Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

           The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as “Food Stamps,” was established in 1964 when the Food Stamp Act (see Appendix 1) was enacted. In 2017, SNAP served 42 million people, including almost 70% families with children, with $63.6 billion in benefits (FY2017). SNAP also provide nutritional support to low-income senior, minimum and low-wage working families, as well as people with disabilities living paycheck-by-paycheck or with no income at all. In this paper, we will address SNAP as a social issue, its goals, and effects. Furthermore, we will provide possible alternatives to make SNAP more accessible to individuals.

SNAP AS SOCIAL PROBLEM

SNAP is one of the main sources of support for those with earnings less than 50% of the poverty line (Pathways: 2015), and it is considered by the USDA as the largest program in the domestic hunger safety net due to providing nutrition assistance to millions of low-income individuals and families. To be eligible for SNAP, applicants must meet work requirements including registering for work or accepting a job opportunity when offered, participating in employment/training programs (if assigned by the State), and not reducing hours or voluntarily quitting a job. However, some restrictions may apply for those not subject to those requirements, for example, children, seniors, pregnant women, people with a disability or mental health issues.

Another requirement to apply for/or maintain your SNAP status is income. With the exception of households with a disable or an elderly member, the gross monthly income of the adult-applicants must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line, this is $2,213 (about $26,600 a year) for a family of three (see Appendix B). However, this does not indicate that everyone could be eligible if s/he meets the requirements, like in the case of undocumented immigrants and most college students. Another social issue linked to SNAP is that when it comes to having a job, some employers, such as retailers, do not guarantee hours to employees, which means that if a person works over 20 hours within a week at Market Basket (per say), s/he can find that her/his hours were cut for the following week. This not only could have a negative impact regarding SNAP requirements but also could affect their household and lead to other social issues such as food insecurity.

In 2017, the Trump administration’s budget proposed cutting $193 billion or 25 percent from SNAP with the goals of tightening eligibility and work requirements. Although Congress has not yet voted on this budget, this action could increase the percentage of households and individuals who are facing or could face food insecurity. About 15 million households were food insecure according to USDA data in 2017. Although the USDA points out that the number has declined from 12.3 percent a year earlier, the Center for Poverty Research claims that, in a study made in 2011, a comparison was made between birth outcomes among children born in counties that were early adopters of the Food Stamp program and other counties that adopted a few years later. The study found that among all families who received Food Stamps, “the incidence of low birth weight was about seven percent lower for White infants and about three percent lower for Black infants.” This is one of the goals or purpose of SNAP in the first place.

POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

From its beginning, the primary goals of the Food Stamps Program was to allow individuals on relief to buy ‘orange stamps’ (which were used to buy any food) for an equal value of dollars, and to receive $.50 towards blue stamps per each time they used $1 worth of orange stamps (which could only be used to buy surplus food determined by the Department of Agriculture). In 1964, the program became permanent per the request of President Johnson who urged Congress to pass legislation on a law which objectives were to provide better-quality nutrition among low-income households regardless of race, national origin, religion, or political beliefs, as well as to strengthen the agricultural economy. The department named this law as The Food Stamp Act (1964), even though, the program became available nationwide in early 1975 (in the case for Puerto Rico).

THE FOOD STAMP ACT OF 1964

Public Law 88-525

88th Congress, H.R. 10222

August 31, 1964

 [An Act] To strengthen the agricultural economy; to help to achieve a fuller and more effective use of food abundances; to provide for improved levels of nutrition among low-income households through a cooperative Federal-State program of food assistance to be operated through normal channels of trade, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that this Act may be cited as “The Food Stamp Act of 1964”

Nowadays, the goal of SNAP is to increase food security and reduce hunger by increasing access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education for low-income Americans. In the same way, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council include that SNAP goals are “raising the level of nutrition among low-income households and maintaining adequate levels of nutrition by increasing the food purchasing power of low-income families.” Another goal the National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine states is that SNAP purpose is increasing resources for the purchase of food for a nutritious diet in order to alleviate hunger and malnutrition.

POLICY EFFECTS

             Like many policies, SNAP has its positive and negative effects in our society. One of the negative effects of this policy came after some crimes committed throughout the years. To exemplify, between 1981 and 1983, federal taskforce discovered up to 1,390 indictments of food stamp fraud nationally -that when the term ‘Welfare Queen’ was born. Nowadays, the idea of people claiming that groups of ‘welfare’ recipients are “ripping off the American taxpayer by claiming benefits for which they aren’t eligible, claiming more benefits than those to which they are legally entitled, and by selling off food stamps to buy other non-food items, such as guns or drugs,” as TIME reported.

Stigmas and misconceptions are also big barriers for individuals who need the nutritional assistance but are ashamed or afraid of using their EBT card on the public. This is a social problem that has been known by the USDA. Feeding America relates the story of a person named Dawn who have struggled with the stigmas around SNAP. In the entry, Dawn explains that despite having worked full time the entire life, Dawn was laid off when the economy fell and, “I could not afford to feed my family.” Dawn decided to apply for SNAP, but one day, while waiting in line at the grocery store, Dawn heard a woman complaining about "all these losers and their food stamps… I could never eat as well as these people and I work for a living.” Ashamed, Dawn leaves the line and the lady told, “Well you don't look like you're on food stamps!" Sadly, stories like Dawn’s keep showing around the internet and across the country.

On the positive side and as a response or fight to the stigma around the Food Stamp Program, the USDA changed the program’s name to SNAP. In the same way, the department changed the food stamp coupons to an electronic card named “Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)” that looks and works like a debit card. Participants of SNAP, Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC) and Emergency Aid to the Elderly, Disabled, and Children (EAEDC) can use the EBT card. Additionally, the USDA created strategies to help prevent program fraud, like the SNAP Fraud Framework which combines “innovations in the use of analytics with concepts and practices from industry in order to more effectively detect potential fraud and improve administration and oversight.” Moreover, the department recognizes that “fraud is not a static concept and one size does not fit all.”

Safety net like SNAP not only helps cutting poverty by half but is also attached to health benefits. A 2016 study found that the “availability of food stamps leads to more food consumption and thus one clear channel is through an increase in nutrition in the critical in utero and early life period” (Hoynes: 2016). The study concludes by stating that this safety net has a positive effect on its consumers or participants, as it helps in the strong, “long-term improvements in health.” Another outcome is that SNAP helps bridge the gap between the need for food and the ability to purchase it.

IMPLICATIONS

For the most part, SNAP depends on federal funding since ‘day one.’ The 2000 Congressional Research Service Report for Congress claims that amendments to the 1977 [Food Stamp] Act during the early 1980’s “significantly restricted eligibility and benefits but beginning in the mid-1980’s and continuing through amendments in 1990 and 1993, program benefits were generally increased.” However, funding and benefits have been shifting. For instance, CRS report that the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L. 104-193) “incorporated the most extensive changes in the program since the 1977 rewrite of the law,” and lowered expected spending by an estimated 13 percent, over $20 billion through FY2002. Unfortunately, this era is not an exception when it comes to such cuttings.

Trump administration had a new proposal to replace half of SNAP benefits with a box of canned or packaged foods. This can be considered as taking away the ability of a SNAP participant to choose her/his meal/food. In the same way, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities claims that Trump’s 2019 budget proposes to cut the SNAP by 30 percent or over $213 billion within the next ten years. The Center express their concern in how this cut would affect 4 million people, “the unemployed, the elderly, and low-income working families with children would bear the brunt of the cuts.” (see Appendix C for more details on Trump’s 2019 budget proposal). With news like this is inevitable for one to ask ourselves why? why basically taking away the opportunity for the supplemental nutrition of millions of individuals who are living with wages under poverty?

SNAP not only support families but also our macroeconomic spending and production. According to a USDA report, “ERS research has estimated a multiplier of SNAP benefits on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 1.79, that is, an increase of $1 billion in SNAP benefits increases GDP by $1.79 billion and results in an increase of 8,900-17,900 full-time equivalent jobs.” Furthermore, the study states that each dollar spent on SNAP stimulates US economy by adding $1.73 in economic activity.

ALTERNATIVE VALUES

SNAP should be seen as a nutrition program, not linked to the stigma attached to the word “welfare.” Throughout years, people who benefit from safety nets such as SNAP have been exposed to misconceptions, bullying, and rude behavior. This has been part of my life as well, as a single parent who benefits from SNAP because my income does not allow me to be nearly as independent as I wish. Just like my case, many other lives depend on SNAP; for that reason, this social issue should not be taken in a light manner. I agree with some restrictions such as the work requirements for able-bodied individuals who are capable of work and become more self-efficient; however, how do we successfully recognize who is consider an able-bodied person? On another note, I wish SNAP recipients who are also college students could have the opportunity to use their EBT card at their school marketplace. Even further, I would like to see more efforts made on creating a program that gives the students to SNAP the access to hot meals in the dining halls. Meanwhile, we ought to keep on being a voice for those who do not have one.

“Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice” -Nelson Mandela

Works Cited

Hoynes, Hilary et al. 2016. “Long-run impacts of childhood access to the safety net.” The      American Economic Review. 106(4): 903–934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130375

“Safety Net” (pp. 38) in The State of the States: The Poverty and Inequality Report 2015.

Pathways. Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality.

APPENDIX A: THE FOOD STAMP ACT

APPENDIX B: SNAP INCOME

Household Size	Gross monthly income (130 percent of poverty)	Net monthly income (100 percent of poverty)
1	$1,307	$ 1,005
2	$1,760	$1,354
3	$2,213	$1,702
4	$2,665	$2,050
5	$3,118	$2,399
6	$3,571	$2,747
7	$4,024	$3,095
8	$4,477	$3,444
Each additional member	+$453	+$349

Source: US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. FY 2018

APPENDIX C: TRUMP’S CUTS

The President’s budget would also expand the reach of a stringent three-month time limit under the existing program.  Currently, SNAP participants age 18 to 49 who are not raising minor children cannot receive benefits for more than three months in a 36-month period unless they work 20 hours a week.  States can exempt particularly vulnerable individuals, such as those in high-unemployment areas.  But the President’s budget would make qualifying for those exemptions much harder.  It also would raise the maximum age for those facing the time limit to 62 beginning in 2021, exposing 2 million more individuals to the limits, including older Americans who face additional obstacles to work.

Text and Table (below) Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

TABLE 1
SNAP Cuts in the President’s 2019 Budget
Proposal	Ten-Year Federal Savings from SNAP Cuts
Cut SNAP benefits and shift a portion to food boxes		-$131.7 billion
State administrative costs for distributing food boxes		$2.5 billion
Restrict categorical eligibility		-$30.6 billion
Limit time-limit waivers		-$17.8 billion
Apply time limit through age 62, and change “elderly” definition to begin at age 63		-$5.9 billion
Eliminate “15% exemptions” from time limit		-$3.2 billion
Eliminate minimum benefit		-$2.7 billion
Cap large households’ benefit		-$1.7 billion
Eliminate Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)/Terminate the SNAP-LIHEAP Connection		-$13.1 billion
Impose standardized utility allowances across states		-$10.2 billion
Cap state administrative expenses		-$9.8 billion
Eliminate SNAP nutrition education		-$4.7 billion
Mandate the National Accuracy Clearinghouse		-$1.1 billion
Eliminate state performance bonuses		-$480 million
Interactions/effect of other budget proposals on SNAP*		about $17 billion
Total		-$213.5 billion

* The savings for individual proposals exceed total projected savings because some of the provisions impact the same households.  This line captures the difference between the reported ten-year savings and the sum of the individual proposals, which we believe represent interactions between proposals and the indirect effect of proposed policy changes in other areas on SNAP.

Source: The estimates of the size of the cuts throughout this paper are based on the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget of the U.S. Government at https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/ and the “Explanatory Notes” the Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides to Congress, available at https://www.obpa.usda.gov/32fns2019notes.pdf.