A critical component to a healthy life is nutrition. From birth, the intake of vital nutrients is essential to the growth and development of a healthy individual. Good nutrition, particularly in the first three years of life, is important in establishing and maintaining a good foundation that has implications on a child’s future physical and mental health, academic achievement, and economic productivity. Unfortunately, food insecurity is an obstacle that threatens that critical foundation.
In the United States, more than one out of five children lives in a household with food insecurity, which means they do not always know where they will find their next meal. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 2012, 15.9 million children under 18 in the United States live in this condition – unable to consistently access nutritious and adequate amounts of food necessary for a healthy life. According to Map the Meal Gap, in 2011, the top five states with the highest rate of food insecure children under 18 are New Mexico, the District of Columbia, Arizona, Oregon, & Georgia. 20% or more of the child population in 38 states and D.C. lived in food insecure households in 2011.
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
Insufficient nutrition puts children at risk for illness and weakens their immune system. The immature immune systems of young children, ages 0 – 5, make them especially vulnerable to nutritional deprivation and as a result, the ability to learn, grow, and fight infections is adversely affected.
PHYSICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH
The potential consequences of food insecurity regarding physical and mental health
In 2012, 33.1 million adults in the United States experienced food insecurity[i]. Food insecurity can have wide-ranging detrimental consequences on the physical and mental health of adults, including more vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and seniors. Lack of access to a nutritious and adequate food supply has implications not only for the development of physical and mental disease, but also behaviors and social skills.
Physical Health
Food insecurity in adults is associated with a variety of negative physical health outcomes.
-
-
Food insecurity is associated with lower scores on physical and mental health exams.[vi]
-
-
Food insecurity is associated with a range of chronic illnesses such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and various cardiovascular risk factors.[ix]
Mental Health
Food insecurity in adults has a demonstrated relationship with a number of mental health issues and human behavior problems.
-
-
Food insecurity has also been correlated with slower developing social skills. [xii]
Maternal Health
Food insecurity may be detrimental to the health of expectant mothers as it is associated with a range of physical and mental complications.
-
Food insecure mothers may receive fewer nutrients and experience long term physical health problems.[xiii]
-
Please Shop Online at FastGroceries.net to help buy
The potential consequences of food insecurity regarding physical and mental health
In 2012, 33.1 million adults in the United States experienced food insecurity[i]. Food insecurity can have wide-ranging detrimental consequences on the physical and mental health of adults, including more vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and seniors. Lack of access to a nutritious and adequate food supply has implications not only for the development of physical and mental disease, but also behaviors and social skills.
Physical Health
Food insecurity in adults is associated with a variety of negative physical health outcomes.
- Food insecurity is associated with lower scores on physical and mental health exams.[vi]
- Food insecurity is associated with a range of chronic illnesses such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and various cardiovascular risk factors.[ix]
Mental Health
Food insecurity in adults has a demonstrated relationship with a number of mental health issues and human behavior problems.
- Food insecurity has also been correlated with slower developing social skills. [xii]
Maternal Health
Food insecurity may be detrimental to the health of expectant mothers as it is associated with a range of physical and mental complications.
- Food insecure mothers may receive fewer nutrients and experience long term physical health problems.[xiii]
Please Shop Online at FastGroceries.net to help buy
SNAP (Food Stamps):
PROGRAM FACTS
SNAP is targeted at the most vulnerable.
-
76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.[i]
-
SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).[ii]
-
The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.[iii]
SNAP is responsive to changes in need, providing needed food assistance as families fall into economic hardship and then transitioning away as their financial situation stabilizes.
-
SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [iv]
-
As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[v]
SNAP has a strong record of program integrity.
-
SNAP error rates declined by 57% since FY2000, from 8.91% in FY2000 to a record low of 3.80% in FY2011.[vi] The accuracy rate of 96.2% (FY2011) is an all-time program high and is considerably higher than other major benefit programs, for example Medicare fee-for-service (91.5%) or Medicare Advantage Part C (88.6%). [vii]
-
Two-thirds of all SNAP payment errors are a result of caseworker error. Nearly one-fifth are underpayments, which occur when eligible participants receive less in benefits than they are eligible to receive.[viii]
-
The national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.3 cent per dollar during the years 2009 to 2011.[ix] As you may have read in local news, USDA is aggressively fighting trafficking, but while there are individual cases of program abuse, for every one instance of fraud, there are hundreds of stories of heartbreaking need.
The need for food assistance is already greater than SNAP can fill.
-
SNAP benefits don’t last most participants the whole month. 90% of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month, and 58% of food bank clients currently receiving SNAP benefits turn to food banks for assistance at least 6 months out of the year.[x]
-
The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal. [xi]
-
Only 57% of food insecure individuals are income-eligible for SNAP, and 26% are not income-eligible for any federal food assistance.[xii]
PROGRAM MYTHS & REALITIES
Farm Bill
The cuts proposed in the Farm Bill aren’t a cut to benefits.
-
While proposals such as restricting categorical eligibility and “heat and eat” may not be a direct cut to benefit levels, it is inaccurate to suggest that they will not impact benefits. Families who lose benefits because of changes in eligibility rules or enrollment processes will feel just as much pain in their refrigerators as if they had received a straightforward cut to their benefit allotment.
The Farm Bill finds savings in SNAP without really hurting needy families.
-
Given SNAP’s exceptional efficiency, it is simply not possible to achieve significant savings without directly impacting participants. About 95 percent of federal SNAP spending goes directly to benefits and the remaining spending covers important services like employment and training services that help participants move from welfare to work, nutrition education that empowers individuals to make healthy choices on a limited budget, and federal oversight and trafficking prevention for the roughly 200,000 retail stores that accept SNAP benefits.[xiii]
-
The $4.1 billion SNAP “heat and eat” cut contained in the 2013 Senate Farm Bill is expected to cause about 400,000 low-income households to lose an average $90 per month in benefits, imposing a significant hardship for families struggling to put food on the table.[xiv] The steeper, $20.5 billion in cuts in the 2013 House bill would only hurt more families more deeply. 850,000 households would see their benefits cut by an average $90 per month. The cut to categorical eligibility would cause 2 million low-income individuals to lose their SNAP benefits completely, and 210,000 low-income children would be cut from free school meals because their enrollment is tied to their family’s SNAP participation. [xv]
Proposed cuts will close loopholes that allow people who don’t need assistance into the program.
-
The perception that a sizeable portion of SNAP participants do not really need benefits is flatly wrong. SNAP very effectively targets nutrition assistance at the poorest households, those with gross income of up to 130 percent of poverty and up to $2000 in assets. While some states have exercised a state option to align SNAP eligibility rules with other programs, enabling them to serve households over the federal income and asset limit, the vast majority of households fall well below the maximum. Eighty-three percent of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100 percent of the poverty line and these households receive about 91 percent of all benefits.[xvi] The average SNAP household has only $333 in assets. [xvii]
States are implementing SNAP in a way that Congress did not intend and Farm Bill proposals correct that.
-
Congress has provided several options to allow states to implement SNAP in the way that best meets their individual needs, including options to streamline and coordinate the administration of multiple programs serving the same families. Restricting categorical eligibility would require caseworkers to recertify the eligibility of applicants whose income and assets have already been verified by their enrollment in another program, creating unnecessary duplication and inefficiency. By restricting “heat and eat,” states will lose administrative flexibility to aid individuals in need of assistance.
-
Restricting categorical eligibility and “heat and eat” options will increase the administrative burden on states without strengthening program integrity. Curtailing state flexibility and increasing administrative waste at a time when state and local budgets have already forced cutbacks will make it harder for states to effectively and efficiently administer the program.
Heat and Eat
The “heat and eat” policy is a loophole.
-
The LIHEAP-SNAP relationship is a valid programmatic coordination. The “heat and eat” option allows states to streamline and coordinate the administration of multiple programs serving the same low-income families. By restricting “heat and eat,” states will lose administrative flexibility to aid individuals in need of assistance. At the same time, it will increase the administrative burden on states without strengthening program integrity.
-
Families who struggle to put food on the table often make choices between buying enough food and paying for utilitiesAccording to a survey conducted by the National Energy Assistance Director’s Association, nearly one-third of families receiving LIHEAP assistance reported that they went without food during the last five years as a result of high home energy costs.[xviii]Similarly, many client households served by Feeding America food banks report that their household incomes are inadequate to cover their basic household expenses. In fact, 46% of client households served reported having to choose between paying for utilities or heating fuel and food.[xix]
-
The “Heat and Eat” cut will disproportionally impact households with elderly and disabled individuals concentrated in 16 states.Elderly and disabled households are more likely to make use of the heat and eat policy when enrolling SNAP and will thus be disproportionately impacted. Furthermore, the full impact of the cut will be borne only by the 16 states currently using the policy option: CA, CT, DE, DC, ME, MA, MI, NH, NJ, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, and WI. While these 16 states distribute about 36.5% of all SNAP benefits nationwide, they will bear 100% of the cuts.[xx]
Categorical Eligibility
Categorical eligibility allows many people to automatically enroll in SNAP who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for the program.
-
Categorical eligibility does not allow households to enroll automatically; they must still apply through the regular SNAP application process, which has rigorous procedures for documenting applicants’ income, citizenship, work status, and other circumstances.
-
Categorical eligibility allows states the option of aligning SNAP eligibility rules for gross income and asset limits with TANF to reduce administrative costs and simplify the eligibility determination process. While three-fourths of SNAP households were categorically eligible, almost all would also have been eligible for SNAP under standard rules.[xxi]
-
While a small number of households would not have met gross income and asset eligibility rules without categorical eligibility, SNAP families are still among the poorest households:
-
The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744 and net monthly income of $338.[xxii]
-
SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with gross income under 130% of poverty and net income at or below 100% of poverty. While categorical eligibility allows states to set a higher gross income limit, only 1.5% of SNAP households in 2010 had monthly net income above 150% of the poverty line, so the policy has not made SNAP available to large numbers of households with incomes above the federal gross income limit of 130% of poverty.[xxiii]
-
SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with assets of no more than $2000 ($3250 for households with a senior or disabled member). The average SNAP household still has assets of only $331.[xxiv] Additionally, the SNAP asset limit of $2,000 has not been adjusted for inflation in 25 years and has fallen by 48% in real terms since 1986.[xxv]
Categorical eligibility has dramatically increased program participation.
-
The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.
-
SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xxvi]
-
As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xxvii]
Eliminating categorical eligibility would significantly reduce costs.
-
Eliminating categorical eligibility would achieve savings by causing about 2 million low-income people currently enrolled in SNAP to lose their benefits and 210,000 children to lose free school meals.[xxviii] Many more families newly applying for assistance would have their benefit issuance delayed because of the increased complexity of applying and additional processing time required. This human cost is too high a price to pay with so many families struggling to get by in this economy.
-
In addition to the loss of needed food assistance for struggling families, this savings would come at the expense of increased administrative costs. Eliminating the streamlined application process that categorical eligibility allows would require states to allocate staff time to duplicate enrollment procedures and incur the cost of modifying their computer systems, reprinting applications and manuals, and retraining staff.
Program Growth
Generous eligibility rules and program fraud and abuse have caused participation in SNAP to balloon, sharply driving up the cost of the program when the nation can least afford it.
-
The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.
-
SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xxix]
-
As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xxx]
Administrative Spending
We could achieve significant savings by cutting administrative expenses alone without doing harm to SNAP participants.
-
SNAP administrative expenses are small. Federal administrative expenditures for SNAP equal less than 4.5% of overall federal SNAP costs. About 95% of that is the federal share of state administrative costs for operating the program. [xxxi] SNAP caseloads have risen by more than 75% since FY2007 due to historic unemployment, but federal spending on state administrative costs has only risen by 17% over the same period.[xxxii]
-
SNAP administrative expenses are essential. Administrative expenditures cannot be cut significantly without compromising program integrity. Administrative expenditures in SNAP are used for essential functions like verifying eligibility, preventing benefit trafficking, administering work requirements, and related functions.
-
Much of the administrative savings that is being discussed isn’t what you or I would consider program administration. For example, it includes spending on employment and training services that help SNAP participants move from welfare to work and federal oversight of the roughly 200,000 retail stores that accept SNAP benefits. Overstating the level of administrative spending really amounts to a call for cuts to SNAP benefits, eligibility, and essential services.
Work Requirements
SNAP doesn’t do enough to encourage participants to get a job, and the program needs stronger work requirements.
-
SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program.
-
The SNAP benefit formula is structured to provide a strong work incentive – for every additional dollar a SNAP participant earns, their benefits decline by about 24 to 36 cents, not a full dollar, so participants have a strong incentive to find work, work longer hours, or seek better-paying employment.[xxxiii]
Citizenship Requirements
We need tougher enforcements on illegal immigrants using SNAP.
-
Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for SNAP. Additionally, there is already a strict waiting period for documented immigrants. Documented adult immigrants (those with a greencard) are subject to a five-year waiting period before they are eligible for SNAP.
-
Noncitizens make up a very small portion of SNAP participants – only 4% of participants are noncitizens (documented immigrants or refugees).[xxxiv]
Performance Bonuses
Eliminating SNAP performance bonuses would cut unnecessary spending.
-
$48 million is a small investment to incentivize superior performance in a multi-billion program.
The modest $48 million annual investment in SNAP performance bonuses has helped improve states’ performance, maximizing the federal investment in SNAP and ensuring that benefits are distributed in the correct amount and reach those who need them. The bonuses have incentivized states to improve performance, share best practices, and work to improve SNAP in way that was rare prior to 2002.
-
Operating an accurate, efficient program that effectively reaches people in need is critical to program integrity, and performance bonuses have successfully improved program performance:
-
The implementation of performance bonuses in the 2002 Farm Bill, alongside the transition from paper coupons to electronic benefit cards and other policy improvements, helped contribute to remarkable improvements in payment accuracy. Payment error rates are a measurement that combines over- and underpayments. Nationally, SNAP payment error rates decreased from 8.26 percent in FY2002, before the bonuses were in place, to 3.80 percent in FY2011, an all-time low.[xxxv] This improvement in payment accuracy represents an overall reduction in payment errors of 54 percent.
-
Performance bonuses encourage states to focus on breaking down participation barriers and enroll eligible individuals. The implementation of participation rate bonuses in the 2002 Farm Bill, alongside program outreach and other policy improvements, helped improve the ability of SNAP to reach eligible participants. Nationally, SNAP participation rates increased from 54 percent in FY2002 to 75 percent in FY2010, a 39 percent improvement.[xxxvi]
-
States often use performance bonuses to reinvest in their SNAP program, further strengthening the program.
States have use funds to finance their on-line applications, case worker tools that improve efficiencies and program integrity, improved data matching with respect to earnings, and job training programs.
Deficit Reduction
Deficit Reduction
It’s only fair to spread budget cuts across programs. Everyone has to contribute their share to deficit reduction.
-
Our nation’s budget is a moral document, and the decisions Congress is making will have a real impact on real people.It’s easy to lose sight of that in Washington, but food banks and other charities on the ground know this is about more than numbers on a balance sheet. This is about real people – neighbors, constituents – who are struggling just to put food on the table.
-
Washington has a long history of a bipartisan commitment to protecting the safety net and low-income people in past deficit reduction agreements. The three major deficit-reduction packages of the last two decades — the 1990, 1993, and 1997 packages — all adhered to this principle. This principle was upheld in the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Deficit Commission.
-
Low-income families have already given more than they can bear to our nation’s economic policies. Low-income communities have suffered higher foreclosure rates,[xxxvii] and low-income families have experienced unemployment at a far higher rate.[xxxviii] Low-income families have also seen their incomes decline as our nation has experienced a growing wealth gap between rich and poor.[xxxix]
-
Cuts to nutrition assistance programs are not only immoral, they are short-sighted. The impact of our nation’s hunger problem is estimated at over $167 billion per year.[xl] By improving access to food, federal nutrition programs protect families from hunger and improve their health and educational outcomes, making these programs a critical investment in people and communities for both the short and long-term.
SNAP ARRA Temporary Benefit Increase
The benefit increase provided by ARRA is not needed and Congress should take it back early.
-
Congress made a promise not to put our most vulnerable families in a situation in which their benefits were suddenly pulled out from underneath them. But this is exactly what will happen because of cuts made to ARRA in 2010. All SNAP participants will see a benefit cut on November 1, 2013 when the temporary ARRA boost is terminated early. For a family of four, the cut will be $36 per month, a loss of $432 in food assistance over the course of the year.[xli] Rescinding the ARRA boost even earlier would only steepen this cliff. Faced with this unexpected drop in their monthly food budget, SNAP households are likely to turn to our nation’s food banks to help make ends meet. This increase in demand will only add to the strain felt by an emergency food system already struggling to meet elevated need in the recession.
-
The SNAP benefit boost is working to protect families from hunger as they struggle with unemployment and reduced wages in the wake of the recession. Without the ARRA boost in SNAP benefits, the number of food insecure Americans would certainly be much worse. While hunger spiked dramatically in 2008 in the first year of the recession, since the ARRA boost went into effect in 2009, food insecurity has remained level and even decreased despite the fact that poverty continued to rise in 2009 and 2010.[xlii]
-
For many families SNAP benefits do not last the entire month. The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person per meal, hardly enough for an adequate nutritious diet. [xliii] After the ARRA cut, the benefit will fall to less than $1.40 per person per meal. [xliv]
-
Most participants run through their SNAP benefits by the third week of the month, and 58% of food bank clients currently receiving SNAP benefits turn to food banks for assistance at least 6 months out of the year. [xlv]
-
For more information: Sophie Milam, Director of Nutrition Assistance and Budget Policy, smilam@feedingamerica.org
REFERENCES
[i] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table A.14. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[ii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table 3.1. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2013 Federal Poverty Guidelines.https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/24/2013-01422/annual-update-of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelines
[iii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table A.5. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[iv] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Annual Program Data, 2007 and 2011.http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Unemployment Data, 2007 and 2011.http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data
[v] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical Unemployment Data. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monthly Program Data. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm Congressional Budget Office, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – March 2012 Baseline. March 2012.http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43072_SNAP.pdf
[vi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Stamp Program Quality Control Annual Report Fiscal Year 2000. April 2002.http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/FSP_QC_2000.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Payment Error Rates FY2011. June 6, 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/2011-rates.pdf
[vii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Payment Error Rates FY2011. June 6, 2012.http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/2011-rates.pdf Payment Accuracy Website. High Error Programs.http://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/high-priority-programs
[viii] U.S. General Accounting Office. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Errors and Trafficking Have Declined, but Challenges Remain. July 2010. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-956T
[ix] U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Extent of Trafficking in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: 2009-2011. August 2013. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ORA/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/ProgramIntegrity/Trafficking2009.pdf U.S. General Accounting Office. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Errors and Trafficking Have Declined, but Challenges Remain. July 2010.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10956t.pdf
[x] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Benefit Redemption Patterns in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Final Report. February 2011.http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/ProgramOperations/ARRASpendingPatterns.pdf Feeding America. Food Banks: Hunger’s New Staple. Preliminary Findings. September 2011. http://feedingamerica.org/press-room/in-the-news/the-new-normal.aspx
[xi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table D.3. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[xii] Gundersen, C., E. Waxman, E. Engelhard and A. Satoh. Map the Meal Gap. Feeding America, 2013.http://feedingamerica.org/mapthegap
[xiii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Annual Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs, data as of January 4, 2013. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
[xiv] Congressional Budget Office.
[xv] Based on Congressional Budget Office scores of House and Senate farm bills.
[xvi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table 3.1. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[xvii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table A.5. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[xviii] National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association, National Energy Assistance Survey. 2009.http://www.neada.org/publications/index.html
[xix] Feeding America, Hunger in America. 2010.http://feedingamerica.issuelab.org/resource/hunger_in_america_2010_national_report
[xx] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits, FY2012 Data. Data as of January 4, 2013. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/17SNAPfyBEN$.htm
[xxi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table A.3. November 2012.http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2011Characteristics.pdf
[xxii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table A.5. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[xxiii] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of Senate Farm Bill amendments, 2012.
[xxiv] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table A.5. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[xxv] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis.
[xxvi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Annual Program Data, 2007 and 2011.http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Unemployment Data, 2007 and 2011.http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data
[xxvii] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical Unemployment Data. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monthly Program Data. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm Congressional Budget Office, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – February 2013 Baseline. February 2013. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43896-Supplemental%20Nutrition%20Assistance%20Program.pdf
[xxviii] The Congressional Budget Office estimates that repealing the categorical eligibility option would eliminate food assistance to 1.8 million low-income people. The Administration estimates that eliminating the option would terminate some 3 million individuals from the program.
[xxix] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Annual Program Data, 2007 and 2011.http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Unemployment Data, 2007 and 2011.http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data
[xxx] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical Unemployment Data. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monthly Program Data. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm Congressional Budget Office, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – March 2012 Baseline. March 2012.http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43072_SNAP.pdf
[xxxi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Annual Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs, data as of January 4, 2013. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
[xxxii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs.http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis.
[xxxiii] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Policy Basics: Introduction to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). November 2012. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2226
[xxxiv] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. A.23. November 2012.http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2011Characteristics.pdf
[xxxv] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Stamp Program Payment Error Rates FY2002. October 1, 2003.http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/2002-rates.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Payment Error Rates FY2011. June 6, 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/2011-rates.pdf
[xxxvi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2009. Table 2. August 2011.http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/Trends2002-09.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2010. Table 4. December 2012.
[xxxvii] Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. The State of the Nation’s Housing. 2011.http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/son2011.pdf and Center for Responsible Lender. Lost Ground, 2011: Disparities in Mortgage Lending and Foreclosures. November 2011. http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research-analysis/Lost-Ground-2011.pdf
[xxxviii] Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University. Labor Underutilization Impacts of the Great Recession of 2007-2009: Variations in Labor Underutilization Problems Across Age, Gender, Race-Ethnic, Educational Attainment and Occupational Groups in the U.S. March 2010. http://www.northeastern.edu/clms/wp-content/uploads/Labor_Underutilization_Impacts_of_Great_Recession_of_20072009.pdf
[xxxix] Economic Policy Institute. The State of Working America: Income. 12th Edition.http://stateofworkingamerica.org/files/book/Chapter2-Income.pdf
[xl] Center for American progress, Hunger In America: Suffering We All Pay For. October 2011. http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/10/pdf/hunger_paper.pdf
[xli] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP Benefits Will Be Cut For All Participants in November 2013. August 2013.http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3899
[xlii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2011. Table 1A. September 2012. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884525/err141.pdf U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011. Table B-1. September 2012. http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf
[xliii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table D.3. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[xliv] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP Benefits Will Be Cut For All Participants in November 2013. August 2013.http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3899
[xlv] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Benefit Redemption Patterns in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Final Report. February 2011.http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/ProgramOperations/ARRASpendingPatterns.pdf Feeding America. Food Banks: Hunger’s New Staple. Preliminary Findings. September 2011. http://feedingamerica.org/press-room/in-the-news/the-new-normal.aspx
[xlvi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2011. Table 1A. September 2012. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884525/err141.pdf
[xlvii] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Unemployment Data. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
[i] Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., Andrews, M., Singh, A. (2013) Household Food Security in the United States in 2010. USDA ERS.
[ii] Dixon, Winkleby, and Radimer (2001) Dietary intakes and serum nutrients differ between adults from food-insufficient and food- sufficient families: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994.Journal of Nutrition, 131, 1232–1246.
[iii] McIntyre, Glanville, Raine, Dayle, Anderson, and Battaglia (2003) Do low-income lone mothers compromise their nutrition to feed their children? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 198, 686–691.
[iv] Tarasuk and Beaton (1999) Women’s Dietary Intakes in the Context of Household Food Insecurity.Journal of Nutrition, 129, 672-679.
[v] Ziliak, Gundersen, and Haist (2008) The Causes, Consequences, and Future of Senior Hunger in America. Special Report by the University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research for the Meals on Wheels Association of America Foundation.
[vi] Stuff, Casey, Szeto, Gossett, Robbins, Simpson, Connell, and Bogle (2004) Household Food Insecurity Is Associated with Adult Health Status. Journal of Nutrition, 134, 2330-2335.
[vii] Seligman, Bindman, Vittinghoff, Kanaya, and Kushel (2007) Food Insecurity is Associated with Diabetes Mellitus: Results from the National Health Examination and Nutritional Examination Survey 1999-2002.Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1018-1023.
[viii] Nelson, Cunningham, Andersen, Harrison and Gelberg (2001) Is Food Insufficiency Associated with Health Status and Health Care Utilization Among Adults with Diabetes? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 404-411.
[ix] Seligman, Laraia, and Kushel (2009) Food Insecurity Is Associated with Chronic Disease among Low-Income NHANES Participants. Journal of Nutrition, 140, 304-310.
[x] Kleinman, Murphy, Little, Pagano, Wehler, Regal, and Jellinek (1998) Hunger in children in the United States: Potential behavioral and emotional correlates. Pediatrics, 101 (1), e3.
[xi] Slack and Yoo (2005) Food hardship and child behavior problems among low-income children. Social Service Review, 75, 511–536.
[xii] Jyoti, Frongillo, and Jones (2005) Food insecurity affects school children's academic performance, weight gain, and social skills. Journal of Nutrition, 135, 2831–2839.
[xiii] Tarasuk (2001) Household Food Insecurity with Hunger Is Associated with Woman’s Food Intakes, Health and Household Circumstances. Journal of Nutrition, 131, 2670-2676.
[xiv] Heflin, Siefert, and Williams (2005) Food insufficiency and women’s mental health: Findings from a 3-year panel of welfare recipients. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1971-1982.
[xv] Whitaker, Phillips, and Orzol (2006) Food insecurity and the risks of depression and anxiety in mothers and behavior problems in their pre-school-aged children. Pediatrics, 118, e859–e868.
PROGRAM FACTS
SNAP is targeted at the most vulnerable.
- 76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.[i]
- SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).[ii]
- The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.[iii]
SNAP is responsive to changes in need, providing needed food assistance as families fall into economic hardship and then transitioning away as their financial situation stabilizes.
- SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [iv]
- As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[v]
SNAP has a strong record of program integrity.
- SNAP error rates declined by 57% since FY2000, from 8.91% in FY2000 to a record low of 3.80% in FY2011.[vi] The accuracy rate of 96.2% (FY2011) is an all-time program high and is considerably higher than other major benefit programs, for example Medicare fee-for-service (91.5%) or Medicare Advantage Part C (88.6%). [vii]
- Two-thirds of all SNAP payment errors are a result of caseworker error. Nearly one-fifth are underpayments, which occur when eligible participants receive less in benefits than they are eligible to receive.[viii]
- The national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.3 cent per dollar during the years 2009 to 2011.[ix] As you may have read in local news, USDA is aggressively fighting trafficking, but while there are individual cases of program abuse, for every one instance of fraud, there are hundreds of stories of heartbreaking need.
The need for food assistance is already greater than SNAP can fill.
- SNAP benefits don’t last most participants the whole month. 90% of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month, and 58% of food bank clients currently receiving SNAP benefits turn to food banks for assistance at least 6 months out of the year.[x]
- The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal. [xi]
- Only 57% of food insecure individuals are income-eligible for SNAP, and 26% are not income-eligible for any federal food assistance.[xii]
PROGRAM MYTHS & REALITIES
Farm Bill
The cuts proposed in the Farm Bill aren’t a cut to benefits.
Farm Bill
The cuts proposed in the Farm Bill aren’t a cut to benefits.
- While proposals such as restricting categorical eligibility and “heat and eat” may not be a direct cut to benefit levels, it is inaccurate to suggest that they will not impact benefits. Families who lose benefits because of changes in eligibility rules or enrollment processes will feel just as much pain in their refrigerators as if they had received a straightforward cut to their benefit allotment.
The Farm Bill finds savings in SNAP without really hurting needy families.
- Given SNAP’s exceptional efficiency, it is simply not possible to achieve significant savings without directly impacting participants. About 95 percent of federal SNAP spending goes directly to benefits and the remaining spending covers important services like employment and training services that help participants move from welfare to work, nutrition education that empowers individuals to make healthy choices on a limited budget, and federal oversight and trafficking prevention for the roughly 200,000 retail stores that accept SNAP benefits.[xiii]
- The $4.1 billion SNAP “heat and eat” cut contained in the 2013 Senate Farm Bill is expected to cause about 400,000 low-income households to lose an average $90 per month in benefits, imposing a significant hardship for families struggling to put food on the table.[xiv] The steeper, $20.5 billion in cuts in the 2013 House bill would only hurt more families more deeply. 850,000 households would see their benefits cut by an average $90 per month. The cut to categorical eligibility would cause 2 million low-income individuals to lose their SNAP benefits completely, and 210,000 low-income children would be cut from free school meals because their enrollment is tied to their family’s SNAP participation. [xv]
Proposed cuts will close loopholes that allow people who don’t need assistance into the program.
- The perception that a sizeable portion of SNAP participants do not really need benefits is flatly wrong. SNAP very effectively targets nutrition assistance at the poorest households, those with gross income of up to 130 percent of poverty and up to $2000 in assets. While some states have exercised a state option to align SNAP eligibility rules with other programs, enabling them to serve households over the federal income and asset limit, the vast majority of households fall well below the maximum. Eighty-three percent of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100 percent of the poverty line and these households receive about 91 percent of all benefits.[xvi] The average SNAP household has only $333 in assets. [xvii]
States are implementing SNAP in a way that Congress did not intend and Farm Bill proposals correct that.
- Congress has provided several options to allow states to implement SNAP in the way that best meets their individual needs, including options to streamline and coordinate the administration of multiple programs serving the same families. Restricting categorical eligibility would require caseworkers to recertify the eligibility of applicants whose income and assets have already been verified by their enrollment in another program, creating unnecessary duplication and inefficiency. By restricting “heat and eat,” states will lose administrative flexibility to aid individuals in need of assistance.
- Restricting categorical eligibility and “heat and eat” options will increase the administrative burden on states without strengthening program integrity. Curtailing state flexibility and increasing administrative waste at a time when state and local budgets have already forced cutbacks will make it harder for states to effectively and efficiently administer the program.
Heat and Eat
The “heat and eat” policy is a loophole.
- The LIHEAP-SNAP relationship is a valid programmatic coordination. The “heat and eat” option allows states to streamline and coordinate the administration of multiple programs serving the same low-income families. By restricting “heat and eat,” states will lose administrative flexibility to aid individuals in need of assistance. At the same time, it will increase the administrative burden on states without strengthening program integrity.
- Families who struggle to put food on the table often make choices between buying enough food and paying for utilitiesAccording to a survey conducted by the National Energy Assistance Director’s Association, nearly one-third of families receiving LIHEAP assistance reported that they went without food during the last five years as a result of high home energy costs.[xviii]Similarly, many client households served by Feeding America food banks report that their household incomes are inadequate to cover their basic household expenses. In fact, 46% of client households served reported having to choose between paying for utilities or heating fuel and food.[xix]
- The “Heat and Eat” cut will disproportionally impact households with elderly and disabled individuals concentrated in 16 states.Elderly and disabled households are more likely to make use of the heat and eat policy when enrolling SNAP and will thus be disproportionately impacted. Furthermore, the full impact of the cut will be borne only by the 16 states currently using the policy option: CA, CT, DE, DC, ME, MA, MI, NH, NJ, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, WA, and WI. While these 16 states distribute about 36.5% of all SNAP benefits nationwide, they will bear 100% of the cuts.[xx]
Categorical Eligibility
Categorical eligibility allows many people to automatically enroll in SNAP who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for the program.
- Categorical eligibility does not allow households to enroll automatically; they must still apply through the regular SNAP application process, which has rigorous procedures for documenting applicants’ income, citizenship, work status, and other circumstances.
- Categorical eligibility allows states the option of aligning SNAP eligibility rules for gross income and asset limits with TANF to reduce administrative costs and simplify the eligibility determination process. While three-fourths of SNAP households were categorically eligible, almost all would also have been eligible for SNAP under standard rules.[xxi]
- While a small number of households would not have met gross income and asset eligibility rules without categorical eligibility, SNAP families are still among the poorest households:
- The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744 and net monthly income of $338.[xxii]
- SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with gross income under 130% of poverty and net income at or below 100% of poverty. While categorical eligibility allows states to set a higher gross income limit, only 1.5% of SNAP households in 2010 had monthly net income above 150% of the poverty line, so the policy has not made SNAP available to large numbers of households with incomes above the federal gross income limit of 130% of poverty.[xxiii]
- SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with assets of no more than $2000 ($3250 for households with a senior or disabled member). The average SNAP household still has assets of only $331.[xxiv] Additionally, the SNAP asset limit of $2,000 has not been adjusted for inflation in 25 years and has fallen by 48% in real terms since 1986.[xxv]
Categorical eligibility has dramatically increased program participation.
- The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.
- SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xxvi]
- As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xxvii]
Eliminating categorical eligibility would significantly reduce costs.
- Eliminating categorical eligibility would achieve savings by causing about 2 million low-income people currently enrolled in SNAP to lose their benefits and 210,000 children to lose free school meals.[xxviii] Many more families newly applying for assistance would have their benefit issuance delayed because of the increased complexity of applying and additional processing time required. This human cost is too high a price to pay with so many families struggling to get by in this economy.
- In addition to the loss of needed food assistance for struggling families, this savings would come at the expense of increased administrative costs. Eliminating the streamlined application process that categorical eligibility allows would require states to allocate staff time to duplicate enrollment procedures and incur the cost of modifying their computer systems, reprinting applications and manuals, and retraining staff.
Program Growth
Generous eligibility rules and program fraud and abuse have caused participation in SNAP to balloon, sharply driving up the cost of the program when the nation can least afford it.
- The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.
- SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xxix]
- As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xxx]
Administrative Spending
We could achieve significant savings by cutting administrative expenses alone without doing harm to SNAP participants.
- SNAP administrative expenses are small. Federal administrative expenditures for SNAP equal less than 4.5% of overall federal SNAP costs. About 95% of that is the federal share of state administrative costs for operating the program. [xxxi] SNAP caseloads have risen by more than 75% since FY2007 due to historic unemployment, but federal spending on state administrative costs has only risen by 17% over the same period.[xxxii]
- SNAP administrative expenses are essential. Administrative expenditures cannot be cut significantly without compromising program integrity. Administrative expenditures in SNAP are used for essential functions like verifying eligibility, preventing benefit trafficking, administering work requirements, and related functions.
- Much of the administrative savings that is being discussed isn’t what you or I would consider program administration. For example, it includes spending on employment and training services that help SNAP participants move from welfare to work and federal oversight of the roughly 200,000 retail stores that accept SNAP benefits. Overstating the level of administrative spending really amounts to a call for cuts to SNAP benefits, eligibility, and essential services.
Work Requirements
SNAP doesn’t do enough to encourage participants to get a job, and the program needs stronger work requirements.
- SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program.
- The SNAP benefit formula is structured to provide a strong work incentive – for every additional dollar a SNAP participant earns, their benefits decline by about 24 to 36 cents, not a full dollar, so participants have a strong incentive to find work, work longer hours, or seek better-paying employment.[xxxiii]
Citizenship Requirements
We need tougher enforcements on illegal immigrants using SNAP.
- Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for SNAP. Additionally, there is already a strict waiting period for documented immigrants. Documented adult immigrants (those with a greencard) are subject to a five-year waiting period before they are eligible for SNAP.
- Noncitizens make up a very small portion of SNAP participants – only 4% of participants are noncitizens (documented immigrants or refugees).[xxxiv]
Performance Bonuses
Eliminating SNAP performance bonuses would cut unnecessary spending.
- $48 million is a small investment to incentivize superior performance in a multi-billion program.
The modest $48 million annual investment in SNAP performance bonuses has helped improve states’ performance, maximizing the federal investment in SNAP and ensuring that benefits are distributed in the correct amount and reach those who need them. The bonuses have incentivized states to improve performance, share best practices, and work to improve SNAP in way that was rare prior to 2002. - Operating an accurate, efficient program that effectively reaches people in need is critical to program integrity, and performance bonuses have successfully improved program performance:
- The implementation of performance bonuses in the 2002 Farm Bill, alongside the transition from paper coupons to electronic benefit cards and other policy improvements, helped contribute to remarkable improvements in payment accuracy. Payment error rates are a measurement that combines over- and underpayments. Nationally, SNAP payment error rates decreased from 8.26 percent in FY2002, before the bonuses were in place, to 3.80 percent in FY2011, an all-time low.[xxxv] This improvement in payment accuracy represents an overall reduction in payment errors of 54 percent.
- Performance bonuses encourage states to focus on breaking down participation barriers and enroll eligible individuals. The implementation of participation rate bonuses in the 2002 Farm Bill, alongside program outreach and other policy improvements, helped improve the ability of SNAP to reach eligible participants. Nationally, SNAP participation rates increased from 54 percent in FY2002 to 75 percent in FY2010, a 39 percent improvement.[xxxvi]
- States often use performance bonuses to reinvest in their SNAP program, further strengthening the program.
States have use funds to finance their on-line applications, case worker tools that improve efficiencies and program integrity, improved data matching with respect to earnings, and job training programs.
Deficit Reduction
It’s only fair to spread budget cuts across programs. Everyone has to contribute their share to deficit reduction.
- Our nation’s budget is a moral document, and the decisions Congress is making will have a real impact on real people.It’s easy to lose sight of that in Washington, but food banks and other charities on the ground know this is about more than numbers on a balance sheet. This is about real people – neighbors, constituents – who are struggling just to put food on the table.
- Washington has a long history of a bipartisan commitment to protecting the safety net and low-income people in past deficit reduction agreements. The three major deficit-reduction packages of the last two decades — the 1990, 1993, and 1997 packages — all adhered to this principle. This principle was upheld in the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Deficit Commission.
- Low-income families have already given more than they can bear to our nation’s economic policies. Low-income communities have suffered higher foreclosure rates,[xxxvii] and low-income families have experienced unemployment at a far higher rate.[xxxviii] Low-income families have also seen their incomes decline as our nation has experienced a growing wealth gap between rich and poor.[xxxix]
- Cuts to nutrition assistance programs are not only immoral, they are short-sighted. The impact of our nation’s hunger problem is estimated at over $167 billion per year.[xl] By improving access to food, federal nutrition programs protect families from hunger and improve their health and educational outcomes, making these programs a critical investment in people and communities for both the short and long-term.
SNAP ARRA Temporary Benefit Increase
The benefit increase provided by ARRA is not needed and Congress should take it back early.
- Congress made a promise not to put our most vulnerable families in a situation in which their benefits were suddenly pulled out from underneath them. But this is exactly what will happen because of cuts made to ARRA in 2010. All SNAP participants will see a benefit cut on November 1, 2013 when the temporary ARRA boost is terminated early. For a family of four, the cut will be $36 per month, a loss of $432 in food assistance over the course of the year.[xli] Rescinding the ARRA boost even earlier would only steepen this cliff. Faced with this unexpected drop in their monthly food budget, SNAP households are likely to turn to our nation’s food banks to help make ends meet. This increase in demand will only add to the strain felt by an emergency food system already struggling to meet elevated need in the recession.
- The SNAP benefit boost is working to protect families from hunger as they struggle with unemployment and reduced wages in the wake of the recession. Without the ARRA boost in SNAP benefits, the number of food insecure Americans would certainly be much worse. While hunger spiked dramatically in 2008 in the first year of the recession, since the ARRA boost went into effect in 2009, food insecurity has remained level and even decreased despite the fact that poverty continued to rise in 2009 and 2010.[xlii]
- For many families SNAP benefits do not last the entire month. The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person per meal, hardly enough for an adequate nutritious diet. [xliii] After the ARRA cut, the benefit will fall to less than $1.40 per person per meal. [xliv]
- Most participants run through their SNAP benefits by the third week of the month, and 58% of food bank clients currently receiving SNAP benefits turn to food banks for assistance at least 6 months out of the year. [xlv]
For more information: Sophie Milam, Director of Nutrition Assistance and Budget Policy, smilam@feedingamerica.org
REFERENCES
[i] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table A.14. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[ii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table 3.1. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2013 Federal Poverty Guidelines.https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/01/24/2013-01422/annual-update-of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelines
[iii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table A.5. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[iv] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Annual Program Data, 2007 and 2011.http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Unemployment Data, 2007 and 2011.http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data
[v] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical Unemployment Data. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monthly Program Data. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm Congressional Budget Office, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – March 2012 Baseline. March 2012.http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43072_SNAP.pdf
[vi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Stamp Program Quality Control Annual Report Fiscal Year 2000. April 2002.http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/FSP_QC_2000.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Payment Error Rates FY2011. June 6, 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/2011-rates.pdf
[vii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Payment Error Rates FY2011. June 6, 2012.http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/2011-rates.pdf Payment Accuracy Website. High Error Programs.http://www.paymentaccuracy.gov/high-priority-programs
[viii] U.S. General Accounting Office. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Errors and Trafficking Have Declined, but Challenges Remain. July 2010. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-956T
[ix] U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Extent of Trafficking in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: 2009-2011. August 2013. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ORA/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/ProgramIntegrity/Trafficking2009.pdf U.S. General Accounting Office. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Errors and Trafficking Have Declined, but Challenges Remain. July 2010.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10956t.pdf
[x] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Benefit Redemption Patterns in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Final Report. February 2011.http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/ProgramOperations/ARRASpendingPatterns.pdf Feeding America. Food Banks: Hunger’s New Staple. Preliminary Findings. September 2011. http://feedingamerica.org/press-room/in-the-news/the-new-normal.aspx
[xi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table D.3. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[xii] Gundersen, C., E. Waxman, E. Engelhard and A. Satoh. Map the Meal Gap. Feeding America, 2013.http://feedingamerica.org/mapthegap
[xiii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Annual Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs, data as of January 4, 2013. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
[xiv] Congressional Budget Office.
[xv] Based on Congressional Budget Office scores of House and Senate farm bills.
[xvi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table 3.1. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[xvii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table A.5. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[xviii] National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association, National Energy Assistance Survey. 2009.http://www.neada.org/publications/index.html
[xix] Feeding America, Hunger in America. 2010.http://feedingamerica.issuelab.org/resource/hunger_in_america_2010_national_report
[xx] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits, FY2012 Data. Data as of January 4, 2013. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/17SNAPfyBEN$.htm
[xxi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table A.3. November 2012.http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2011Characteristics.pdf
[xxii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table A.5. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[xxiii] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis of Senate Farm Bill amendments, 2012.
[xxiv] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table A.5. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[xxv] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis.
[xxvi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Annual Program Data, 2007 and 2011.http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Unemployment Data, 2007 and 2011.http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data
[xxvii] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical Unemployment Data. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monthly Program Data. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm Congressional Budget Office, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – February 2013 Baseline. February 2013. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43896-Supplemental%20Nutrition%20Assistance%20Program.pdf
[xxviii] The Congressional Budget Office estimates that repealing the categorical eligibility option would eliminate food assistance to 1.8 million low-income people. The Administration estimates that eliminating the option would terminate some 3 million individuals from the program.
[xxix] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Annual Program Data, 2007 and 2011.http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm Bureau of Labor Statistics, Annual Unemployment Data, 2007 and 2011.http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNU04000000?years_option=all_years&periods_option=specific_periods&periods=Annual+Data
[xxx] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical Unemployment Data. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Monthly Program Data. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm Congressional Budget Office, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – March 2012 Baseline. March 2012.http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43072_SNAP.pdf
[xxxi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Annual Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs, data as of January 4, 2013. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
[xxxii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs.http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis.
[xxxiii] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Policy Basics: Introduction to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). November 2012. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2226
[xxxiv] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. A.23. November 2012.http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2011Characteristics.pdf
[xxxv] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Stamp Program Payment Error Rates FY2002. October 1, 2003.http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/2002-rates.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Payment Error Rates FY2011. June 6, 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/qc/pdfs/2011-rates.pdf
[xxxvi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2009. Table 2. August 2011.http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/Trends2002-09.pdf U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2010. Table 4. December 2012.
[xxxvii] Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. The State of the Nation’s Housing. 2011.http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/son2011.pdf and Center for Responsible Lender. Lost Ground, 2011: Disparities in Mortgage Lending and Foreclosures. November 2011. http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research-analysis/Lost-Ground-2011.pdf
[xxxviii] Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University. Labor Underutilization Impacts of the Great Recession of 2007-2009: Variations in Labor Underutilization Problems Across Age, Gender, Race-Ethnic, Educational Attainment and Occupational Groups in the U.S. March 2010. http://www.northeastern.edu/clms/wp-content/uploads/Labor_Underutilization_Impacts_of_Great_Recession_of_20072009.pdf
[xxxix] Economic Policy Institute. The State of Working America: Income. 12th Edition.http://stateofworkingamerica.org/files/book/Chapter2-Income.pdf
[xl] Center for American progress, Hunger In America: Suffering We All Pay For. October 2011. http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/10/pdf/hunger_paper.pdf
[xli] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP Benefits Will Be Cut For All Participants in November 2013. August 2013.http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3899
[xlii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2011. Table 1A. September 2012. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884525/err141.pdf U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2011. Table B-1. September 2012. http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p60-243.pdf
[xliii] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2011. Table D.3. November 2012. http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/SNAPPartHH.htm
[xliv] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, SNAP Benefits Will Be Cut For All Participants in November 2013. August 2013.http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3899
[xlv] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Benefit Redemption Patterns in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Final Report. February 2011.http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/ProgramOperations/ARRASpendingPatterns.pdf Feeding America. Food Banks: Hunger’s New Staple. Preliminary Findings. September 2011. http://feedingamerica.org/press-room/in-the-news/the-new-normal.aspx
[xlvi] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2011. Table 1A. September 2012. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884525/err141.pdf
[xlvii] Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Unemployment Data. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
[i] Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., Andrews, M., Singh, A. (2013) Household Food Security in the United States in 2010. USDA ERS.
[ii] Dixon, Winkleby, and Radimer (2001) Dietary intakes and serum nutrients differ between adults from food-insufficient and food- sufficient families: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994.Journal of Nutrition, 131, 1232–1246.
[iii] McIntyre, Glanville, Raine, Dayle, Anderson, and Battaglia (2003) Do low-income lone mothers compromise their nutrition to feed their children? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 198, 686–691.
[iv] Tarasuk and Beaton (1999) Women’s Dietary Intakes in the Context of Household Food Insecurity.Journal of Nutrition, 129, 672-679.
[v] Ziliak, Gundersen, and Haist (2008) The Causes, Consequences, and Future of Senior Hunger in America. Special Report by the University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research for the Meals on Wheels Association of America Foundation.
[vi] Stuff, Casey, Szeto, Gossett, Robbins, Simpson, Connell, and Bogle (2004) Household Food Insecurity Is Associated with Adult Health Status. Journal of Nutrition, 134, 2330-2335.
[vii] Seligman, Bindman, Vittinghoff, Kanaya, and Kushel (2007) Food Insecurity is Associated with Diabetes Mellitus: Results from the National Health Examination and Nutritional Examination Survey 1999-2002.Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1018-1023.
[viii] Nelson, Cunningham, Andersen, Harrison and Gelberg (2001) Is Food Insufficiency Associated with Health Status and Health Care Utilization Among Adults with Diabetes? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16, 404-411.
[ix] Seligman, Laraia, and Kushel (2009) Food Insecurity Is Associated with Chronic Disease among Low-Income NHANES Participants. Journal of Nutrition, 140, 304-310.
[x] Kleinman, Murphy, Little, Pagano, Wehler, Regal, and Jellinek (1998) Hunger in children in the United States: Potential behavioral and emotional correlates. Pediatrics, 101 (1), e3.
[xi] Slack and Yoo (2005) Food hardship and child behavior problems among low-income children. Social Service Review, 75, 511–536.
[xii] Jyoti, Frongillo, and Jones (2005) Food insecurity affects school children's academic performance, weight gain, and social skills. Journal of Nutrition, 135, 2831–2839.
[xiii] Tarasuk (2001) Household Food Insecurity with Hunger Is Associated with Woman’s Food Intakes, Health and Household Circumstances. Journal of Nutrition, 131, 2670-2676.
[xiv] Heflin, Siefert, and Williams (2005) Food insufficiency and women’s mental health: Findings from a 3-year panel of welfare recipients. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1971-1982.
[xv] Whitaker, Phillips, and Orzol (2006) Food insecurity and the risks of depression and anxiety in mothers and behavior problems in their pre-school-aged children. Pediatrics, 118, e859–e868.
Hey, there is a broken link in this article, under the anchor text - http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884525/err141.pdf
ReplyDeletehere is the working link so you can replace it -https://selectra.co.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/err141.pdf