Money is running out for fruits and vegetables for low-income Californians. Elected leaders remain silent.

More than 50 people stood dressed in jackets and hats against the strong spring wind in front of the Mother’s Nutritional Center grocery store in El Monte on the morning of April 12. People started lining up an hour before the store opened at 9 a.m., and there were so many of them that when the doors opened, only five customers were allowed in at a time.

Every morning that week it was the same: a crowd gathered outside the store before it opened. Low-income residents who qualified for public food assistance were able to receive discounts on fruits and vegetables, which could be used to purchase more food.

But the money for the rebate program – CalFresh Fruit and Vegetarian EBT Pilot – ran out in about five months at Southern California grocery stores, and word spread that it was set to end on April 14, or on Sunday this week. People wanted to stock up while they could still afford it. (EBT stands for “electronic benefit transfer,” the method by which benefits are provided via a debit card.)

Join our mailing list to get the stories the mainstream news overlooks.
Sign up for Capital & Main’s bulletin.

The day before, at a Senate Budget Subcommittee hearing on Health and Human Services in Sacramento, a representative from the California Department of Human Services told California Senator Caroline Menjivar that the funding would end on the 14th. april. Menjivar, who chairs the commission, asked just one question — whether the state has the infrastructure to restart the program in the future — before the committee moved on to another question.

As subcommittee chairman, Menjivar could have recommended changes to the state budget and held a subcommittee vote on the issue before forwarding it to the Senate Budget Committee to prioritize the financing of the pilot program. Menjivar is a Democrat who represents Burbank and much of the San Fernando Valley, where six Mother’s Nutritional Center stores were part of the pilot program.

But it seemed she accepted the program’s expiration for now.

Contacted after the hearing by Capital & Main about the future of the pilot program, Menjivar’s press secretary, Celeste Jale, responded by email that the senator had no comment on the matter.

Menjivar is one of nine politicians who could save the model program. Others are Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Roger Rivas (D-Salinas), Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-North Shore), Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-San Diego ), Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R). -Yuba City), Senate Budget Chairman Scott D. Wiener (D-San Francisco), Assembly Budget Chairman Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), and Assembly Budget Subcommittee Chairman on social services Corey Jackson (D-Moreno Valley). Most declined to comment; the others didn’t respond at all. Everyone could speak out in favor of an effective intervention against food insecurity and against the very people whose health improved thanks to the program. But they won’t.

More than 92,900 households have received rebates totaling $10.5 million through this program, according to Jennifer Young, who works for the California Health Agency’s Office of Technology and Solutions Integration and social services.

Managers at markets such as Mother’s Nutritional Center, the program’s largest market, have seen low-income residents purchase more healthy foods and change their diets under the program. Clients told Capital & Main that the program’s support has enabled them to manage chronic illnesses such as diabetes and introduce healthy food choices to their children.

All of this happened during the 14 months of the program, from February 2023 to April 14. Because it was an experimental program, the pilot project’s $18.65 million budget was only a fraction of the $347.75 million initially sought by advocates, according to San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Association of urban research, or SPUR. Continuity of funding has been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In March, the last full month of funding, 55,000 households, or about 95,000 people, received an average of $46 in rebates per month, for a total of $2.5 million in extra money for fruit and vegetables, according to SPUR, which helped manage the program.

The nine elected officials cited above have the greatest influence on the budget process. The “Big Five,” made up of the governor, leaders of the Assembly and Senate, and minority leaders of both chambers, can step in when lawmakers fail to reach a majority.

All nine lawmakers did not respond or declined to comment to Capital & Main. Newsom’s office sent an email saying he does not “generally comment on pending legislation.”

Assemblyman Alex Lee, a Democrat whose district includes Fremont and Newark, sent a letter March 5 to the Assembly Human Services Committee requesting a one-time allocation of $30 million from the Assembly budget. next year to fund the program in the 2024-2025 fiscal year. year. He said in an interview earlier that the program was a great way to get food to people who need it most.

Not commenting to the media during a budget cycle is a common practice among lawmakers. Policy experts and advocates who work directly with Parliament said elected officials generally stay silent because they don’t want to be locked into positions that would limit them in negotiations: like a game of cards, they don’t want to nor show their hands. Soon. Keeping others guessing can benefit from negotiation and support.

Observing the movements of others often indicates their choices or options. Lawmakers believe they need to trade different budget items as bargaining chips. Politicians often make demands in exchange for their vote. If their position is known, they lose this leverage. But even the experts who told me this did not want to speak on the record. They said speaking publicly could harm their own work with politicians and their relationships with staff.

But food should not be a currency. This is not a game. Effective programs that guarantee food to those who need it most should be the norm in California. Such programs should not be a luxury in a bountiful budget year, which could be spent in a deficit year and otherwise a centerpiece of the election cycle.

Sam Barragan, district director of Mother’s Nutritional Center in El Monte, said he has seen the pilot program work. Barragan said he was confident elected officials would fund it again.

In May, Theresa Mier, spokesperson for the California Department of Human Services, and HD Palmer, deputy director for external affairs for the Department of Finance, confirmed that there was no funding for the fruit and vegetable EBT pilot project. CalFresh vegetables in the governor’s May budget. revision.

Supporters predicted it, but lawmakers have only a month, or until the state budget is finalized, to fund and renew the CalFresh Fruits and Vegetarian EBT pilot project.

Food security is not ensured by faith, but by food. The pilot program saw most of its money go directly to Californians to improve their health. Its success showed that it could likely expand beyond the initial pilot markets. Elected officials who can make a difference will not defend it. For now, without funding, the program is dead. The silence of those responsible for his death is itself a declaration that food for public health is negotiable.

Join our mailing list to get the stories the mainstream news overlooks.Sign up for Capital & Main’s bulletin.

Join our mailing list to get the stories the mainstream news overlooks.
Sign up for Capital & Main’s bulletin.