Virginia subcommittee advances bill to coordinate emergency food access after VENA gaps

Delegate Anthony introduced HB 610, saying the bill would create a statewide, preplanned framework to coordinate emergency food access when household food benefits are disrupted. He pointed to implementation problems during the Virginia Emergency Nutrition Assistance program (VENA) and said ad‑hoc improvisation produced inequitable outcomes: “the lesson we have here from VENA was not about intent or effort… it was about crisis time improvisation that is not operationally feasible as a repeatable statewide model.”

The bill directs the Department of Social Services, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Department of Emergency Management to plan in advance and to be able to activate emergency food‑access coordination within 24 to 72 hours for federal nutrition‑benefit interruptions, natural disasters or other emergencies. It requires data‑driven planning to identify areas of need and includes “guardrails to prevent inequitable distribution of emergency food resources based on geography, capacity or existing infrastructure,” Delegate Anthony said.

Hannah Wyatt of the Virginia Poverty Law Center testified in support and described the fall federal shutdown as evidence of the need for a plan: “the federal shutdown really enunciated the importance of having a plan in place for… disruptions of food benefits.” Trish White Boy, health chair for the Virginia State Conference NAACP, urged the committee to move the bill, saying local food banks and community organizations are often left “trying to fill in the gaps on their own.”

Delegate Anthony said the bill complements, not replaces, emergency support function 6 (ESF‑6) that governs mass care and sheltering, noting HB 610 focuses on food‑access coordination in situations that may not involve sheltering or a formally declared disaster. He also said funding would require separate appropriation by the General Assembly and that implementation funding could be addressed in subsequent sessions.

The subcommittee received no in‑person opposition during the hearing. A motion to report the bill and refer it to Appropriations carried; the clerk recorded the bill as reported by the subcommittee.