Will Food Stamps Come Ealy Again in Case of Friday Shtdown

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) includes among its goals to increment food security and reduce hunger by increasing access to nutrient, a healthful diet, and nutrition education for low-income Americans. Nutrition aid programs offered by USDA include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan (SNAP); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the National Schoolhouse Tiffin and School Breakfast (School Meals) Programs, including summer nutrient service; the Child and Adult Intendance Nutrient Program (CACFP); Food Assistance for Disaster Relief; the Emergency Food Assistance Program; the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations; and nutrient distribution programs such equally the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. SNAP, formerly called the Food Postage Plan, is the nation's largest nutrition assistance program and a key automatic stabilizer of family unit well-being during economic downturns. In fiscal year (FY) 2011, SNAP served more than than 46 million Americans at a price of more than than $75 billion (FNS, 2012a). This chapter reviews the history of SNAP, the SNAP benefit formula and eligibility, the definition of the SNAP allotment, trends in plan participation and costs, and trends in food insecurity and poverty and how they are affected by the SNAP program. The terminal section presents conclusions.

MILESTONES IN THE HISTORY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL Nutrition Assistance Plan

SNAP is administrated past USDA in cooperation with state social service agencies. The authorizing legislation states that the program is intended to "alleviate hunger and malnutrition" by "let[ing] depression-income households to obtain a more than nutritious diet through normal channels of trade."^{^ane} Today this goal is accomplished through the issuance of monthly benefits in the form of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards that can exist used in retail food stores. The SNAP benefit is based on the Thrifty Food Programme (TFP), which is intended to provide a minimal-price, healthy nutrition based on household size (meet Box 2-1) (Carlson et al., 2007a).

Households with very picayune or no income receive the full TFP amount. Other households receive the TFP corporeality minus 30 percent of their net income because the SNAP program assumes that each household with income can contribute 30 per centum of that income to the buy of nutrient. To the extent that 30 percent of household income is bereft to purchase an amount of food equal to the TFP market basket, the SNAP benefit is issued in an amount that, combined with 30 percent of household income, totals the TFP amount for that household size (FNS, 2012b). For example, a household of four people with internet income of $1,000 per month is expected to spend $300 per calendar month of its net income for food. Considering information technology needs $612 to purchase the TFP market handbasket, SNAP issues the household $312 in benefits.^² Eligibility for benefits is based on a gross income limit of 130 percent of the federal poverty threshold for a given household size, and net income may non exceed 100 percent of that threshold (households that comprise an elderly or disabled person are exempt from the gross income test). The TFP, basic eligibility rules, and benefit levels are the same throughout the contiguous The states. See Figure 2-i for a timeline of the dates of key SNAP legislation, as well every bit changes in participation and average benefit amounts over time.

The Early Program

SNAP was preceded by the original Nutrient Stamp Plan of 1939 and the airplane pilot programs of the early 1960s. The 1939 program was initiated to marshal growing nutrient surpluses with a concern for the needs of the poor equally the country emerged from the Groovy Low. The program grew out of a commodities distribution program in which commodities were purchased for a nonprofit, noncapital corporation, the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation, whose goal was to encourage domestic consumption of surplus food as a source of unemployment relief. With the new plan, people on relief (public assistance) purchased orange stamps for $i each, up to an amount approximately equal to their normal monthly food expenditure. For every orange stamp they purchased, they received a bluish postage worth 50 cents. The orange stamps could be used to buy any food, while the blue stamps were for foods USDA deemed surplus. The program operated in virtually half of U.Due south. counties and served well-nigh four million people a month at its peak (FNS, 2012c). The Secretary of Agriculture'due south 1939 almanac report^³ included the post-obit description of the plan: "In times of great agronomical surpluses, which usually are accompanied past dandy unemployment, it will be at that place to do a minimum job in terms of minimum diets below which the public health would be endangered. The broader market place made information technology possible for farmers in times of stress will help to stabilize our whole economy" (p. 719). Not surprisingly, the program was widely pop with the general public, participants, and grocers. By 1943, all the same, the programme was terminated considering of reduced availability of surpluses due to the state of war endeavour and a decline in unemployment levels (FNS, 2012d).

The Programme of the 1960s and the Food Stamp Human action of 1964

Nonetheless, the Nutrient Stamp Program was not forgotten, and interest in the program connected until 1960, when it again became a reality. During his presidential campaign in West Virginia, Senator John F. Kennedy promised to get-go a food stamp program if elected. His first executive order on Jan 21, 1961 (White House, 1961), expanded food distribution programs and was followed past a February announcement that USDA would initiate a serial of food stamp pilot programs. Starting with eight sites, the initiative eventually expanded to 43. The success of these pilot programs led President Lyndon Johnson to request in 1964 that a permanent Food Stamp Program be enacted.^⁴ He signed such a programme into police force later on that year nether the auspices of his "War on Poverty" (FNS, 2012d).

The original blueish and orange stamps were replaced with food coupons, which participants were still expected to purchase. The so-called buy requirement was considered essential to ensuring that the food postage stamp benefit would equal the cost of a healthy diet for the family'south size. Country welfare agencies would determine eligibility, and households not on public assistance could use at those offices. Whatsoever food for home consumption could be purchased except imported foods (exceptions were made for java, tea, and bananas). Alcohol and tobacco purchases were specifically prohibited. Counties were added to the program every bit they made requests and appropriations allowed. Past April 1965, there were more than one-half a million participants, and past the time of the adjacent major programme changes, in Feb 1971, there were 10 million participants (FNS, 2012c).

The 1970s: National Eligibility Standards, Nationwide Expansion, and Elimination of the Buy Requirement

Program revisions in 1971 replaced the state-by-country rules with national eligibility standards.^⁵ In 1974, the Food Stamp Program expanded across the nation. Before the nationwide expansion, many counties operated commodity distribution programs in lieu of the Food Postage Plan, in office considering the bolt were intended to comprehend a family's full food needs for a month with no cash contribution.

The adjacent major changes to the Food Stamp Program resulted from the Nutrient Stamp Act of 1977.^{^six} The buy requirement ensured that a family unit would receive coupons valued at what USDA determined to be the cost of a healthy diet; all the same, it had a depressing effect on program participation. After heated debate, the purchase requirement was eliminated, and participants were to receive only the formerly gratis portion of their benefit in coupons; they were expected to go on to buy a good for you diet by supplementing their coupons with greenbacks (the 30 pct of net income dominion). Following implementation in 1979, the reforms did indeed result in a greater percentage of eligible households participating in the program; during the month in which the purchase requirement was lifted, participation increased by 1.5 meg over the previous month (FNS, 2012c).

Many other significant changes were included in the 1977 law, but ane change that did not make the concluding cutting was an attempt to limit the types of foods that could be purchased, excluding those with low nutritional value. The nib did require that food stamp funds exist given to the Expanded Food and Diet Pedagogy Program (EFNEP) operated past the USDA Extension Service, to increase its ability to educate food postage stamp participants in nutrition^⁷ (come across Chapter four for further data).

The 1980s Through Today

In the 1980s, legislators expressed concern most the size and cost of the Nutrient Stamp Program, and subsequent legislation, amidst other things, limited participation past requiring households to meet a gross income test and decreasing the frequency of cost-of-living adjustments for allotments (FNS, 2012c). Legislation in 1988^⁸ increased the TFP by 3 percent in recognition of the fourth dimension lag between the toll-of-living adjustments and their implementation over time. Later in that decade, the 3 percent increase was eliminated.^⁹

Every bit part of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act,^{^x} a number of changes were made to the Nutrient Postage Programme, including giving states greater administrative control, eliminating eligibility for legal noncitizen residents^{^xi} (partially restored in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 [Farm Bill]^¹²), limiting eligibility for able-bodied adults without dependents, and officially adopting the EBT system for do good delivery (Committee on Ways and Means, 2004). The EBT system went nationwide in 2002. It is designed to reduce fraud in the program and potential stigma resulting from the utilise of paper coupons (FNS, 2012c).

In Apr 2009, as office of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Human activity,^¹³ a 13.6 pct increase was added to the TFP for most households (about $80 for a family of four) in an effort to aid bound-showtime the economy and in recognition of the economic challenges faced by program participants. This increase in the TFP, which translated into a college maximum benefit corporeality, is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2013.

SNAP Benefit FORMULA AND ELIGIBILITY

Benefit Formula

Participants' monthly benefits, accessed using an EBT card, allow them to purchase nutrient items for employ at home, as well as seeds and plants to produce nutrient. Consistent with its original design, SNAP is intended to supplement money a household has bachelor for nutrient purchases as described earlier. The purchasing ability of the benefits, yet, is affected by changes in food prices over the benefit period, equally well as by other costs, such equally those for fuel and shelter, and employment and income volatility. The cost-of-living adjustment for the TFP is discussed below. Other adjustments to reverberate the cost of living are applied to the shelter deduction, the standard deduction, and the resource limit (FNS, 2012b). Box two-2 provides a basic overview of the SNAP benefit formula.

The SNAP resource allotment for a household is determined past the maximum benefit guarantee, the benefit reduction rate, and net income. For purposes of the SNAP program, a household is divers as individuals who alive together and who mostly buy and consume meals together. If the individuals are related past birth, marriage, or adoption, they are counted as part of the household (except that a person aged 60 or older who is incapable of preparing his or her own meals may exist treated as a separate household); if the individuals are non related and do non share meals, they can apply separately (FNS, 2012b).

The maximum benefit, for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia for FY 2012, is shown in Table ii-1 (the amounts for Alaska and Hawaii are higher). As was the case in earlier versions of the program, the benefit reduction charge per unit is fixed across the nation at 30 percent under the expectation that households should be responsible for almost a 3rd of their monthly food expenses, although with the formal deductions, the rate is finer reduced to about 15–20 percent (Ziliak, 2008).

Table two-1

Maximum SNAP Benefits for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia (October i, 2011, Through September 30, 2012).

As depicted in Box two-2, several expenses are deducted from household gross income to go far at net income. SNAP allows 20 percent of labor market earnings to exist deducted from gross income to account for work-related expenses such equally transportation.^¹⁴ Child back up payments are deducted. All households receive a standard deduction intended to cover emergency and unusual household expenses; the amount of this deduction varies by household size ($147 in FY 2012 for households comprising i to three people, $155 for households of 4 or more people). The excess shelter deduction takes effect when households spend 50 percent or more of their income on housing after all other deductions, and is capped at $459 in FY 2012 for the contiguous U.s.a. (FNS, 2012b). The standard deduction is set at 8.31 percentage of the income eligibility standard for each household size (but not to exceed 8.31 percent for a household of 6). It is adapted each fiscal yr to reflect changes for the 12-calendar month period ending the preceding June thirty using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers for items other than food (BLS, 2012).^¹⁵ The shelter deduction (see Affiliate v) is adapted to reflect changes for the financial year using the CPI for All Urban Households for the previous 12-month period ending the preceding November xxx.^¹⁶ These income deductions are discussed further in Chapter 5. The deduction for out-of-pocket medical costs in excess of $35 is allowed just for those anile 60 and older and the disabled.

If net income is goose egg or negative, the household qualifies for the maximum do good. At the other farthermost, the SNAP allotment can, in theory, be zero, but USDA sets a nominal do good floor ($sixteen in FY 2012 for i- to two-person households in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia [FNS, 2012e]).

About 80 percent of all benefits are used within the showtime 2 weeks of issuance, and more 91 percentage of all benefits are used by the 21st day (FNS, 2012f). This has led some people to suggest that benefits might be issued semimonthly to smooth use over the month (Orszag, 2012; Wilde, 2007). Amongst the arguments made in favor of such semimonthly delivery of benefits is that show suggests the caloric intake of SNAP recipients declines x to 15 percent at the end of the month (Shapiro, 2005), and admissions to hospitals for hypoglycemia increase significantly among food insecure diabetics (Seligman et al., 2011). This change, even so, could event in increased programme administration costs and peradventure reduced flexibility for bulk purchases among SNAP beneficiaries. The committee is unaware of whatsoever instances in which implementation of benefits more often than once monthly has occurred.^¹⁷

Bones Eligibility

Basic eligibility for SNAP requires passing two income tests and 2 nugget tests. The gross income test requires that gross income exist less than 130 percent of the federal poverty threshold for the household size, while the net income test requires that internet income be less than 100 per centum of the poverty threshold (see Tabular array 2-ii for FY 2012 limits). The gross income test is waived for households containing persons aged lx and older and those receiving certain inability payments, although the net income test still applies. The asset tests are a liquid nugget exam of $two,000 ($3,250 for persons aged 60 and older or disabled); such avails include, for example, most forms of greenbacks, checking accounts, savings, stocks, and bonds, and a vehicle value examination of $four,650 (FNS, 2012b). The value of the home is excluded from the nugget exam (FNS, 2012b), as is the earned income tax credit. Still, if the earned income tax credit is not spent for more than 12 months, whatsoever remaining corporeality is counted as a resources (some states have shorter windows).^{^eighteen} The asset limit is adjusted each fiscal yr to reflect changes in the CPI for All Urban Households, rounded downwardly to the nearest $250 increment (FNS, 2011). Most states (36) waive the value of all vehicles, and an additional 15 waive the value of the primary vehicle (FNS, 2010).

TABLE 2-2

SNAP Income Limits for the 48 Face-to-face States and the District of Columbia (October 1, 2011, Through September 30, 2012).

Categorical Eligibility

Most recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and General Help are categorically eligible for SNAP and thus non subject to the above income and nugget tests (FNS, 2012b). In 2010, some 24 percent of the SNAP caseload was categorically eligible for this reason, compared with 42 percent in 1996. The TANF-only share of the caseload declined from 37 per centum in 1996 to 8 percentage in 2010, mainly because of the decline in TANF recipients following welfare reform (Eslami et al., 2011).

Under broad-based categorical eligibility, households may become categorically eligible based on the receipt of noncash assistance from TANF or state maintenance-of-effort coin. The noncash benefits range from receipt of brochures made available in certification offices to actual enrollment in employment programs. Some 47 states employ noncash categorical eligibility for gross income eligibility, and of these, 41 states use the broadest definition (FNS, 2010). These state options have become controversial.

DEFINITION OF THE SNAP Resource allotment

The Economy Food Plan and Individual Benefits

The Economic system Food Plan, commencement established in 1961, was used to determine maximum nutrient stamp benefits until 1975, when a U.Southward. Excursion Court ruled that the plan did not adequately address the needs of individuals of different sexes and ages. The court ruled that "substantially all recipients" should have access to a healthy nutrition and directed the Secretary of Agriculture to outcome regulations that would either individualize allotments or "increase the 'average' resource allotment and then that virtually all recipients are swept inside it."^¹⁹

In response to the court's guidance, in January 1976 the Secretary replaced the Economy Food Programme with the TFP at the same cost level, and the Food Stamp Act of 1977 inverse the proposal to specifically support that administrative action. Today'southward statute (1) specifies that the TFP is the ground of the SNAP maximum do good, (2) defines a reference family's historic period and sex composition (run across next section), and (iii) requires annual updates to reverberate the cost of the plan. Further, the statute makes clear that the TFP is the ground of the do good "regardless of [a household'southward] actual limerick."^²⁰

The Thrifty Food Plan

The TFP is "an assortment of foods that represents as little change from average food consumption of families with relatively low food costs as required to provide a nutritious diet, while controlling for cost."^²¹ As depicted in Figure 2-2, the TFP provides a market basket for each of 15 age-sex groups. For SNAP purposes, however, the program bases maximum benefits on the market basket for a household comprising a male person and female person aged 19–50 and ii children aged half-dozen–8 and 9–eleven. This is called the "reference family," meaning that the TFP maximum benefit is based on this four-person family unit composition. A 5 per centum waste cistron is factored in, and economies of scale are applied past household size.

FIGURE 2-two

Thrifty Food Plan methodology. SOURCE: Carlson et al., 2007a.

Other Food Plans

The TFP is the to the lowest degree costly of iv plans adult past USDA to represent market baskets at dissimilar cost levels that conform to the virtually current dietary standards. The other three food plans are the Low-Cost Food Plan, the Moderate-Cost Food Programme, and the Liberal Nutrient Plan. The Low-Toll program represents food expenditures for the second-from-the-bottom quartile of nutrient spending, the Moderate-Toll plan represents the second-from-the-meridian quartile, and the Liberal plan represents the peak quartile. The plans are typically updated every 5 years, although the last update was in 2006. For a family of four, the monthly cost of the TFP in June 2011 was $612, compared with $796 for the Low-Cost programme, $995 for the Moderate-Cost programme, and $ane,208 for the Liberal plan.^²² The Low-Cost plan often is used by defalcation courts to allocate the portion of a person's income that is necessary for nutrient expenses. The Liberal plan is used by the Section of Defence force to determine the Basic Allowance for Subsistence rates for all service members. All three of these plans are used to set state child support and foster care payments through USDA's report Expenditures on Children by Families (Carlson et al., 2007b).

All plans meet the aforementioned caloric level for each age-gender group and are based on the 1997–2006 Dietary Reference Intakes (IOM, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2005a,b), the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) (HHS and USDA, 2005), and the 2005 MyPyramid food intake recommendations (USDA, 2005). All plans also are capped at their original levels merely adjusted for inflation each year. A waste product gene of 5, 10, 20, and xxx pct is calculated for the TFP and the Low-Toll, Moderate-Cost, and Liberal plans, respectively. All plans are for nutrient consumed at home.

Cost-of-Living Adjustments

The TFP is updated monthly, simply the SNAP maximum do good is updated only annually (see Chapter five). These updates are based on the CPI for the 29 food categories in the TFP that accept a corresponding CPI or gear up of CPIs for each age-sex activity group (Carlson et al., 2007a). The maximum benefit is updated in October of each yr using the previous June's TFP cost, thereby resulting in a lag of 4 to sixteen months. Between June and Oct 2008, for example, the cost of the TFP rose from $588 to $606, a iii.1 percent increment, for a family unit of 4 (Hanson and Andrews, 2008). An Economic Research Service (2008) study suggests two alternative aligning methods: using 103 percent of the TFP or semiannual adjustments. A 3 percent increase in the maximum benefit in Oct would still result in a lag in benefits for some months, only over the course of FY 2008, for example, the benefit reduction per household would have been equivalent to $12.40 rather than $22.00 per month. The semiannual aligning would take reduced the per household average monthly do good reduction equivalent from $22.00 to $16.20 per month. Both methods have been used in the past simply to be terminated when programme cost savings were needed.

As described in Affiliate 4 (Effigy 4-three), the CPI for food has lagged backside the TFP cost index. This alphabetize is calculated by USDA's Centre for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) using cost data provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Every bit a result of this lag, participants' nutrient purchasing ability may pass up farther to the extent that adjustments fail to business relationship fully for the rise in the cost of the TFP.

Thrifty Nutrient Programme: Dietary and Consumption Considerations

To determine the market baskets, the most recent TFP uses (1) the 1997–2005 Recommended Dietary Allowances, Adequate Intakes, and Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (IOM, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2005a,b); (2) the recommendations of the 2005 DGA (HHS and USDA, 2005); and (iii) the 2005 MyPyramid food intake patterns (USDA, 2005).

The DGA are federal nutrition policy and every bit such are the basis of nutrition guidance for all federal nutrient assistance programs, including WIC, the School Meals programs, and CACFP. Although participants' use of SNAP benefits is not directly tied to the DGA, the guidelines serve as the basis for educational programs for participants—SNAP-Ed and EFNEP. USDA-FNS views these educational programs as shared targeting that reinforces and builds on important nutrition messages across programs using multiple sources.^²³ Appendix G provides a list of the 2010 DGA.

The TFP uses 58 different food groups in quantities equally similar as possible to the current consumption pattern of low-income households using information from the 2001–2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for the reference family. USDA notes that while in that location is difference from these reported purchasing patterns, the marketplace basket for this family contains more than pounds of food than the average family reports eating (Carlson et al., 2007b). Pricing is based on the 2005 A.C. Nielsen Homescan Panel (NCP, 2012).

Thrifty Food Plan: Cost Considerations

Updated TFPs should cost no more the previous plan adjusted for inflation; in other words, the price level of the TFP should remain constant. In its TFP publication, CNPP states that "considering 2001–2002 consumption data underlie the 2006 revision of the TFP market baskets CNPP express the price of each group's revised TFP market basket to equal the average real costs of its previous TFP market handbasket for the 2001–2002 flow. This constant real-cost constraint was used to examine whether and how a person could achieve a nutritious diet based on electric current dietary needs" (Carlson et al., 2007a, p. 18). CNPP states further that it was able to come across the cost constraint. However, the commission establish that the expectations of program participants imposed by this approach were non always realistic given constraints on access to low-priced foods, the lack of cooking skills for the "from-scratch" preparation often assumed in the TFP, the lack of variety in meals using the ingredients causeless in the plan, and other considerations.

Audits by the Part of the Inspector General

A report issued by USDA's Role of the Inspector General found the TFP methodology to be sound. However, the post-obit caveat was cited: "While noting the lack of a statistical basis for the food pricing data obtained through the A.C. Nielsen Homescan Reporting Service, we were unable to place any better source for employ in developing a food price database" (OIG, 2009).

Home Consumption Limitation

SNAP has ever limited food purchases to food consumed at home, with the exception of accommodations for some elderly and disabled persons, the homeless, and some treatment centers. The program also limits prepared foods such that hot nutrient may non be purchased with SNAP benefits (run into the discussion of eligible foods later in this chapter).

A 2006 report of the Economical Research Service used the 2002 Consumer Expenditure Survey to estimate that low-income households spent 125 percent of the calculated cost of the TFP if nutrient consumed both at dwelling and away from home was considered (Blisard and Stewart, 2006). If food consumed abroad from abode was non considered, however, low-income households spent about 86 percent of the level suggested by the TFP for nutrient consumed at home. Using NHANES data for 2001 and 2002, USDA estimated that the TFP would need to be increased by 7 percent if just 1 meal a week per person were eaten abroad from abode (Lin and Carlson, 2010). Lin and Carlson note further that "assuasive for SNAP benefits to be spent on food away from home, which is generally nutritionally junior to food at dwelling house, may help SNAP participants balance fourth dimension constraints and other needs, but could also brand eating healthy even more challenging" (p. ane).

Thrifty Food Plan: Economies of Scale

As noted to a higher place, the TFP is designed for a reference family of two adults and two children, and the cost is then adjusted for families of different sizes. The adjustment factors reverberate economies of scale in nutrient purchases since larger packages usually have lower costs per unit. Under typical circumstances, for instance, a large family may be able to consume a gallon of milk before it spoils, but a small family unit may exist able to consume only a quart of milk. If milk prices are lower per ounce in larger containers, the cost per person of milk consumption is lower for the large family. To account for these economies of calibration, the per-person benefit for a family of four is increased by five percent for a family of three, by 10 per centum for a family unit of two, and past 20 percent for a family of 1. Conversely, per-person benefits are reduced by 5 percent for families with v or six members and past ten per centum for those with vii or more members.

Foods Eligible for Buy with Benefits

The Nutrient Stamp Act of 1964

Co-ordinate to the Food Stamp Act of 1964,^²⁴ eligible foods included any foods for human consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and foods identified on the package as imported meat and meat products. The Business firm Agriculture Committee tried at the time to prohibit soft drinks, luxury foods, and luxury frozen foods, simply the Senate Agriculture Committee declined, saying that the restriction would crusade "insurmountable administrative bug."^²⁵ The bones definition in the 1964 human activity remained essentially unchanged until 1977 with some exceptions, including the additions outlined below.

In 1970, the elderly homebound and disabled were allowed to use coupons for meals prepared and delivered to them by private nonprofit organizations or political subdivisions every bit long as the provider received no federal fiscal assist. Meals On Wheels was specifically cited as eligible to take coupons donated by these households on a voluntary basis. In 1973, the Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act^²⁶ eliminated the imported foods limitation; added plants and seeds equally eligible foods; and allowed food coupons to be accepted past communal dining facilities for the disabled and elderly, as well as habit treatment programs. An attempt at that time to ban not-nutritious foods was defeated on the House floor.^²⁷

The Food Stamp Act of 1977

In the debate on the 1977 Food Stamp Act, the House Agriculture Committee considered the issue of "junk foods." In that location was an effort to ascertain such foods as those "which the Secretary, subsequently consultation not less than once annually with the President of the National Enquiry Council of the NAS (Food and Nutrition Board) determines to take such negligible or low nutritional value or insignificant enhancement of palatability as to be inappropriate for inclusion in a healthy diet."^²⁸ This amendment failed fifty-fifty though it included some other provision that had passed that would have excluded water ice cubes, artificial food coloring, powdered and liquid cocktail mixes, chewing gum, carbonated drinks, and cooking wines.^²⁹

The amendment's defeat was attributed to business near the difficulty it would cause the Secretary, the authoritative burden on retailers, and the uncertain state of nutrition science. Information technology was also recognized that eliminating the provision that such items could not be obtained with benefits meant households could purchase the items anyway within their food budgets. When program participants were required to pay for a portion of their food do good, their cash and the benefit were returned to them in the form of coupons that could be used just to purchase foods. When households no longer had to turn their cash contribution into coupons, only the federal benefit portion continued to be received as coupons, and households could use their cash for whatever food or nonfood purchases. Even though hot foods ready for immediate consumption were never permitted, the House committee did officially ban such foods except in communal dining situations and in restaurants used by the elderly. "If the fast food stores cannot redeem food stamps, the Committee thought that grocery stores should not be permitted an unfair advantage."^³⁰ The ban on hot foods was included in the 1977 law and remains in the current law. The result of contest among outlets that sold hot foods arose when USDA disallowed Kentucky Fried Chicken™ from becoming a food stamp–approved retailer. The company sued and won in District Court, but on October 7, 1971, the Fifth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals upheld USDA'south right to deny fast food establishments' authorisation to take benefits.^³¹

Current Law

The current law defines eligible foods equally "(1) any nutrient or nutrient product for abode consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and hot foods or hot food products set up for immediate consumption …, [and] (2) seeds and plants for utilize in gardens to produce nutrient for the personal consumption of the eligible household."^³²

Recently, the State of New York requested a waiver from the constabulary to undertake a demonstration projection restricting the purchase of carbohydrate-sweetened beverages in New York Urban center. The stated goal was to reduce obesity. USDA denied the asking on August 19, 2011. The letter of deprival raised the following concerns: New York Urban center was too large a site for such a complex proposal; retailers would face difficult operational bug; the proposal failed to address indicate-of-sale problems, which could cause defoliation and stigma for clients and retailers; and the evaluation component of the project was inadequate (USDA, 2011).

USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) further commented on its preference for incentive-based approaches and cited a project it is carrying out with Massachusetts that increases allotments when fruits and vegetables are purchased with SNAP benefits (USDA, 2011). FNS elaborates further on its views on its website.^³³ The Massachusetts pilot is the result of $20 million provided by the Food, Conservation, and Energy Human activity of 2008^³⁴ for report of the impact of an incentive-based point-of-sale project focused on increasing the purchase of fruits and vegetables. The life of the project—Healthy Incentives Airplane pilot—extended from November 2011 through Dec 2012. The pilot was located in i county and provided a credit worth 30 percent of the purchase toll of targeted fruits and vegetables bought with SNAP benefits. There was a $sixty monthly cap per household. Fruits and vegetables could be fresh, frozen, canned, or dried (MA DTA, 2011).

TRENDS IN PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND COSTS

The committee's review of the evidence revealed a number of descriptive trends in plan participation, costs, and caseload composition. Figure 2-3 depicts trends in SNAP participation and full costs from 1969 to 2011. Participation is presented in millions of persons on the left centrality and as a percent of the population on the right axis. Plan participation increased rapidly with the rollout in the 1970s, and trends remained fairly stable through the 1980s, although there were clear increases and declines in participation over the business wheel every bit the program functions as an automatic financial stabilizer. The last two decades have seen much greater variability in participation. Substantial increases in the early 1990s were followed past a pass up of more than i-3rd between 1994 and 2000 in response to changes in the business concern bicycle (Ziliak et al., 2003) and welfare policy reform (Kabbani and Wilde, 2003; Ratcliffe et al., 2008). Since then, in response to the recessions of 2001 and 2007, along with expanded outreach efforts as role of the 2002 and 2008 Farm Bills (Klerman and Danielson, 2011; Mabli and Ferrerosa, 2010), average almanac participation has increased 160 pct to more than 46 meg in FY 2012, or one in seven Americans.

$FIGURE 2-3. Trends in the number and fraction of the population receiving SNAP benefits, 1969–2011.$

FIGURE ii-3

Trends in the number and fraction of the population receiving SNAP benefits, 1969–2011. SOURCES: FNS, 2012a; U.S. Census Agency, 2012.

Mabli and colleagues (2011) examined the duration of SNAP participation by individuals from 2002 to 2004. They looked at individuals rather than households because the composition of a given household oft changes over time. Weighted data from the 2004 accomplice showed that the median elapsing of participation for individuals enrolled in SNAP was well-nigh 10 months. About 25 percent of participants that left the program, all the same, returned within 6 months, and 50 percent returned within 20 months.

Given the dramatic changes in participation in recent years, an obvious question is whether particular population subgroups (east.g., children, adults) led the trends. Table 2-3 presents changes in the age composition of the SNAP program in recent years. In a typical year over the past decade, about half of SNAP participants consisted of schoolhouse-age children and simply over xl percent nonelderly adults; these proportions inverse little even during the previous recession (Eslami et al., 2011) (elderly adults are defined as aged sixty and over for SNAP purposes).

TABLE 2-3

Distribution of SNAP Participants by Historic period Category Over Fourth dimension.

Every bit shown in Tabular array two-4, at that place has been a almost doubling of the fraction of SNAP households receiving the maximum monthly benefit over the by decade, and takeup rates increased from 64 percentage of eligible participants in 1997 to 72 percent in 2009. Eligible participants that are entitled to higher benefits are more likely to participate. In 2009, while but 72 percent of eligible households participated in the program, the participating households received 91 percent of the total benefits, in dollar terms, of the amount that would take been spent if the takeup rate were 100 percentage (Leftin et al., 2011).

Tabular array 2-4

Distribution of Participants past Do good Amount, Household Size, and Takeup Rate Over Time.

Program costs for SNAP are nearly entirely in the form of benefits and are covered by the federal government, the exception being for a small-scale portion of administrative expenses paid for past land governments. Figure 2-four demonstrates that program outlays have increased in lockstep with participation and that the growth in inflation-adjusted spending differs little from nominal growth.^³⁵ In the concluding decade, nominal spending (fixed value or price) rose 342 percent, while existent spending (change in value or price over time) increased well-nigh 250 percentage, such that past FY 2011, program costs were in excess of $75 billion, making SNAP one of the largest programs in the social safety net. Although total costs take grown speedily, inflation-adjusted per-recipient benefits changed piffling over the past three decades until the increases under the ARRA were instituted.^³⁶

FIGURE 2-four

Trends in nominal and real SNAP expenditures, 1969–2011. SOURCES: FNS, 2012a; GPO, 2012.

TRENDS IN Food INSECURITY AND POVERTY

A fundamental goal of SNAP is to alleviate hunger and malnutrition past increasing resources for the purchase of food for a nutritious diet. In 1995, USDA began monitoring food security (run across Box 2-3) past means of the almanac Nutrient Security Supplement to the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS), a nationally representative survey carried out past the U.Due south. Census Agency.^³⁷ In December of each year since 2001, about 50,000 households have responded to a series of xviii questions (10 if no children are present) that make up the Core Nutrient Security Module (CFSM) in the CPS (run across Appendix F for the list of questions). Each question is designed to capture some aspect of food insecurity, and some questions include the frequency with which that aspect manifests. Respondents are asked most their nutrient security status in the last 30 days, as well as over the past 12 months, and virtually nutrient spending and the use of federal and customs food aid programs. The 18-item food security scale is intended to capture self-assessed concerns/feet over lack of access to healthy and safe foods owing to a lack of economic resources. Information technology is measured at the household level and thus does not identify who in the household is experiencing nutrient insecurity.

A study from the National Inquiry Quango (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences reviews the concepts and methodology for measuring food insecurity and hunger. It recommends that USDA no longer refer to the more astringent forms of nutrient insecurity equally "hunger" since hunger is a physiological condition experienced at the individual level and non necessarily at the household level (NRC, 2006). In line with this recommendation, USDA has classified the most severe form of food insecurity as "very low food secure," which it identifies if a household answers affirmatively to six or more (8 or more if children are present) questions on the CFSM. The NRC (2006) written report includes the recommendation that USDA proceed to measure out and monitor nutrient insecurity regularly in a household survey. It recommends further that, given that hunger is a dissever concept from food insecurity, USDA undertake a program to measure hunger, which is an important potential consequence of nutrient insecurity. The report also concludes that sectional reliance on trends in the prevalence of food insecurity would not be an advisable measure of the effectiveness of food assistance programs such equally SNAP. For program evaluation purposes, information technology is important to know what upshot SNAP has on food insecurity. As discussed here and in Chapter 2, however, a claiming facing evaluation of the impact of SNAP on food insecurity is the prospect of reverse causality; that is, food insecure households may self-select into SNAP. Several authors take used sophisticated econometric techniques to model the self-selection process and, after controlling for nonrandom selection, by and large have found that SNAP reduces food insecurity (Gundersen and Oliveira, 2001; Kreider et al., 2012).

Figure 2-5 shows trends in 12-month prevalence rates of food insecurity and very low food security among U.S. households from 1995 through 2011. Prevalence rates for 1996 and 1997 were adjusted for the estimated effects of differences in data collection screening protocols used in those years. The supplements were conducted in various months in the initial years but since 2001 accept been fielded in December, which implies that the 12-calendar month recollect refers to the bodily year of the survey. The fraction of households experiencing nutrient insecurity or very low food security held fairly steady until the Great Recession that began at the terminate of 2007. Thereafter, food insecurity increased past 31 percent and very depression food security past 32 per centum, although both indicators fell slightly between 2009 and 2011 as the economic recovery began to gain traction.

Figure two-5

Trends in prevalence rates of food insecurity and very low nutrient security in U.S. households, 1995–2011. NOTE: Prevalence rates for 1996–1997 were adjusted for the estimated furnishings of differences in information collection and screening protocols (more...)

These trends in nutrient insecurity must exist interpreted in the context of other factors that may bear on access to food for low-income households, including changes in income distribution across the low-income range, noncash assistance (east.g., participation in other assistance programs), and other basic household needs (Nord, 2007). Indeed, an apparent contradiction in Figure 2-5 is that as SNAP participation and expenditures accelerated in the latter one-half of the past decade, food insecurity accelerated also. In fact, SNAP recipients are twice as likely as SNAP-eligible nonrecipients to report being food insecure (Tiehen et al., 2012). (A similar contradiction is seen in Figure 2-6, presented afterwards in this section.)

Figure 2-six

Trends in number of persons in poverty, sectional and inclusive of SNAP benefits, 1999–2009. SOURCE: Ziliak, 2011.

Because participation in SNAP is not probable to exist unrelated to food security status, a selection problem arises in evaluating the event of the program on food insecurity (Currie, 2003). Studies evaluating nonrandom pick past nonexperimental statistical methods (e.g., Gundersen and Oliveira, 2001; Kreider et al., 2012; Mykerezi and Mills, 2010; Yen et al., 2008) by and large have establish that SNAP reduces food insecurity.

A broader metric of the consequence of SNAP on the well-being of individuals and households is the antipoverty effectiveness of the program. While the provision of food help has a modest issue on household work endeavour (Hoynes and Schanzenbach, 2011), it increases household resources for the purchase of food and thus should reduce the incidence and severity of poverty by freeing upward income for the purchase of other appurtenances and services (Tiehen et al., 2012; Ziliak, 2011). Ziliak (2011) used information from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the CPS to guess the number of persons lifted out of poverty past SNAP in any given year from 1999 to 2009. Figure 2-6 shows that the antipoverty effectiveness of SNAP increased over the decade, with about 2 million people being lifted out of poverty each year through 2003, rapidly increasing to 4.five million in 2009, nigh probable because of expanded generosity of benefits in response to the recession. Using the same CPS data as Ziliak (2011), Tiehen and colleagues (2012) plant that SNAP participation had an even larger impact on reducing the depth and severity of poverty. Their estimates showed that SNAP benefits led to an average annual reject of 4.4 per centum in the incidence of poverty from 2000 to 2009, while the depth and severity of poverty declined 10.3 and thirteen.ii percent, respectively.^³⁸

SUMMARY

Although the basic design of SNAP (with the exception of national eligibility standards and emptying of the purchase requirement) has remained unchanged since the 1964 police was enacted, the programme has undergone many substantial changes that have resulted in its expansion and retraction over the years. These changes ofttimes accept brought new complexities to program administrators and applicants. The legislation governing today's program has specific eligibility requirements and administrative procedures that make SNAP more circuitous than other social programs. Even as many features of the program limit its ability to exist responsive to an individual household's needs, many other features, such as income deductions, are designed to make it more responsive. Striking a residual between a more targeted and a more accessible benefit has been an ongoing tension in the program. The size and the cost of the program go far a target for budget cuts, and even relatively pocket-size adjustments take the potential to impact a pregnant number of Americans.

Over the years, debates take connected near whether the program should be more than of a nutrition or an income maintenance program (including whether the in-kind benefit should exist replaced by a cash allotment); to what extent, if any, the program should limit food choices; what responsibilities participants should exist expected to have (eastward.thousand., whether they, as is now the case, should be required to seek employment if able-bodied); whether geographic distinctions should be applied in determining need and/or benefit levels; and what the program'south function should be in providing diet pedagogy and reaching out to eligible nonparticipants. Other debates take centered on the adequacy of the TFP, whether expecting households to devote 30 pct of their net income to the purchase of food is realistic, and how net income should be defined. For example, households are expected to pay upward to fifty pct of their net income for shelter with no commensurate reduction in the amount of their remaining income that should exist considered available for food purchases—they are still expected to spend 30 pct of their net income for food. These and other problems take continued to be debated since the inception of the permanent plan in 1964 and are discussed in further particular in the ensuing chapters of this report.

REFERENCES

Anderson SA. Core indicators of nutritional status for difficult-to-sample populations. Journal of Nutrition. 1990;120:1557–1600. [PubMed: 2243305]
CBO (Congressional Budget Part). The Supplemental Nutrition Help Program—Infographic. 2012. [May 31, 2012]. http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43174.
Currie J. ERS (Economical Research Service). U.S. food and nutrition programs. In: Moffitt R, editor. Means-tested transfer programs in the United states. Trends in prevalence rates of nutrient insecurity and very depression food security in U.South. households, 1995–2011. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2003. 2012. [September 17, 2012]. pp. 199–290. http://ers.usda.gov/media/246942/trebds.xls.
FNS. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Eligibility, certification, and employment and training provisions: Proposed rule. Federal Register. 2011;76(86):25414–25458.
GPO (Government Printing Function). Economic report of the President: Table B-half dozen: Chain-type quantity indexes for gross domestic product, 1963–2011. Washington, DC: GPO; 2012. [May 24, 2012]. http://world wide web.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERP-2012.
Gundersen C, Oliveira Five. The food stamp plan and nutrient insufficiency. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2001;83(four):875–887.
HHS and USDA (U.South. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture). Dietary guidelines for Americans. 6th ed. Washington, DC: U.Due south. Regime Printing Office; 2005. [June four, 2012]. http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document.
Hoynes HW, Schanzenbach DW. Work incentives and the Food Postage stamp Program. Journal of Public Economics. 2012;96(ane):151–162.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). Dietary reference intakes for calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D, and fluoride. Washington, DC: National University Press; 1997. [PubMed: 23115811]
IOM. Dietary reference intakes for thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6, folate, vitamin B12, pantothenic acrid, biotin, and choline. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998. [PubMed: 23193625]
IOM. Dietary reference intakes for vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, and carotenoids. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000. [PubMed: 25077263]
IOM. Dietary reference intakes for vitamin A, vitamin Chiliad, arsenic, boron, chromium, copper, iodine, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, silicon, vanadium, and zinc. Washington, DC: National Academy Printing; 2001. [PubMed: 25057538]
IOM. Dietary reference intakes for energy, sugar, fiber, fatty, fat acids, cholesterol, protein, and amino acids. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005a. [PubMed: 12449285]
IOM. Dietary reference intakes for h2o, potassium, sodium, chloride, and sulfate. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005b.
Kabbani N, Wilde PE. Curt recertification periods in the U.South. Food Stamp Program. Journal of Human Resources. 2003;38(Suppl):1112–1138.
Klerman JA, Danielson C. The transformation of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2003;thirty(4):863–888.
Kreider B, Pepper JV, Gundersen C, Joliffe D. Identifying the furnishings of SNAP (food stamps) on child wellness outcomes when participation is endogenous and misreported. Journal of American Statistical Association. 2012;107(499):958–975.
Mykerezi E, Mills B. The impact of Nutrient Postage stamp Programme participation on household food insecurity. American Journal of Agricultural Economic science. 2010;92(5):1379–1391.
NRC (National Research Council). Nutrient insecurity and hunger in the U.s.: An assessment of the measure. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006.
Ratcliffe C, McKernan S-One thousand, Finegold K. Furnishings of Food Stamp and TANF policies on Food Stamp receipt. Social Service Review. 2008;82(two):291–334.
Seligman HK, Jacobs EA, Lopez A, Sarkar U, Tschann J, Fernandez A. Food insecurity and hypoglycemia among safe net patients with diabetes. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2011;171(13):1204–1206. [PMC free commodity: PMC4230711] [PubMed: 21747017]
Shapiro JM. Is in that location a daily discount rate? Evidence from the food stamp nutrition bike. Journal of Public Economics. 2005;89(2–3):303–325.
USDA. Letter of the alphabet from Jessica Shahin, Acquaintance Administrator, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program USDA, to Elizabeth Berlin, Executive Deputy Commissioner, New York Country Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. August xix, 2011. 2011. [June 5, 2012]. http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/SNAP-Waiver-Request-Decision.pdf.
White House. Executive Guild 10914—Providing for an expanded program of food distribution to needy families. Federal Register. 1961;26:639.
Wilde PE. Measuring the effect of food stamps on food insecurity and hunger: Enquiry and policy considerations. Journal of Nutrition. 2007;137(2):307–310. [PubMed: 17237302]
Yen ST, Andrews M, Chen Z, Eastwood DB. Food Postage Program participation and nutrient insecurity: An instrumental variables arroyo. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2008;90(one):117–132.
Ziliak JP, Gundersen C, Figilio DN. Food Stamp caseloads over the business concern cycle. Southern Economical Journal. 2003;69(4):903–919.

1: Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, Public Law 110–246, Sec. two, pp. i–2.
2: This example does not incorporate the temporary increment in SNAP benefits under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5).
3: Food Stamp Deed, HR 7940, 95th Congress (1977–1978).
4: Nutrient Stamp Act of 1964, Public Law 88–525.
5: Amendments to the Food Stamp Act of 1964, Public Law 91–671.
half-dozen: Public Police force 88–535.
seven: Food Stamp Act of 1977, Public Police 95–113, Stat. 913–1045.
8: Hunger Prevention Act of 1988, Public Constabulary 100–435, 102 Stat. 1645–1677.
9: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Law 104–193.
x: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Public Police 104–193.
11: Legal immigrants must live in the state at least 5 years before receiving benefits.
12: Public Police force 107–171.
13: Public Police 111–v, Title 1, Sec. 101.
14: Food Stamp Act of 1977, Public Law 95–113.
15: 7 C.F.R., Vol. four, §; 273.9 (d)(1).
16: vii C.F.R., Vol. 4, §; 273.ix (d)(six)(ii).
17
18: Tax Relief Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Task Creation Act of 2010, Public Police 111–312, Sec. 728.
nineteen: Rodway v. The states Department of Agriculture, 514 F.2d 809, 168 (U.S. App. D.C. 387, 1975).
20: Food and Nutrition Human action of 2008, Public Law 110–246, Sec. four, p. 1–8.
21: 90th Congress, 1st session, House Agriculture Committee Report no. 95–464, pp. 186–187 (June 1977).
22: This example does not contain the temporary increment in SNAP benefits under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Police force 111–5).
23
24: Public Police force 88–525, Sec. 3.
25: 90th Congress, 1st session, House Agronomics Committee Report No. 95–464, p. 321 (June 1977).
26: Public Law 93–86.
27: 90th Congress, 1st session, House Agronomics Commission Study No. 95–464, p. 323 (June 1977).
28: 90th Congress, 1st session, House Agriculture Committee Written report No. 95–464, p. 333 (June 1977).
29: 90th Congress, 1st session, Business firm Agriculture Committee No. 95–464, p. 333 (June 1977).
30: 90th Congress, 1st session, House Agriculture Commission No. 95–464, p. 333 (June 1977).
31: Kentucky Fried Chicken of Cleveland, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Us of America, 449 F.2d 255, No. 71–1960, U.S. appellate (1971).
32: Food and Nutrition Human action of 2008, Public Police force 110–246, Sec. 3, pp. one–iv.
33
34: Public Law 110–234.
35: Inflation is measured using the chain-weighted personal consumption expenditure deflator with 2011 base of operations year.
36: Public Law 111–5.
37: For discussion of the history of nutrient insecurity measures, encounter NRC (2006).
38: The incidence of poverty refers to the pct of the population below the poverty line, while depth and severity refer to how far below the line a given poor person's income is. The latter measures differ in the weight given to families further below the poverty line, with the severity measure giving more weight than the depth measure to the poorest poor.

rohdepatern82.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206907/