipients. Not only did the number of cases reported that impacted children increase, but the number of women who reported being pregnant at the time of their assault increased by 24. Unbelievably, North Dakota said that between 2013 and 2017, no child support cases were opened with a ‘good cause’ determination (OCSE, 2018).
It is unrealistic to suppose that none of the women reporting domestic assault issues failed to apply for SNAP and other benefits. On the other hand, it is very realistic that the State did not grant one person a good cause exemption excusing them from participation in the child support program simply because a caseworker did not believe their claims. We know that SNAP kept 14,000 North Dakotans out of poverty, including 6,000 children, between 2009 and 2012 (CBPP, 2019). Because of this, it is a wonder how many children went hungry because caseworkers denied benefits based on personal judgment. Unfortunately, the answer to that question will forever be unknown.
Moving on to homelessness and food insecurity are linked issues that must be addressed by all when examining the SNAP/Child Support mandate in every State. Idaho is one of the six states that have already implemented the cooperation mandate. As recently as 2018, there were reports of an increase in homeless students living within the State. Data collectors blame rising housing costs for the increased amount of children living in unstable housing situations.
The breakfast and lunch programs are automatically free when a family is enrolled in the SNAP program. According to Idaho.gov, between 2017 and 2018, 47% of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunches. School meals are the only meal source for many of these children on weekdays. National trends show that approximately 10% of students qualifying for free lunch may be living in homeless situations (Idaho.gov). The SNAP program also serviced 10% of its state population in 2017.
That number of qualifying students grows significantly when exploring the number of families with children receiving SNAP benefits. In F.Y. 2017, more than 76% of SNAP participants were in families with children (CBPP, 2019). With the strict criteria in the SNAP/Child Support striate, the USDA must conduct a study to cross-reference homeless students and families denied SNAP benefits due to failure to cooperate with child support enforcement. Rescinding the mandate would better identify who would need help. By doing this, Idaho legislators could guarantee that homeless students would not be left hungry simply because a parent could not cooperate for any reason.
Idaho and every other State must make it easier for children to receive SNAP benefits to help ensure they receive healthy meals daily. Because the average monthly SNAP benefit for Idaho households with children is $397 or $1.25 per person (CBPP, 2019). The meal cost per person is even more critical when considering that Idaho reported an R.O.I. of $6.13 in 2017. Idaho government officials could have better utilized the $5.13 profit to feed the growing homeless population of children. Or the State could have helped decrease the alarmingly high child poverty rate among its Black children reported by the Children’s Defense Fund (2019) at 72.5%.
Instead, state leaders choose to enforce guidelines that ultimately further disenfranchise low-income citizens, especially children. Idaho forces cooperation with child support enforcement by refusing to distribute any child support collected to its families receiving welfare benefits and failing to reinvest any profits or incentives into uplifting its poor citizens out of poverty. Experts have proven year after year that making it more difficult to obtain public benefits, especially SNAP benefits, is detrimental to children and parents. The USDA must use these six states as examples of why the SNAP/Child Support cooperation mandate has to be removed immediately.
With all that is known about the harm that the SNAP/Child Support cooperation requirement causes to families with children, it is equally important to explore the possible reasoning behind the USDA pushing states to reconsider the imposition of the mandate. And that is, of course, money. Since implementing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA) of 1996 and the ‘reform’ of the child support system under former President William Clinton (along with bipartisan support), several new rules were included in the bill. One of the main rules was that the welfare program would have time limits determining how long a person could remain on the welfare rolls.
While the Federal government has ‘graciously’ permitted the states to determine the lengths of time a recipient can receive public benefits, it is specific on the time limits allowed nationwide. States cannot provide cash assistance from the Federal TANF funds longer than 60 months to a family that includes an adult recipient (CBPP, 2018). This time limit may be extended in child-only cases at the State’s discretion and based on specific criteria. Because of the five-year time limit, the number of TANF cases is declining, directly affecting the number of active child support cases.
For example, the number of total caseloads with current assistance status declined by nearly 472,000 between 2013 and 2017. Even more substantial is the decline of over 726,000 in formerly assisted cases. The difference means a massive reduction in the State’s money that they can add to their wallet, courtesy of the welfare mandate requiring recipients to sign over their rights to child support payments. When
explicitly identifying the amount of child support collected for current assistance cases, collections decreased from $908,280,972 in 2013 to $710,521,048 in 2017 (OCSE, 2017). Naturally, the amount of distributed child support declined to just over $300 million during the same years.
As previously discussed, the R.O.I. is extremely important to the government’s overall profit regarding child support programs. This amount has also decreased nationally from $5.31 to $5.15 during the specified five-year period, which is still an excellent profit for the $1 spent. Based on these numbers and collection amounts on the decline, just like in any business, the government must explore other options to generate more money when experiencing a profit loss. The federal government, through the USDA, has decided that its new income stream should be funded by the SNAP program.
Texas can be used as the perfect model to further illustrate why states must refuse the SNAP/Child Support mandate instead of using the money already collected to assist families and children. Texas is one of the states that has decided to pass through $75 of child support collected on behalf of families receiving TANF grants. However, just as the number of current assistance cases has declined, so has the amount of money distributed. The State passed through $1,448,754 in 2013. However, this amount drastically dropped to just $619,636 in 2017 (OCSE, 2018).
Instead of increasing the pass-through amount by updating the statute to benefit families, Texas has taken a different, arguably more expensive approach. Government officials overseeing child support operations within The Lone Star State decided it was time to upgrade the computer system used by the child support agencies. The computer system upgrade, dubbed T2, began in 2007 and would cost taxpayers $220 million upon completion. The upgrade is incomplete, and the cost has ballooned outrageously.
There is no guarantee that child support collections will increase by forcing Texas to implement the mandate. Yet, numerous studies have proven that more children will fall into the insecure food category. With an R.O.I. reported in double digits for the past few years, it would surely be Texas if any state can afford to continue ignoring the SNAP/Child Support mandate. The State needs to examine more ways to assist its low-income, poor, and working families who rely on SNAP benefits instead of spending hundreds of millions in an attempt to reduce paperwork within child support offices. Hopefully, all states will consider removing the mandate while ensuring that the SNAP program becomes more family-friendly and cost-effective.
In conclusion, the USDA must examine its data before recommending that states enforce the SNAP/Child Support cooperation mandate. It is not enough to state that the agency thinks enforcing this requirement will force parents to pay child support and increase the payment amounts. Statistically, parents are paying what they can and when they can. If parents are denied the primary food benefits supplied by the SNAP program, most will be unable to provide the little they can still afford while suffering to provide for their own basic needs. Food insecurity is an epidemic plaguing the United States, and every State reports its food shortcomings. As people pull themselves out of poverty, the government needs more help, not a metaphoric rope pulling people back down.
References:
Arthur, J. (2018, July 31). Do parents who owe the most child support debt have reported income? Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/ocsedatablog/2018/07/do-parents-who-owe-the-most-child-support-debt-have-reported-income
Barone, A. (2019, May 5). America’s poorest states in 2019. Retrieved May 11, 2019, from https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/080116/americas-poorest-states-2016.asp
Caws North Dakota. (2019, April 22). Facts & stats. Retrieved May 8, 2019, from http://www.cawsnorthdakota.org/index.php/resources/factsandstats/
Center for Budget and Public Priorities. (2018, October 16). A quick guide to SNAP eligibility and benefits. Retrieved from
Center of Budget and Policy Priorities. (2018, May 15). House farm bill’s SNAP changes are bad for states and low-income households. Retrieved from
Children’s Defense Fund. (2018, September 13). Child poverty in America 2017: State analysis. Retrieved from https://www.childrensdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Child-Poverty-in-America-2017-State-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Cornell Law School. (2019, April 15). 7 C.F.R. § 273.11 – Action on households with special circumstances. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/7/273.11
DallasNews.com. (2019, May 17). After $367.5 million, Texas gets no new child support computer software – just painful lessons. Retrieved from https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas-politics/2019/05/17/after-3675-million-texas-gets-no-new-child-support-computer-software-just-painful-lessons
Feeding America. (n.d.). Health care provider training: Screening for and addressing food insecurity in clinical settings. Retrieved from https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FA_Clinical-Training_2017.pdf
Feeding America. (n.d.). Map the meal gap. Retrieved from https://map.feedingamerica.org/
Idaho State Department of Education. (n.d.). Title IX-A: Homelessness in Idaho. Retrieved from http://www.sde.idaho.gov/federal-programs/homeless/idaho-homelessness.html
Kalsi, D. (2019, May 1). USDA recommends states require food stamp recipients to comply with child support programs. Retrieved from https://www.foxcarolina.com/news/usda-recommends-states-require-food-stamp-recipients-to-be-in/article_7e9ed944-6c40-11e9-9a0e-43797f9f65d1.html
Kids Count. (2018, September). Children in poverty (100 percent poverty) | Kids count data center. Retrieved from https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/43-children-in-poverty-100-percent-poverty#detailed/1/any/false/871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38,35/any/321,322
Michigan Legislature. (1995). Uniform unclaimed property act (excerpt) act 29 of 1995 (Section 567,234 Act 29). Retrieved from http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ztvzq4bn0q4elusol1hzdcm0))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-567-234
Michigan State Disbursement Unit. (2015). Escheatment of child support. Retrieved from
Morgan, S. (2018, September 6). Report says Texas hunger rates exceed the national average. Retrieved from https://www.ketr.org/post/report-says-texas-hunger-rates-exceed-national-average
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2017, July 18). Child support pass-through and disregard policies for public assistance recipients. Retrieved May 11, 2019, from http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-policy-pass-through-disregard-child-support.aspx
Nchako, C., & Cai, L. (2018, May 3). A closer look at who benefits from SNAP: State-by-state fact sheets. Retrieved from
Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2018, February 2). Use of IV-D incentive funds for NCP work activities. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/resource/use-of-iv-d-incentive-funds-for-ncp-work-activities
Office of Child Support Enforcement. (n.d.). Preliminary report F.Y. 2017. Retrieved from
Pfleger, P. (2018, September 16). More than half a million Ohio children live in poverty. Retrieved from https://www.wvxu.org/post/more-half-million-ohio-children-live-poverty#stream/0
Policy Matters Ohio. (2019, March 14). Now is the time to invest in Ohio’s children. Retrieved from https://www.policymattersohio.org/research-policy/quality-ohio/revenue-budget/budget-policy/now-is-the-time-to-invest-in-ohios-children
United States Department of Agriculture. (2019). State flexibilities related to custodial and noncustodial parents’ cooperation with state child support agencies. Retrieved from https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-files/SNAP-child-support-policy-050119.pdf
United Way Greater Cleveland. (n.d.). Hunger. Retrieved from
Optimized by Optimole