What do you mean New York City still imposes fingerprinting on food stamp applicants? Where is the policy now?

In 2009, a New York Times article reported on a hearing held, that November by the General Welfare Committee of the City Council. There, the topic up for discussion was finger imaging/finger printing for federal food stamp applicants in New York City, claimed by advocates as a practice that deters benefit fraud. In 2009, the only four states to still enact this policy were California, Texas, Arizona, and New York. In 2009, local officials were speaking out against the policy, including Christine Quinn and Bill de Blasio, now New York City’s Public Advocate, but then the chairman of the General Welfare Committee.[1] Today, New York City is one of only two jurisdictions that still require food stamp applicants to be fingerprinted as a part of the application process. Christine Quinn, clearly demonstrating characteristics of a policy entrepreneur on this issue, is still speaking out against this policy and is currently mobilizing towards a policy to eliminate the requirement.

Advocates for finger imaging to access food stamp benefits claim that the practice significantly reduces fraud in the system and does not deter those who are entitled to the benefits from applying. The evidence and arguments against fingerprinting to access federal food stamp benefits, however, are quite strong in comparison to those that advocate for the practice.

Many states have already eliminated the practice due to the emergence of reliable research that has proven it to be ineffective, and due to its high cost (in New York, the policy costs around $800,000 a year). New York found 31 cases of suspected fraud due to fingerprinting in 2006, which are only one out of 34,991 food stamp applicants. [2] Furthermore, while fraudulent practices in individual and family food benefits amount to around $1.50 a meal, it is important to note that food retailers and government officials commit most large fraud cases. Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, claims that the policy is “inefficient and degrading,” and since many recipients are minorities, one that touches on civil rights issues. Additionally, he asks why all who desire to access federal food benefits are not fingerprinted, such as owners of rural farm businesses and recipients of farm subsidies, whose federal aid bills run up a huge tab.[3] In 2009, Betsy Gotbaum, then the public advocate, has called the requirement “a very expensive failure.” A study from the USDA found no proof that it actually limits fraud and found that it may drive people away from applying.[4]

In 2007, the policy was lifted from New York State applicants, but at the request of the Bloomberg administration, continued to be a requirement of New York City Applicants, and it is in the City forum that the policy debate is taking place. On October 11, 2011, Christine C. Quinn, speaker of the City Council, pressed the Bloomberg Administration to give a valid reason why New York City still enacts this policy. Since the City Council does not have the power to life the requirement, Christine Quinn and councilmember Annabel Palma plan to introduce a bill to influence the Bloomberg Administration. [5]

The visibility of the issue has increased exponentially since it came to the table in 2007, and it is denounced and questioned constantly in the media as a result of the work of interest groups and of visibility of those testifying at government hearings. Interest groups have mobilized extensively against the policy. The New York City Coalition Against Hunger is at the forefront of the struggle against finger imaging for food stamps.[6]They claim that there are other ways to fight fraud, such as computer matching with social security numbers, and that finger printing forces people who have trouble getting to an office to have it done not to apply. The Urban Institute is another interest group; they supported a study revealing that 30,000 New Yorkers are not applying for food stamps because of the fingerprinting policy.[7] Interest groups coming out in favor of the policy are rare. Some individuals come out in support finger imaging, perhaps because it reframes the issue of fraud and blames it on the poor. Mostly in support of the policy, however, is the Mayoral administration. Robert Doar of the city’s Human Resources Administration claimed that the policy caught 1,200 is duplicated cases and saved $4 million a year in federal benefits, and the Bloomberg administration has consistently come out in support of the policy. Doar stated that “we haven’t found an alternative method that’s any better, we listen and learn from other states, but we also need to make our own decisions.”[8]

Christine Quinn’s policy plan includes introducing a bill that would require the administration to show how much money the city spent on fingerprinting, the cases of fraud detected through finger imaging, and to disclose how many applicants were accused of criminal activity due to the policy. As this policy process begins, interest groups will be aware and active in attending hearings and garnering media attention for the issue.