MarketSupplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Company Profile

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly and colloquially still known as the Food Stamp Program, or simply food stamps, is a United States federal government program that provides food-purchasing assistance for low- and no-income persons to help them maintain adequate nutrition and health. It is a federal aid program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), though benefits are distributed by specific departments of U.S. states.

History
Origin of food stamps The federal government's attempt to address hunger through the means of food stamps was first introduced in the 1930s after becoming possible when the U.S. Congress passed the income tax law in 1913. After the Federal government had the funding to create a social safety net, its involvement in food assistance was introduced in the 1930s, when the Great Depression caused unemployment, homelessness, and starvation to become a national issue that permeated such a high percentage of the population. At the time of the Great Depression, farmers were growing surplus produce, but unemployed and impoverished people were unable to afford to buy it. The origin of food stamps was intended partially to help the poor, but just as equally to boost the economy and pay farmers a fair price for their labor. In essence, food stamps were intended to create a political agreement between agriculture and the federal government by giving out excess goods in a crisis. First food stamp program (FSP; May 16, 1939 – spring 1943) The idea for the first food stamp program has been credited to various people, most notably Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace and the program's first administrator, Milo Perkins. Of the program, Perkins said, "We got a picture of a gorge, with farm surpluses on one cliff and under-nourished city folks with outstretched hands on the other. We set out to find a practical way to build a bridge across that chasm." The program, run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), permitted people on relief to buy orange stamps equal to their normal food expenditures. Orange food stamps could be used at any food retailers or wholesalers, but excluded alcoholic beverages, concession stand meals that could be eaten on premises, and tobacco products. The blue stamps could only be used to buy what the USDA defined as surplus produce, which included items such as beans, eggs, fruit, and the like. Pilot food stamp program (1961–1964) The 18 years between the end of the first FSP and the inception of the next were filled with studies, reports, and legislative proposals. Prominent US senators actively associated with attempts to enact a food stamp program during this period included George Aiken, Robert M. La Follette Jr., Hubert Humphrey, Estes Kefauver, and Stuart Symington. From 1954 on, US Representative Leonor Sullivan strove to pass food-stamp program legislation. Hunger continued for the poor people of the country even after the Great Depression ended, but advocacy to reinstate the food stamp program was generally unsuccessful while the political agenda did not require it. Until 1961 when President John F. Kennedy took office, there were few pilot programs in place to help America's poor. This leverage looked like taking food stamp costs out of a sharecropper's income, permitting food stamps for only select grocers, permitting stamps for only the most expensive products, and similar maneuvers. These mechanisms consolidated White power over sharecroppers, and the move to food stamps was criticized by many Black activists. Of the program, US Representative Leonor K. Sullivan of Missouri asserted, "...the Department of Agriculture seemed bent on outlining a possible food stamp plan of such scope and magnitude, involving some 25 million persons, as to make the whole idea seem ridiculous and tear food stamp plans to smithereens." Food Stamp Act of 1964 President Johnson called for a permanent food-stamp program on January 31, 1964, as part of his War on Poverty platform introduced at the State of the Union a few weeks earlier. Agriculture Secretary Orville Freeman submitted the legislation on April 17, 1964. The bill eventually passed by Congress was H.R. 10222, introduced by Congresswoman Sullivan. One of the members on the House Committee on Agriculture who voted against the FSP in Committee was then Representative Bob Dole, of Kansas. Later, as a senator, after he worked on the 1977 legislation that addressed problems with the program, Dole became a staunch supporter of it. The Food Stamp Act of 1964 was intended to strengthen the agricultural economy and provide improved levels of nutrition among low-income households; however, the practical purpose was to bring the pilot FSP under congressional control and to enact the regulations into law. Program expansion: participation milestones in the 1960s and early 1970s In April 1965, participation topped half a million. (Actual participation was 561,261 people.) Participation topped 1 million in March 1966, 2 million in October 1967, 3 million in February 1969, 4 million in February 1970, 5 million one month later in March 1970, 6 million two months later in May 1970, 10 million in February 1971, and 15 million in October 1974. Rapid increases in participation during this period were primarily due to geographic expansion. Major legislative changes (early 1970s) The early 1970s were a period of growth in participation, concern about the cost of providing food stamp benefits, and questions about administration, primarily timely certification. During this time, the issue was framed that would dominate food stamp legislation ever after: how to balance program access with program accountability. Three major pieces of legislation shaped this period, leading up to massive reform to follow: P.L. 91-671 (January 11, 1971) established uniform national standards of eligibility and work requirements; required that allotments be equivalent to the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet; limited households' purchase requirements to 30 percent of their income; instituted an outreach requirement; authorized the Agriculture Department to pay 62.5 percent of specific administrative costs incurred by States; expanded the FSP to Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States; and provided $1.75 billion appropriations for Fiscal Year 1971. Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93–86, August 10, 1973) required States to expand the program to every political jurisdiction before July 1, 1974; expanded the program to drug addicts and alcoholics in treatment and rehabilitation centers; established semi-annual allotment adjustments, bi-monthly issuance, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) "cash-out" (which gave the option to states to issue Food Stamp benefits to SSI recipients in the form of their estimated cash value consolidated within the SSI grant, in order to reduce administrative costs); introduced statutory complexity in the income definition (by including in-kind payments and providing an accompanying exception); and required the department to establish temporary eligibility standards for disasters. P.L. 93-347 (July 12, 1974) authorized the department to pay 50 percent of all states' costs for administering the program and established the requirement for efficient and effective administration by the States. 1974 nationwide program In accordance with P.L. 93–86, the FSP began operating nationwide on July 1, 1974. (The program was not fully implemented in Puerto Rico until November 1, 1974.) Participation for July 1974 was almost 14 million. Eligible access to Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries Once a person is a beneficiary of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program they may be automatically eligible for Food Stamps depending on their state's laws. How much money in food stamps they receive also varies by state. Supplemental Security Income was created in 1974. Food Stamp Act of 1977 Both the outgoing Republican administration and the new Democratic administration offered Congress proposed legislation to reform the FSP in 1977. The Republican bill stressed targeting benefits to the neediest, simplifying administration, and tightening controls on the program; the Democratic bill focused on increasing access to those most in need and simplifying and streamlining a complicated and cumbersome process that delayed benefit delivery as well as reducing errors, and curbing abuse. The chief force for the Democratic administration was Robert Greenstein, Administrator of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). In Congress, major players were Senators George McGovern, Jacob Javits, Hubert Humphrey, and Bob Dole, and Congressmen Foley and Richmond. Amid all the themes, the one that became the rallying cry for FSP reform was "EPR"—eliminate the purchase requirement—because of the barrier to participation the purchase requirement represented. The House Report for the 1977 legislation points out that the changes in the Food Stamp Program are needed without reference to upcoming welfare reform since "the path to welfare reform is, indeed, rocky...." EPR was implemented January 1, 1979. Participation that month increased 1.5 million over the preceding month. According to Maggie Dickinson in the book ''Feeding the Crisis of Care and Abandonment in America's Food Safety Net'' "The Food Stamp Act of 1977 finally eliminated the food stamp purchase requirement, which mean poor families no longer needed to have cash up front to purchase food stamps." Cutbacks of the early 1980s The large and expensive FSP proved to be a favorite subject of close scrutiny from both the Executive Branch and Congress in the early 1980s. Major legislation in 1981 and 1982 enacted cutbacks including: • addition of a gross income eligibility test in addition to the net income test for most households; • temporary freeze on adjustments of the shelter deduction cap and the standard deduction and constraints on future adjustments; • annual adjustments in food stamp allotments rather than semi-annual; • consideration of non-elderly parents who live with their children and non-elderly siblings who live together as one household; • required periodic reporting and retrospective budgeting; • prohibition against using Federal funds for outreach; • replacing the FSP in Puerto Rico with a block grant for nutrition assistance; • counting retirement accounts as resources; • state option to require job search of applicants as well as participants; and • increased disqualification periods for voluntary quitters. The first electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card pilot program began in Reading, Pennsylvania, in 1984. Mid-to-late 1980s Recognition of the severe domestic hunger problem in the latter half of the 1980s led to incremental expansions of the FSP in 1985 and 1987, such as elimination of sales tax on food stamp purchases, reinstitution of categorical eligibility, increased resource limit for most households ($2,000), eligibility for the homeless, and expanded nutrition education. The Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 and the Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act in 1990 foretold the improvements that would be coming. The 1988 and 1990 legislation accomplished the following: • increasing benefits by applying a multiplication factor to Thrifty Food Plan costs; • making outreach an optional activity for States; • excluding advance earned income tax credits as income; • simplifying procedures for calculating medical deductions; • instituting periodic adjustments of the minimum benefit; • authorizing nutrition education grants; • establishing severe penalties for violations by individuals or participating firms; and • establishing EBT as an issuance alternative. Throughout this era, significant players were principally various committee chairmen: Congressmen Leland, Hall, Foley, Leon Panetta, and, de la Garza and Senator Patrick Leahy. 1993 Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act By 1993, major changes in food stamp benefits had arrived. The final legislation provided for $2.8 billion in benefit increases over Fiscal Years 1984–1988. Leon Panetta, in his new role as OMB Director, played a major role as did Senator Leahy. Substantive changes included: • eliminating the shelter deduction cap beginning January 1, 1997; • providing a deduction for legally binding child support payments made to nonhousehold members; • raising the cap on the dependent care deduction from $160 to $200 for children under 2 years old and $175 for all other dependents; • improving employment and training (E&T) dependent care reimbursements; • increasing the FMV test for vehicles to $4,550 on September 1, 1994, and $4,600 on October 1, 1995, then annually adjusting the value from $5,000 on October 1, 1996; • mandating asset accumulation demonstration projects; and • simplifying the household definition. Later participation milestones In December 1979, participation surpassed 20 million. In March 1994, participation hit a new high of 28 million. 1996 welfare reform By 1994, FSP's program enrollment seemed to see growth once more, with an enrollment of 27 million people. By 1996, President Clinton's Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act restricted eligibility even further, reinforced even stronger working requirements, restricted given benefits, and increased penalties for non-compliance. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) and the Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Act of 1998 (AREERA) made some changes to these provisions, most significantly: • using additional Employment and Training (E&T) funds to providing work program opportunities for able-bodied adults without dependents; • allowing states to exempt up to 15 percent of able-bodied adults without dependents who would otherwise be ineligible; • restoring eligibility for certain elderly, disabled, and minor immigrants who resided in the United States when the 1996 welfare reform act was enacted; and • cutting administrative funding for states to account for certain administrative costs that previously had been allocated to the AFDC program and now were required to be allocated to the Food Stamp Program. The fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill included two significant changes. The legislation increased the excess shelter cap to $340 in fiscal year 2001 and then indexed the cap to changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Consumers each year beginning in fiscal year 2002. The legislation also allowed states to use the vehicle limit they use in a TANF assistance program, if it would be result in a lower attribution of resources for the household. Electronic benefit transfer In the late 1990s, the Food Stamp Program was revamped, with some states phasing out actual stamps in favor of a specialized debit card system known as Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT), provided by private contractors. Many states merged the use of the EBT card for public welfare programs as well, such as cash assistance. The move was designed to save the government money by not printing the coupons, make benefits available immediately instead of requiring the recipient to wait for mailing or picking up the booklets in person, and reduce theft and diversion. This was done to mark a more explicit focus on providing nutrition. It was also done to reduce usage of the stigmatized phrase "food stamps". Temporary benefits increase from April 2009 to November 2013 SNAP benefits temporarily increased with the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), a federal stimulus package to help Americans affected by the Great Recession of 2007. Beginning in April 2009 and continuing through the expansion's expiration on November 1, 2013, the ARRA appropriated $45.2 billion to increase monthly benefit levels to an average of $133. This amounted to a 13.6 percent funding increase for SNAP recipients. The idea was to include both Pell Grant-eligible students and independent students. Warren and Lawson both believe that students have a right to both food and education, and the goal was to alleviate financial tension. This bill has been endorsed by several organizations including Bread for the World. Specifically, the Act would allow Pell-Grant eligible and independent students to qualify for benefits, lowers the 20 hours/week work requirement to 10 hours/week, and requires the Department of Education to notify Pell Grant eligible students of their SNAP eligibility. The student hunger pilot program will test different ways students can use SNAP benefits such as directly at the dining hall or indirectly to help pay for student meal plans. 2020 COVID-19 and pandemic-EBT introduction The Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020 provided the Secretary of Agriculture with authority to approve state agency plans for temporary emergency eligibility standards and benefit levels under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 after the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020. These plans allowed for increased access to food and nutrition assistance, including increased benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Secretary of Agriculture could also waive certain requirements, such as work requirements, in order to ensure those in need had access to assistance. March 2020 is estimated to be the start date. This provision applies to children who would otherwise be eligible for free or reduced price meals under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. It allows states to provide meals to children during the school closures due to COVID-19. It does not require states to provide meals to children who do not qualify for free or reduced price meals. School children eligible for emergency nutrition benefits receive temporary benefits loaded onto their EBT cards. As of mid-summer 2020, all states and territories eligible to provide these benefits (except Guam) have selected the option and issued these benefits to replace meals lost during the 2019–2020 school year. These benefits provide children with essential nutrition, allowing them to focus on their studies and grow academically. The benefits are also instrumental in helping to reduce food insecurity among children. The USDA went on to evaluate the four aspects including current food prices within the typical American diet, dietary guidance, and the available nutrients in food items. The Thrifty Food Plan, 2021, is based on the needs of a family of four as defined by law, and sets $835.57 as the monthly cost for the reference family. This is a 21.03% increase from the prior amount (adjusted for current prices), or an increase of $4.79 per day for the reference family of four. These changes are permanent, and went into effect October 1, 2021.''' For the average recipient, the change would mean about $90 less per month. 2025 legislative changes under OBBBA In 2025, after the re-election of Donald Trump, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21) which cut funding to an array of social programs such as SNAP and Medicaid; it was signed into law by the President on July 4, 2025. OBBBA made major changes to SNAP, including: • limiting future changes to the Thrifty Food Plan to the level of inflation; • expanding the three-month time limit/work requirement to more recipients, including older adults and parents of children 14 and older; • reducing the federal share of administrative costs to 25% (down from 50%); • limiting immigrant eligibility for SNAP, denying assistance to refugees and other humanitarian immigrants; • for the first time, requiring states to pay a portion of the cost of the benefits under SNAP. The level of the state share will depend on the error rate that the state achieves, and will range up to 15% of the benefit cost. 2025 shutdown SNAP is authorized by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. This law has since 1973 been periodically reauthorized by the farm bill, and the program was last reauthorized by the 2018 farm bill. Many farm bill provisions expired in 2023 and then were extended through September 30, 2025. In a period of farm bill expiration, SNAP operations continue with the provision of appropriations. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia sued the federal government in federal court to prevent SNAP delays. Two federal judges ruled on October 31, 2025 that the Trump Administration had to pay food stamps during November, but the federal government appealed the ruling, arguing that federal law prohibited the release of funding for SNAP. The government shutdown then ended, the Administration agreed to pay SNAP benefits for November, and the lawsuit was ended. ==Eligibility==
Eligibility
Because SNAP is a means-tested program, recipients must meet all eligibility criteria in order to receive benefits. There are income and resource requirements for SNAP, as well as specific requirements for immigrants, elderly persons and persons with disabilities. Income requirements For income, individuals and households may qualify for benefits if they earn a gross monthly income and a net monthly income that is 130% and 100% or less, respectively, of the federal poverty level for a specific household size. For example: in Fiscal Year 2024, the SNAP-eligible gross monthly income limit is $1,580 for an individual. For a household of four, it is $3,250. For able-bodied adults aged 18 to 49 without dependents under 18 in the household and who are not pregnant, there is a requirement for 80 hours per month spent at work, volunteering, workfare, or workforce training. Critics say opportunities for training or volunteering are limited. On July 4, 2025, the Trump administration's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," or H.R. 1, went into effect. H.R. 1 expanded work requirements for the SNAP program and reduced federal funding by 20%, initiating the largest budget cuts in the history of the program. Older adults up to age 65 are now required to meet work requirements of at least 20 hours a week, as are parents whose youngest child is at least 14. The bill eliminated exemptions for veterans, individuals experiencing homelessness, and former foster youth. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the expanded work requirements will cause 2.9 million Americans to lose SNAP coverage. Resource requirements There is also a resource requirement for SNAP, although eligibility requirements vary slightly from state to state. Generally speaking, households may have up to $2,250 in a bank account or other countable sources. If at least one person is age 60 or older and/or has disabilities, households may have $3,500 in countable resources. Among lower income families the percentage is much higher. According to an estimate by the Community Service Society, 65% of New York City families living below the federal poverty line are paying more than half of their income toward rent. The current eligibility criteria attempt to address this, by including a deduction for "excess shelter costs". This applies only to households that spend more than half of their net income on rent. For the purpose of this calculation, a household's net income is obtained by subtracting certain deductions from their gross (before deductions) income. If the household's total expenditures on rent exceed 50% of that net income, then the net income is further reduced by the amount of rent that exceeds 50% of net income. For 2007, this deduction can be no more than $417, except in households that include an elderly or disabled person. Deductions include: • a standard deduction that is subtracted from income for all recipients, • an earned income deduction reflecting taxes and work expenses, • a deduction for dependent care expenses related to work or training (up to certain limits), • a deduction for child support payments, • a deduction for medical expenses above a set amount per month (only available to elderly and disabled recipients), and • a deduction for excessively high shelter expenses. The adjusted net income, including the deduction for excess shelter costs, is used to determine whether a household is eligible for food stamps. Immigrant status and eligibility The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWORA) sharply restricted immigrant eligibility for food stamps. Before 1996, immigrants had generally been eligible for food stamps on the same terms as citizens. PRWORA established two categories of noncitizens: "qualified immigrants" — including legal permanent residents (LPRs, or green card holders), refugees, asylees, and certain other protected statuses — and all others, who are ineligible. "Non-qualified" noncitizens include people lawfully present in the U.S. with non-immigrant visas (such as student or work visas) or with temporary protected status. The 2002 Farm Bill restored SNAP eligibility to "qualified" immigrants that: • Have lived in the country for 5 years; or • Are receiving disability-related assistance or benefits; or • are children under 18 In 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L 119-21) significantly narrowed immigrant eligibility for SNAP. The law amended the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to limit SNAP eligibility among noncitizens to lawful permanent residents, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and nationals of the Compact of Free Association (COFA) countries (the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau). Categories of immigrants that had previously been eligible, including refugees, asylees, and survivors of trafficking, were rendered ineligible. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that these changes would reduce SNAP participation by approximately 90,000 people on average each month. Eligible household members can get SNAP benefits even if there are other members of the household that are not eligible. Undocumented immigrants, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, are not eligible for SNAP. ==Administration==
Administration
Each state administers SNAP separately. The Food and Nutrition Service maintains an online directory with information regarding each state's processes. ==Benefit allotment and eligible food items==
Benefit allotment and eligible food items
SNAP benefits ensure households can purchase a thrifty nutritious food plan given their net income and household size. The benefit allotment subtracts 30% of net monthly income from a maximum monthly allotment given household size. Net income accounts for deductions such as excess shelter costs, expected taxes, and dependent care. USDA sets the maximum monthly allotment based on the annual thrifty food plan, their lowest cost food plan that still maintains a healthy diet. For example, a family of four with no net income receives the maximum monthly allotment of $973 in 2024. • fruits and vegetables • breads and cereals • dairy products • meats, poultry, and fish • snack foods and non-alcoholic beverages • Plants and seeds which are fit for household consumption. Additionally, restaurants operating in certain areas may be permitted to accept SNAP benefits from eligible candidates like elderly, homeless or disabled people in return for affordable meals. However, the USDA is clear that households cannot use SNAP benefits to purchase the following: • paper products, household supplies • pet foods • Hot prepared foods in grocery stores • Food items that are consumable in the store • Vitamins and medicines • Live animals and birds. ==State options==
State options
States are allowed under federal law to administer SNAP in different ways. As of April 2015, the USDA had published eleven periodic State Options Reports outlining variations in how states have administered the program. The USDA's most recent State Options Report, published in April 2015, summarizes: Some areas of differences among states include: when and how frequently SNAP recipients must report household circumstances; on whether the state agency acts on all reported changes or only some changes; whether the state uses a simplified method for determining the cost of doing business in cases where an applicant is self-employed; and whether legally obligated child support payments made to non-household members are counted as an income exclusion rather than a deduction. State agencies also have an option to call their program SNAP; whether to continue to refer to their program under its former name, the Food Stamp Program; or whether to choose an alternate name. Among the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, 32 call their program SNAP; five continue to call the program the Food Stamp Program; and 16 have adopted their own name. For example, California calls its SNAP implementation "CalFresh", while Arizona calls its program "Nutrition Assistance". ==Impact==
Impact
During the recession of 2008, SNAP participation hit an all-time high. Arguing in support for SNAP, the Food Research and Action Center argued that "putting more resources quickly into the hands of the people most likely to turn around and spend it can both boost the economy and cushion the hardships on vulnerable people who face a constant struggle against hunger." Researchers have found that every $1 that is spent from SNAP results in $1.73 of economic activity. In California, the cost-benefit ratio is even higher: for every $1 spent from SNAP between $3.67 to $8.34 is saved in health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office also rated an increase in SNAP benefits as one of the two most cost-effective of all spending and tax options it examined for boosting growth and jobs in a weak economy. SNAP is able to support 75% of those eligible for the program. Nearly 72 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; more than one-quarter of participants are in households with seniors or people with disabilities. , more than 15% of the U.S. population receive food assistance, and more than 20% in Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Tennessee. Washington, D.C. was the highest share of the population to receive food assistance at over 23%. , peaking in 2013, and has since fallen. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (based on a study of data gathered in Fiscal Year 2010), statistics for the food stamp program are as follows: • 49% of all participant households have children (17 or younger), and 55% of those are single-parent households. • 15% of all participant households have elderly (age 60 or over) members. • 20% of all participant households have non-elderly disabled members. • The average gross monthly income per food stamp household is $731; The average net income is $336. • 37% of participants are White, 22% are African-American, 10% are Hispanic, 2% are Asian, 4% are Native American, and 19% are of unknown race or ethnicity. Costs , and has fallen since 2013 as the economy recovers. Amounts paid to program beneficiaries rose from $28.6 billion in 2005 to $76 billion in 2013, falling back to $66.6 billion by 2016. This increase was due to the high unemployment rate (leading to higher SNAP participation) and the increased benefit per person with the passing of ARRA. SNAP average monthly benefits increased from $96.18 per person to $133.08 per person. Other program costs, which include the Federal share of State administrative expenses, Nutrition Education, and Employment and Training, amounted to roughly $3.7 million in 2013. Politics According to a 2021 study, the staggered decade-long rollout of the American Food Stamp Program led to greater support for Democrats: "Overall, I find that Democrats—at the center of the program's enacting coalition—gained votes when the program was implemented locally, apparently through mobilization of new supporters rather than the conversion of political opponents." Health A 2018 study found that toddlers and preschoolers in households with access to food stamps had better health outcomes at ages 6 to 16 than similar children who did not have access to food stamps. A 2019 study found, "higher participation in SNAP is associated with lower overall and male suicide rates. Increasing SNAP participation by one standard deviation (4.5% of the state population) during the study period could have saved the lives of approximately 31,600 people overall and 24,800 men." Brain health and aging A 2022 study showed that users of the program aged 50 and older had slower memory loss, or "about 2 fewer years of cognitive aging over a 10-year period compared with non-users", despite the program having nearly no conditions for the sustainability and healthiness of the food products purchased with the coupons (or coupon-credits). Obesity prevalence amongst youth Although SNAP has had positive impacts on reducing food insecurity, the nutrition options offered by the program do not consistently meet dietary guidelines. A study conducted in 2023 showed that participating children in particular perform poorly on health indicators compared with income-eligible and higher income nonparticipants. Seeking medical attention SNAP benefits appear to improve the health of participants. Researchers found that SNAP increases the likelihood of users to seek medical attention and getting check-ups, compared to non-users. To add on, they also looked at the rates and outcomes of self-reporting their health and found that users are also likely to report their well-being, good. Food security and insecurity Low income participants along with SNAP participants spend similar amount on food. Yet, SNAP participants continue to experience greater food insecurity than non participants. This is believed to be a reflection of the welfare of individuals who take the time to apply for SNAP benefits rather than the shortcomings of SNAP. Households facing the greatest hardships are the most likely to bear the burden of applying for program benefits. Therefore, SNAP participants tend to be, on average, less food secure than other low-income nonparticipants. Self-selection by more food-needy households into SNAP makes it difficult to observe positive effects on food security from survey data, but data such as average income can be compared. SNAP allows individuals to go to grocery stores and buy what foods are needed with their EBT cards. However, simply receiving food is not enough, since many individuals do not know which foods are most nutritious, nor how to prepare and cook those foods. Crime A 2019 study in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy found that a lifetime food stamp ban (as implemented by the 1996 Welfare reform) for convicted drug felons led to greater recidivism. The study found that this applied in particular for financially motivated crimes, which the authors said suggested "that the cut in benefits causes ex-convicts to return to crime to make up for the lost transfer income." The study concluded that the social benefits of food stamps were substantial enough to outweigh the costs of the program. Low wages and unstable working conditions have also impacted the ability to pay for transportation costs, which is needed for access to grocery stores and supermarkets. These issues occur for college students because some are unable to afford any due to high tuition fees, lack of time to acquire food or cook, and also unawareness of campus resources. A study looking at challenges in students when applying for SNAP benefits found that increasing the availability and working together with Campus Basic Needs Centers has improved students in applying and reaching out to SNAP resources. In 2018–2019, 6.6% of veterans received SNAP. In 2021–2023, this had risen to 8%. Income maintenance The purpose of the Food Stamp Program as laid out in its implementation was to assist low-income households in obtaining adequate and nutritious diets. According to Peter H. Rossi, a sociologist whose work involved evaluation of social programs, "the program rests on the assumption that households with restricted incomes may skimp on food purchases and live on diets that are inadequate in quantity and quality, or, alternatively skimp on other necessities to maintain an adequate diet". Food stamps, as many like Rossi, MacDonald, and Eisinger contend, are used not only for increasing food but also as income maintenance. Income maintenance is money that households are able to spend on other things because they no longer have to spend it on food. According to various studies shown by Rossi, because of income maintenance only about $0.17–$0.47 more is being spent on food for every food stamp dollar than was spent prior to individuals receiving food stamps. CalFresh can help expand family's budgets so they can afford healthy, nourishing foods. Studies are inconclusive as to whether SNAP has a direct effect on the nutritional quality of food choices made by participants. Unlike other federal programs that provide food subsidies, i.e. the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), SNAP does not have nutritional standards for purchases. Critics of the program suggest that this lack of structure represents a missed opportunity for public health advancement and cost containment. In April 2013, the USDA research body, the Economic Research Service (ERS), published a study that examined diet quality in SNAP participants compared to low-income nonparticipants. The study revealed a difference in diet quality between SNAP participants and low-income nonparticipants, finding that SNAP participants score slightly lower on the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) than nonparticipants. The study also concluded that SNAP increases the likelihood that participants will consume whole fruit by 23 percentage points. However, the analysis also suggests that SNAP participation decreases participants' intake of dark green and orange vegetables by a modest amount. A 2016 study found no evidence that SNAP increased expenditures on tobacco by beneficiaries. Macroeconomic effect The USDA's Economic Research Service explains: "SNAP is a counter-cyclical government assistance program—it provides assistance to more low-income households during an economic downturn or recession and to fewer households during an economic expansion. The rise in SNAP participation during an economic downturn results in greater SNAP expenditures which, in turn, stimulate the economy." In 2011, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack gave a statement regarding SNAP benefits: "Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity." Vilsack's estimate was based on a 2002 USDA study which found that "ultimately, the additional $5 billion of FSP (Food Stamp Program) expenditures triggered an increase in total economic activity (production, sales, and value of shipments) of $9.2 billion and an increase in jobs of 82,100", or $1.84 stimulus for every dollar spent. A January 2008 report by Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi analyzed measures of the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and found that in a weak economy, every $1 in SNAP expenditures generates $1.73 in real GDP increase, making it the most effective stimulus among all the provisions of the act, including both tax cuts and spending increases. A 2010 report by Kenneth Hanson published by the USDA's Economic Research Service estimated that a $1 billion increase in SNAP expenditures increases economic activity (GDP) by $1.79 billion (i.e., the GDP multiplier is 1.79). The same report also estimated that the "preferred jobs impact ... are the 8,900 full-time equivalent jobs plus self-employed or the 9,800 full-time and part-time jobs plus self-employed from $1 billion of SNAP benefits." And this growth "has been especially swift in once-prosperous places hit by the housing bust". In addition to local town merchants, national retailers are starting to take in an increasing large percentage of SNAP benefits. For example, "Walmart estimates it takes in about 18% of total U.S. outlays on food stamps." Fraud and abuse In March 2012, the USDA published its fifth report in a series of periodic analyses to estimate the extent of trafficking in SNAP; that is, selling or otherwise converting SNAP benefits for cash payouts. Although trafficking does not directly increase costs to the Federal Government, it diverts benefits from their intended purpose of helping low-income families access a nutritious diet. Trafficking may also indirectly increase costs by encouraging participants to stay in the program longer than intended, or by incentivizing new participants seeking to profit from trafficking. considers trafficking to be the most egregious program violation and aggressively acts to control it by using SNAP purchase data to identify suspicious transaction patterns, conducting undercover investigations, and collaborating with other investigative agencies. Trafficking diverted an estimated one cent of each SNAP dollar ($330 million annually) from SNAP benefits between 2006 and 2008. Trafficking has declined over time from nearly 4 percent in the 1990s. About 8.2 percent of all stores trafficked from 2006 to 2008 compared to the 10.5 percent of SNAP authorized stores involved in trafficking in 2011. A variety of store characteristics and settings were related to the level of trafficking. Although large stores accounted for 87.3 percent of all SNAP redemptions, they only accounted for about 5.4 percent of trafficking redemptions. Trafficking was much less likely to occur among publicly owned than privately owned stores and was much less likely among stores in areas with less poverty rather than more. The total annual value of trafficked benefits increased at about the same rate as overall program growth. The current estimate of total SNAP dollars trafficked is higher than observed in the previous 2002–2005 period. This increase is consistent, however, with the almost 37 percent growths in average annual SNAP benefits from the 2002–2005 study periods to the most recent one. The methodology used to generate these estimates has known limitations. However, given variable data and resources, it is the most practical approach available to . Further improvements to SNAP trafficking estimates would require new resources to assess the prevalence of trafficking among a random sample of stores. The USDA report released in August 2013 says the dollar value of trafficking increased to 1.3 percent, up from 1 percent in the USDA's 2006–2008 survey, "The department is proposing increasing penalties for retailers and providing states with access to large federal databases they would be required to use to verify information from applicants. SNAP benefit fraud, generally in the form of store employees buying EBT cards from recipients is widespread in urban areas, with one in seven corner stores engaging in such behavior, according to a recent government estimate. There are in excess of 200,000 stores, and we have 100 agents spread across the country. Some do undercover work, but the principal way we track fraud is through analyzing electronic transactions" for suspicious patterns, USDA Under Secretary Kevin Concannon told The Washington Times. Also, states will be given additional guidance that will help develop a tighter policy for those seeking to effectively investigate fraud and clarifying the definition of trafficking. The State of Utah developed a system called "eFind" to monitor, evaluate and cross-examine qualifying and reporting data of recipients assets. Utah's eFind system is a "back end", web-based system that gathers, filters, and organizes information from various federal, state, and local databases. The data in eFind is used to help state eligibility workers determine applicants' eligibility for public assistance programs, including Medicaid, CHIP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and child care assistance. When information is changed in one database, the reported changes become available to other departments utilizing the system. This system was developed with federal funds and it is available to other states free of charge. The USDA only reports direct fraud and trafficking in benefits, which was officially estimated at $858 million in 2012. The Cato Institute reports that there was another $2.2 billion in erroneous payouts in 2009. Cato also reported that the erroneous payout rate dropped significantly from 5.6 percent in 2007 to 3.8 percent in 2011. A 2003 analysis found that two-thirds of all improper payments were the fault of the caseworker, not the participant. In 2011, the Michigan program raised eligibility requirements for full-time college students, to save taxpayer money and to end student use of monthly SNAP benefits. Water dumping/container deposit cashing fraud In February 2013, the USDA expanded the definition of benefits trafficking to include indirect exchanges and "water dumping". The USDA defines water dumping as "purchase of beverages in containers with returnable deposits for the sole purpose of discarding the contents and returning the containers to obtain cash refund deposits" In Maine, incidents of recycling fraud have occurred in the past where individuals once committed fraud by using their EBT cards to buy canned or bottled beverages (requiring a deposit to be paid at the point of purchase for each beverage container), dump the contents out so the empty beverage container could be returned for deposit redemption, and thereby, allowed these individuals to eventually purchase non-EBT authorized products with cash from the beverage container deposits. In January 2011, Maine state prosecutors requested local law enforcement agencies to send reports of "water dumping" to welfare fraud prosecutor in the state attorney general's office. In January 2016, a Maine woman, Linda Goodman, who purchased $125 in bottled water, dumping them and redeeming containers for cash to purchase alcohol, was charged with welfare fraud and pleaded no contest to SNAP trafficking. She was fined and suspended from SNAP eligibility for one year. ==Role of SNAP in healthy diets==
Role of SNAP in healthy diets
Healthy Incentives Pilot The 2008 Farm Bill authorized $20 million to be spent on pilot projects to determine whether incentives provided to SNAP recipients at the point-of-sale would increase the purchase of fruits, vegetables, or other healthful foods. 's Farmers Market helping the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by providing them with fresh vegetables and fruitsFifteen states expressed interest in having the Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) program and, ultimately, five states submitted applications to be considered for HIP. Hampden County, Massachusetts was selected as the Healthy Incentives Pilot site. HIP operated between November 2011 and December 2012. HIP participants were more likely to have fruits and vegetables available at home during the pilot. If the program were implemented nationwide, the estimated cost would be approximately $90 million over five years. Restrictions on "junk food" or "luxury items" Beginning January 1, 2026, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia will not allow certain foods like soda or candy to be purchased with SNAP funds. For two decades, Congress and the Department of Agriculture, citing grounds of administrative burden and personal freedom, would not let states prohibit the purchase of so-called "junk food" or "luxury items" with SNAP funds. However, under the second Trump presidency, the federal government began granting waivers to states to make these restrictions. Thomas Farley and Russell Sykes argued that the USDA should reconsider the possibility of restricting "junk food" purchases with SNAP in order to encourage healthy eating, along with incentivizing the purchase of healthy items through a credit or rebate program that makes foods such as fresh vegetables and meats cheaper. They also noted that many urban food stores do a poor job of stocking healthy foods and instead favor high-profit processed items. store indicating restrictions on beverages and candy Some data suggests that it would benefit public health by making sugar-sweetened beverages ineligible to purchase with SNAP benefits. SNAP households use about 10% of their food budgets on sugar-sweetened beverages. Removing eligibility for sugar-sweetened beverages could result in a 2.4% reduction in obesity prevalence, 1.7% reduction in type II diabetes prevalence, and elimination of 52,000 deaths from stroke and heart attack over the course of ten years. A restriction on sugary beverages took effect in Texas in 2026. ==See also==
General sources
• Eisinger, Peter K. Toward an end to hunger in America. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1998. • Gundersen, Craig; LeBlanc, Michael; Kuhn, Betsey, "The Changing Food Assistance Landscape: The Food Stamp Program in a Post-Welfare Reform Environment, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economics Report No. (AER773) 36 pp, March 1999 • MacDonald, Maurice. Food, Stamps, and Income Maintenance. New York: Academic Pres, Inc, 1977. • United States Department of Health and Human Services, "2002 Indicators of Welfare Dependence Appendix A: Program Data: Food Stamp Program" • Article based on the USDA Web publication: A Short History of the Food Stamp Program ; Attribution • ==External links==
tickerdossier.comtickerdossier.substack.com