Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

src: epmgaa.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com

The Supplemental Nutrition Program ( SNAP ), formerly known as Food Stamp Program , provides food purchase assistance for low income families and non-residents in the United States. This is a federal aid program, administered by the US Department of Agriculture, under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), although the benefits are distributed by any US Family Services and Children Services Division and Family Services.

SNAP benefits cost $ 70.9 billion in fiscal year 2016 and supplied approximately 44.2 million Americans (14% of the population) with an average of $ 125.51 per person per month in food aid. Beneficiaries and costs rose sharply with the Great Recession, peaking in 2013 and declining until 2016 when the economy recovered. This is the largest nutrition program of 15 managed by FNS and is a component of the federal social safety net for low-income Americans.

The amount of SNAP benefits received by households depends on size, income, and household expenditure. For most of its history, the program uses stamps or paper coupons - worth US $ 1 (brown), $ 5 (blue), and $ 10 (green) - tied into booklets of various denominations, to be individually revoked and used in disposable exchange. Because of their 1: 1 value ratio with actual currency, coupons are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Their rectangular shape resembles a US dollar bill (though about half of it), including intaglio printing on high-quality paper with watermarks. In the late 1990s, the Food Food Program was revamped, with some countries gradually issuing actual stamps that supported a special debit card system known as Electronic Transfer Benefits (EBT), provided by private contractors. EBT has been implemented in all countries since June 2004. Every month, the benefits of SNAP food stamps are directly deposited into the EBT card account of households. Households can use EBT to pay for food in supermarkets, convenience stores, and other food retailers, including certain farmer markets.

Video Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Histori

Pertama Program Food Stamp (FSP) (16 Mei 1939 - Musim Semi 1943)

The idea for the first food voucher program has been credited to various people, notably US Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace and first program administrator, Milo Perkins. From the program, Perkins said, "We got a picture of the canyon, with a farm surplus on one cliff and less nutty townmen with arms outstretched on the other. We set out to find practical ways to build bridges across the ravine." this is operated by allowing people who are fit to buy orange stamps the same as their normal food expenses; for every $ 1 of orange stamps purchased, 50 cents of blue stamp are accepted. An orange stamp can be used to buy any food; Blue stamps can only be used to purchase food specified by the department to become surplus.

For nearly four years, the first FSP reached about 20 million people in nearly half of US districts, for a total cost of $ 262 million. At its peak, the program helped about four million people. The first recipient was Mabel McFiggin of Rochester, New York; the first retailer to redeem the stamp was Joseph Mutolo; and the first retailer caught in breach of the program rules was Nick Salzano in October 1939. The program ended when conditions that brought the program into a non-marketable food surplus and widespread unemployment - no more.

Pilot Food Stamp Program (1961-1964)

18 years between the end of the first FSP and the subsequent commencement filled with studies, reports, and legislative proposals. The prominent US Senator is actively linked to attempts to enforce a food stamp program during this period including George Aiken, Robert M. La Follette, Jr., Hubert Humphrey, Estes Kefauver, and Stuart Symington. From 1954, US Representative Leonor Sullivan sought to pass a food-stamp-program law.

On September 21, 1959, P.L. 86-341 allowed the Minister of Agriculture to operate a food voucher system until 31 January 1962. Administration Eisenhower never used authority. However, in fulfilling the campaign promise made in West Virginia, President John F. Kennedy's first Executive Order called for an expansion of food distribution and, on February 2, 1961, he announced that a food stamp program would begin. The pilot program will maintain the requirement that food vouchers be purchased, but eliminate the concept of a special stamp for excess food. A Department spokesman pointed out the emphasis is on increasing the consumption of perishable goods.

From the program, US Representative Leonor K. Sullivan of Missouri asserted, "... The Ministry of Agriculture seems determined to decipher the possible scope of its stamps and magnitude, involving about 25 million people, to make the whole idea of ​​stupid food stamps and tears plan to be in pieces. "

Food Stamps Act of 1964

The Food Stamps Act of 1964 allocated $ 75 million to 350,000 people in 40 districts and three cities. This measure received extraordinary support from House Democrats, 90 percent of urban areas, 96 percent of suburbs, and 87 percent of rural areas. Republican lawmakers oppose the initial move: only 12 percent of the urban Republican Party, 11 percent of the suburbs, and 5 percent of rural areas voted decisively. President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the food coupon as "a realistic and responsible step toward the full and wise use of agricultural abundance".

Rooted in congressional loggers, it is part of a larger allocation that increases price support for cotton and wheat. Rural MPs supported the program so their urban counterparts would not dismantle farm subsidies. Food stamps, along with Medicaid, Head Start, and Job Corps are at the forefront of a growing anti-poverty program.

President Johnson called for a permanent food stamp program on January 31, 1964, as part of the "War on Poverty" platform introduced at the State of the Union a few weeks earlier. Minister of Agriculture Orville Freeman submitted the law on April 17, 1964. The bill finally endorsed by Congress is H.R. 10222, which was introduced by Congresswoman Sullivan. One member of the House Committee on Agriculture voted against FSP in the Committee then Representative Bob Dole.

As a Senator, Dole became a staunch supporter of the program, after he worked with George McGovern to produce a bipartisan solution for two major issues related to food stamps: elaborate purchasing requirements and loose eligibility standards. Dole told Congress about the new provisions, "I believe that this bill eliminates greed and feeds people in need." The law is intended to strengthen the agricultural economy and provide better levels of nutrition among low-income households; however, the practical purpose is to bring the FSP pilot under the control of the congress and enact legislation.

The main provisions are:

• State Plan for the requirements of Operation and development of the state's eligibility standards;
• They require recipients to buy their food stamps, while paying the average money spent on food, then receive a number of food stamps that represent a nearer opportunity to get low-cost nutritious meals;
• The feasibility of buying with food vouchers from all goods destined for human consumption except alcoholic beverages and imported foods (House version will prohibit the purchase of soft drinks, fancy foods and frozen frozen foods);
• Prohibition against discrimination on the basis of race, religious belief, national origin, or political beliefs;
• The division of responsibilities between the State (certification and publishing) and the Federal Government (funding the benefits and authorization of retailers and wholesalers), with shared responsibility for administration funding costs; and
• Allocation for the first year is limited to $ 75 million; for the second year, to $ 100 million; and, for the third year, to $ 200 million.

The Ministry of Agriculture estimates that participation in the national PSF will eventually reach 4 million, at a cost of $ 360 million per year, well below the true figure.

Program expansion: achievement of participation in the 1960s and early 1970s

In April 1965, participation reached half a million. (The actual participation was 561,261 people.) Participation occupied 1 million in March 1966, 2 million in October 1967, 3 million in February 1969, 4 million in February 1970, 5 million one month later in March 1970, 6 million two months later on the month May 1970, 10 million in February 1971, and 15 million in October 1974. The rapid increase of participation during this period was primarily due to geographical expansion.

Major legislative changes (early 1970s)

The early 1970s were a period of growth in participation, concerns about the cost of providing food stamps, and questions about administration, especially timely certification. During this time, the problem is framed that will dominate the law stamp of food forever: how to balance program access with program accountability. The three main parts of legislation form this period, leading to massive reforms to follow:

P.L. 91-671 (January 11, 1971) establish uniform national standards for eligibility and employment requirements; it is necessary that the quota equals the cost of an adequate nutritional diet; household purchasing needs are limited to 30 percent of their income; institutionalizing outreach requirements; authorize the Ministry of Agriculture to pay 62.5 percent of the special administrative costs incurred by the State; expand FSP to Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands in the United States; and provided $ 1.75 billion in allocations for Fiscal Year 1971.

The 1973 Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act (P.L. 93-86, 10 August 1973) requires the State to extend the program to any political jurisdiction prior to 1 July 1974; expanding programs for drug addicts and alcoholics in care and rehabilitation centers; set a semi-annual, bi-monthly incremental adjustment, and a "cash-out" Security Income Addition (SSI) (which provides an option to the state for the benefit of Food Stamp to SSI beneficiaries in the form of their estimated consolidated cash value in the SSI Grant, for reduce administrative costs); introduces the complexity of legislation in the definition of income (by including payments in the form of goods and grants the exceptions accompanying them); and requires the Department to establish temporary viability standards for disasters.

P.L. 93-347 (12 July 1974) authorizes the Department to pay 50 percent of all state fees to manage the program and establish requirements for efficient and effective administration by America.

1974 national program

In accordance with P.L. 93-86, FSP began operating nationwide on July 1, 1974. (The program was not fully implemented in Puerto Rico until 1 November 1974.) Participation for July 1974 was nearly 14 million.

Eligible Access for Additional Security Beneficiaries

Once a person is a beneficiary of the Additional Security Revenue Program (SSI) he or she can automatically qualify for Food Stamps depending on the law (or her) state. How much money in the food coupons they receive also varies by country. Additional Income Security was created in 1974.

Food Food Stamp Act of 1977

Both the emerging Republican Government and the new Democratic Administration offered Congress proposing legislation to reform the FSP in 1977. The Republican bill emphasized the most simplified and simplified targeting of benefits to administrations, and tightened controls on programs; The Democratic Party Bill focuses on improving access to those most in need and simplifying and simplifying complex and complex processes that delay the benefits and reduce errors, and limit abuse. The main strengths for Democratic Administration are Robert Greenstein, Food and Nutrition Service Administrator (FNS).

In Congress, the main players are Sen. George McGovern, Jacob Javits, Humphrey, and Dole and Congressmen Foley and Richmond. Among all the themes, one of the appeals for FSP reform is "EPR" - eliminating the terms of purchase - because of barriers to participation in purchasing requirements represented. The bill that became law (S. 275) did remove the terms of purchase. Too:

• eliminates category eligibility;
• establishing statutory earnings eligibility guidelines on the poverty line;
• sets 10 excluded earnings categories,
• reduce the number of deductions used to calculate net income and establish standard deductions to replace the withholding that is removed;
• raises the general resource limit to $ 1,750;
• establish a fair market value test (FMV) to evaluate the vehicle as a resource;
• households sentenced by head voluntarily to quit their jobs;
• restrictions on eligibility for students and aliens;
• removes the requirement that households should have cooking facilities;
• replaces the bill for a store with cash changes of up to 99 cents;
• establishes the principle that stores should sell large quantities of staple foods if they are to be authorized;
• establishes the basic rules for the administration of the Indian Tribal Organization in the FSP on reservations; and
• introduce the authority of the demonstration project.

In addition to the EPR, the Food Stamp Act of 1977 included several access provisions:

• using email, phone or home visit for certification;
• requirements for outreach, personnel and bilingual materials, and nutrition education materials;
• the right of the recipient to submit the application on the first day they attempt to do so;
• 30 day processing standards and the inception of an accelerated service concept;
• co-processing and coordination of SSI with Assistance to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the main cash welfare program;
• notice, re-certification, and retroactive benefit protection; and
• requirements for States to develop disaster plans.

The integrity requirements of the new program include disqualification of fraud, enhanced Federal funding for state anti-fraud activities, and financial incentives for low error rates.

The 1977 Legislative Report's report indicates that changes to the Food Stamp Program are required without reference to future welfare reforms as "the path to welfare reform is, indeed, rocky...."

EPR was implemented January 1, 1979. The month's participation increased by 1.5 million during the previous month.

Early 1980s reduction

The large and costly FSP proved to be a favorite subject of close scrutiny from both the Executive Branch and the Congress in the early 1980s. Major legislation in 1981 and 1982 imposed reductions including:

• the addition of a gross income assessment test in addition to a net income test for most households;
• temporary freezing on adjustments of occupancy reduction hats and standard reductions and constraints on future adjustments;
• annual adjustment in the allotment of food stamps rather than semi-annual;
• the consideration of elderly parents living with their children and elderly brothers living together as a single household;
• need periodic reporting and retrospective budgeting;
• a ban on using Federal funds for outreach;
• replace FSP in Puerto Rico with block grants for nutritional support;
• calculates a pension account as a resource;
• the country option to request job searches from applicants as well as participants; and
• an increase in the disqualification period for people who voluntarily quit.

Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) began in Reading, Pennsylvania, in 1984.

Mid to late 1980s

The acknowledgment of severe domestic hunger problems during the second half of the 1980s led to additional expansion of FSPs in 1985 and 1987, such as the abolition of sales taxes on meal coupons, category eligibility reinstitutions, increased resource limits for most households ($ 2,000) feasibility for homelessness, and expanded nutrition education. The Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 and the Domestic Mortey Law of Mickey Leland Memorial in 1990 predicted an improvement. The legislation of 1988 and 1990 reached the following points:

• increase benefits by applying the doubling factor to the Food Package cost;
• create an optional activity outreach for the Country;
• excludes income tax credits earned previously as earnings;
• simplify procedures for calculating medical deductions;
• institutionalize periodic adjustment of minimum benefits;
• authorize nutrition education fund;
• impose severe penalties for violations by participating individuals or companies; and
• sets EBT as an alternative to publishing.

Throughout this era, significant players are essentially various committee leaders: Congressman Leland, Hall, Foley, Leon Panetta, and, de la Garza and Senator Patrick Leahy.

1993 Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act

In 1993, major changes in the benefits of food stamps have arrived. The last legislation provided for $ 2.8 billion in benefit increases during the Fiscal Year 1984-1988. Leon Panetta, in his new role as Director of OMB, played a leading role as did Senator Leahy. Substantive changes include:

• removes the dwelling-reduction cap from 1 January 1997;
• provide a deduction for legally binding child benefit payments made to non-home members;
• raises the upper limit of treatment reductions that depend from $ 160 to $ 200 for children under 2 years and $ 175 for all other dependents;
• increase labor and training reimbursement (E & amp; T);
• increased the FMV test for vehicles to $ 4,550 on September 1, 1994 and $ 4,600 on October 1, 1995, then annually adjusted the value from $ 5,000 on October 1, 1996;
• mandates asset accumulation demonstration projects; and
• simplify the definition of the household.

Next agenda of participation

In December 1979, participation eventually surpassed 20 million. In March 1994, participation reached a new high of 28 million.

welfare reform 1996 and subsequent amendments

The mid-1990s were a period of welfare reform. Prior to 1996, the rules for the cash welfare program, Assistance for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), were released to many states. With the enactment of the 1996 welfare reform legislation, the so-called Personal Responsibility and Employment Reconciliation Act of 1996 (AFWC), the rights program, replaced by a new block grant for a state called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF ).

Although the Food Food Program was re-authorized in the 1996 Agricultural Act, welfare reforms in 1996 made some changes to the program, including:

• removes the eligibility for food stamps from most of the legal immigrants who have been in the country for less than five years;
• places a time limit on receipt of three meal coupons of 36 months for Able-bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs), who do not work for at least 20 hours per week or participate in work programs;
• reducing the maximum allocation to 100 percent change in the Frugal Food Plan (TFP) from 103 percent change in TFP;
• freeze standard reductions, vehicle limits, and minimum benefits;
• set up residence caps at a specified rate of up to $ 300 by fiscal year 2001, and allows countries to mandate use of standard utility allowances;
• to revise the terms for disqualification, including disqualification comparable to other proven programs; and
• requires countries to implement EBT before October 1, 2002.

As a result of all these changes, "participation rates dropped dramatically" in the late 1990s, according to Slate's online magazine.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) and Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Act of 1998 (AREERA) made several changes to this provision, the most significant:

• use the Additional Employment and Training Fund (E & amp; T) to provide employment opportunities for able-bodied adults without dependents;
• allows the state to exclude up to 15 per cent of able-bodied adults without dependents who otherwise do not qualify;
• restore eligibility for elderly, disabled, and minority immigrants living in the United States when the 1996 welfare reform legislation is enacted; and
• deducts state funds for administration to account for certain administrative costs that have been previously allocated to the AFDC program and should now be allocated to the Food Program.

The fiscal year budget of agricultural agriculture includes two significant changes. The law raises the residential cover overhead to $ 340 in fiscal year 2001 and then indexes the upper limit of changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Consumers each year starting in fiscal 2002. The law also allows countries to use the vehicle limits they use in the TANF Assistance Program, if it will result in lower resource attribution for households.

Electronic Benefits Transfer

In the late 1990s, the Food Food Program was revamped, with some countries gradually issuing actual stamps that supported a special debit card system known as Electronic Transfer Benefits (EBT), provided by private contractors. Many states combine the use of EBT cards for community welfare programs as well, such as cash assistance. This step is designed to save government money by not printing coupons, making benefits available immediately rather than asking the recipient to wait for delivery or picking up books directly, and reducing theft and redirection.

Renamed the Food Stamp Program

The agriculture bill of 2008 was renamed the Food Food Program as an Additional Nutrition Support Program (early October 2008) and replaced all references to "stamp" or "coupons" in federal law with "card" or "EBT."

Temporary benefits increase from April 2009 to November 2013

The benefits of SNAP are temporarily increasing with the passing of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the federal stimulus package to help Americans affected by the Great Recession 2007. Beginning in April 2009 and continuing to expire on 1 November 2013, the ARRA uses $ 45 , 2 billion to increase the monthly benefit rate to an average of $ 133. This represents a 13.6 percent increase in funding for SNAP recipients.

This temporary expansion ends on November 1, 2013, resulting in a decrease in relative benefits for SNAP households; on average, benefits decrease by 5 percent. According to the Center's report on Budget and Priority Policies, the maximum monthly benefits for family four fell from $ 668 to $ 632, while the maximum monthly benefit for individuals fell from $ 200 to $ 189.

Company impact and support

In June 2014, Mother Jones reported that "In all, 18 percent of all food money is spent at Walmart," and that Walmart has sent a statement to the US Securities and Exchange Commission stating,

Our business operations have many risks, factors, and uncertainties, both domestic and international, that are beyond our control. These factors include... changes in the amount of payments made under the Additional Nutrition Assistance Plan and other public assistance plans, [and] changes in the eligibility requirements of the public assistance plan.

Companies that have lobbied on behalf of SNAP include PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and Kroger grocery chain chains. Kraft Foods, which receives "One-six [of] its earnings... from the purchase of food coupons" also opposes cutting food stamps.

Maps Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Feasibility

Because SNAP is a proven program, the recipient must meet all eligibility criteria to receive benefits. There are income and resource requirements for SNAP, as well as special requirements for immigrants, the elderly and persons with disabilities.

Terms of earnings

For income, individuals and households may be eligible for benefits if they earn a monthly gross income of 130% (or less) of the federal poverty rate for a given household size. For example: SNAP's gross monthly earnings eligible are $ 1,245 or less for an individual. For household 4, SNAP's gross monthly income eligible is $ 2,552 or less. Gross monthly income is the amount a person earns each month before any deductions, ie taxes, insurance, pensions, etc.

Resource requirements

There are also resource requirements for SNAP, although the eligibility requirements vary slightly from one state to another. In general, households may have up to $ 2,250 in bank accounts or other sources that can be counted. If at least one person is 60 or older and/or has a disability, the household may have $ 3,500 in resources that can be counted.

Housing expenses

The lack of affordable housing in urban areas means that the money that can be spent on food is spent on the cost of housing. Housing is generally considered affordable when costs are 30% or less of total household income; the rising cost of housing has made this difficult to achieve.

This is especially true in New York City, where 28% of stable tenant renters spend more than half their income on rent. Among low-income families the percentage is much higher. According to Community Service forecasts, 65% of New York City families living below the federal poverty line pay more than half of their income on rent.

The current eligibility criteria seek to address this, by including reductions for "excessive shelter". This only applies to households who spend more than half of their net income for rent. For the purposes of this calculation, household net income is obtained by deducting certain deductions from gross income (before deduction). If the total household expenditure on the lease exceeds 50% of the net income, the net income is subsequently reduced by the amount of the lease that exceeds 50% of net income. For 2007, this reduction should be no more than $ 417, except in a household that includes a parent or disabled person. Reductions include:

1. deduction of the deductible standard from income for all recipients,
2. deductions earned that reflect taxes and work costs,
3. deductions for maintenance costs dependent on work or training (to some extent),
4. deductions for child benefit payments,
5. deductions for medical expenses above the set amount per month (available only for elderly and disabled people), and
6. deductions for exorbitant residency costs.

Adjusted net income, including deductions for excessive shelter costs, is used to determine whether households qualify for food stamps.

The status and feasibility of immigrants

The Farm Bill 2002 restores the validity of SNAP for most of the legal immigrants who:

• Have lived in this country for 5 years; or
• Receive help or benefits related to disability; or
• Request child under 18

Certain non-citizens, such as those who claim for humanitarian reasons and those who are accepted for permanent residence, may also qualify for SNAP. Eligible household members may benefit from SNAP even if there are other members of the household who are not eligible.

src: www.bls.gov

Applying for SNAP benefits

To apply for the benefits of SNAP, an applicant must first fill out the application program and return it to the state or local SNAP office. Each country has different applications, which are usually available online. There is more information about the various state application processes, including SNAP office locations in different states, displayed on the interactive Map Outreach found on the FNS website. Individuals who believe they may qualify for the benefits of SNAP can use the Food and Nutrition SNAP Screening Tool ', which can help measure eligibility.

src: www.gannett-cdn.com

Decent food items under SNAP

As per USDA regulations, households can use the benefits of SNAP to purchase:

• Food for households to eat, such as:
  • fruit and vegetables;
  • bread and cereals;
  • dairy products;
  • meat, fish and;
  • poultry
• Plants and seeds suitable for household consumption.

In addition, restaurants operating in certain areas may be permitted to receive SNAP benefits from eligible candidates such as elderly, homeless, or disabled persons in exchange for affordable meals.

However, the USDA clearly states that households can not use the benefits of SNAP to purchase the following:

• Wine, beer, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
• Certain non-food items such as:
  • soap, paper products, deodorant
  • household supplies, and
  • pet food
• Hot food
• Food items that can be consumed in stores
• Vitamins and drugs

Soft drinks, sweets, cakes, snack chips, and ice cream are classified as food and therefore eligible items. Seafood, steak, and bread are also food and therefore are qualified items.

The energy drinks that have nutritional facts labels are eligible foods, but energy drinks that have a fact-label supplement are classified by the FDA as supplements, and therefore are not eligible.

Live animals and birds can not be bought; but live fish and shellfish are qualified foods. Pumpkin is eligible, but the pumpkin is not edible and the flask is not.

Gift baskets containing food and non-food items "are not eligible to be purchased with the benefit of SNAP if the value of non-food goods exceeds 50 percent of the purchase price.Items like birthdays and other special event cakes qualify as long as the value of the decoration is not edible not exceeding 50 percent of the price. "

src: slideplayer.com

Country options

Countries are allowed under federal law to administer SNAP in different ways. Since April 2015, the USDA has published eleven periodic Country Choice Reports that outline the variations in how the country has managed the program. USDA's latest Country Choice Report, published in April 2015, summarizes:

SNAP legislation, regulations, and waivers provide state institutions with various policy options. State agencies use this flexibility to tailor their programs to meet the needs of eligible, low-income people in their countries. Modernization and technology have given America new opportunities and options for managing programs. Certain choices can facilitate program design goals, such as eliminating or reducing barriers to access for low-income families and individuals, or providing better support for those working or looking for work. This flexibility helps countries better target benefits for those most in need, streamline program administration and field operations, and coordinate SNAP activities with other program activities.

Some areas of difference between countries include: when and how often SNAP recipients should report on household circumstances; whether the state agency acts on all reported changes or only some changes; whether the state uses a simplified method to determine the cost of doing business in cases where the applicant is self-employed; and whether legally mandated child benefit payments made to non-household members are counted as income exclusions rather than deductions.

State agencies also have the option to call their program SNAP; whether to continue to refer to their program under the previous name, Food Food Program; or whether to choose an alternate name. Among the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, 32 call their program SNAP; five continue to call the Food Food Program; and 16 have adopted their own name. For example, California calls its SNAP application "CalFresh", while Arizona calls its program "Nutrition Assistance".

src: i.ytimg.com

Countries and districts with the highest usage of SNAP per capita

According to January 2015 figures reported by the Census Bureau and USDA and compiled by USA Today , the states and districts with the most per capita stamp coupon receivers are:

According to June 2009 figures reported by state agencies, USDA, and Census Bureau, and compiled by New York Times , the individual regions with the highest SNAP usage rates are:

src: slideplayer.com

Impact

During the 2008 recession, SNAP participation reached an all-time high. Arguing to support the SNAP, the Center for Food Research and Action argues that "putting more resources quickly into the hands of those most likely to turn around and spend it can boost the economy and alleviate the difficulties of vulnerable people facing continuous struggle. fight hunger. "Researchers have found that every $ 1 is spent on SNAP results in $ 1.73 of economic activity. In California, the cost-benefit ratio is even higher: for every $ 1 spent from SNAP between $ 3.67 to $ 8.34 is kept in health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office also assesses the increased benefits of SNAP as one of the two most cost effective of all tax expenditures and options under study to promote growth and employment in a weak economy.

Participants

A summary of statistical reports shows that an average of 44.2 million people use the program in FY 2016, down from 45.8 million in 2015 and below the peak of 2013 of 47.6 million. SNAP is capable of supporting 75% of those eligible for the program. Nearly 72 percent of SNAP participants are families with children; more than a quarter of the participants are at home with elderly or disabled people.

In 2013, over 15% of the US population receives food aid, and more than 20% in Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oregon, and Tennessee. Washington D.C. is the largest share of the population to receive food aid in more than 23%.

According to the US Department of Agriculture (based on data studies collected in Fiscal Year 2010), the statistics for the food stamp program are as follows:

• 49% of all participating households have children (17 years and under), and 55% of them are single parent households.
• 15% of all participants households have elderly members (age 60 or above).
• 20% of all participant households have immature and disabled members.
• Average monthly gross income per stamp food household is $ 731; The average net income is $ 336.
• 37% of participants are Caucasian, 22% African-American, 10% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 4% Native American, and 19% of unknown race or ethnicity.

Cost

The amount paid to program beneficiaries increased from $ 28.6 billion in 2005 to $ 76.1 billion in 2013, falling back to $ 66.6 billion in 2016. This increase is due to high unemployment rates (leading to higher SNAP participation) and increased benefits per person with the passage of time from ARRA. SNAP average monthly benefit increased from $ 96.18 per person to $ 133.08 per person. The costs of other programs, which include the Federal spending part of State administration, Nutrition Education, and Employment and Training, amount to approximately $ 3.7 million in 2013. There are budget cuts programs introduced in 2014 that are estimated to save $ 8.6 billion for 10 year. Some countries are looking for action in the state to balance the cuts, so they will not affect the recipients of the federal aid program.

Food safety and insecurity

While SNAP participants and other low-income nonparticipants spend the same amount of food expenditure, SNAP participants are more likely to experience greater food insecurity than non-participants. This is believed to be a reflection of the well-being of individuals who take the time to propose SNAP benefits rather than the lack of SNAP. Households facing the greatest difficulty are the most likely to bear the burden of bringing the program benefits. Therefore, SNAP participants tend to be, on average, less safe food than other low-income nonparticipants.

The self-selection by more households in need of food into SNAP makes it difficult to observe the positive effects on food security from survey data. This statistical model that controls endogeneity suggests that SNAP acceptance reduces the possibility of insecure food and insecure food by about 30 percent and 20 percent, respectively.

Poverty

Because SNAP is a meaningful rights program, the level of participation is closely related to the number of individuals living in poverty in a given period. In the period of economic recession, SNAP registration tends to increase and in the period of prosperity, SNAP participation tends to be lower. Therefore, unemployment is also associated with the participation of SNAP. However, ERS data show that the poverty inclusion rate and SNAP continue to increase after the 2008 recession, even though the unemployment rate has declined. The poverty rate is the strongest correlation for program participation.

A 2016 study found that the benefits of SNAP led to greater spending on housing, transport, and education by beneficiaries.

Income maintenance

The purpose of the Food Stamp Program as stipulated in its implementation is to assist low-income households in obtaining adequate and nutritious food. According to Peter H. Rossi, a sociologist whose work involves the evaluation of social programs, "the program is based on the assumption that households with limited incomes can skimp on food purchases and live on an inadequate diet in quantity and quality, or, on other needs to maintain an adequate diet ". Food stamps, such as those done by Rossi, MacDonald, and Eisinger, are used not only to improve food but also as revenue maintenance. Maintenance of income is money that households can spend on other things because they no longer have to spend it on food. According to various studies shown by Rossi, since income maintenance is only about $ 0.17- $ 0.47 more is spent on food for every dollar of food stamps than is spent before the individual who receives the food coupon.

Dietary qualities

Studies are not conclusive whether SNAP has a direct effect on the nutritional quality of food choices made by participants. Unlike other federal programs that provide food subsidies, the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), SNAP has no nutritional standards for purchasing. Critics of the program point out that this lack of structure represents a lost opportunity for the advancement of public health and the cost of detention. In April 2013, the USDA research agency, Economic Research Service (ERS), published a study that examined dietary quality in SNAP participants compared to non-low-income participants. The study revealed differences in dietary quality between SNAP participants and low non-income participants, finding that SNAP participants score slightly lower on the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) than nonparticipants. The study also concluded that SNAP increases the likelihood that participants will consume whole fruit as much as 23 percentage points. However, the analysis also shows that SNAP participation reduces the intake of dark green and orange vegetables by modest amounts.

A 2016 study found no evidence that SNAP increased spending on tobacco by beneficiaries.

Macroeconomic effect

The USDA Economic Research Service explains: "SNAP is a counter-cyclical government assistance program - it provides assistance to more low-income households during economic or recession crises and fewer households during economic expansion." Increased participation of SNAP during the economic downturn resulted in the expenditure of SNAP greater that which, in turn, stimulates the economy. "

In 2011, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack gave a statement on the benefits of SNAP: "Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $ 1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity." Vilsack's estimates are based on a 2002 USDA study that found that "in the end, an additional $ 5 billion of FSP (Food Challenge Program) spending triggers an increase in total economic activity (production, sales, and shipping) of $ 9.2 billion and an increase in employment from 82.100, "or $ 1.84 stimulus for every dollar spent.

A report in January 2008 by Moody's chief analyst Mark Zandi analyzed the measures of the 2008 Economic Stimulus Act and found that in a weak economy, every $ 1 in SNAP spending generated $ 1.73 in real GDP growth, making it a stimulus the most effective of all the provisions of the action, including tax cuts and increased spending.

A 2010 report by Kenneth Hanson published by the USDA's Economic Research Service estimates that a $ 1 billion increase in SNAP spending raises economic activity (GDP) of $ 1.79 billion (ie, a GDP multiplier of 1.79). The same report also estimates that "the preferred job impact... is 8,900 equivalent full-time jobs plus self-employed or 9,800 full-time and part-time jobs plus self-employed from $ 1 billion of SNAP benefits."

Local economic effects

In March 2013, The Washington Post reported that a third of Woonsocket, a Rhode Island population using food stamps, locates local traders on a "boom or bust" cycle each month when EBT payments are kept. The Post stated that "the federal program that started as a last resort for several million hungry people has grown into an economic pathway for the whole city." And this growth "has been very fast in the prosperous places that were once hit by housing hammers".

In addition to local municipal traders, national retailers are beginning to take a large percentage of SNAP benefits. For example, "Walmart estimates it takes about 18% of total US spending on food stamps."

Fraud and abuse

In March 2012, the USDA published its fifth report in a series of periodic analyzes to estimate the level of trading in SNAP; ie, sell or change the benefits of SNAP for cash payments. Although trade does not directly increase the costs to the Federal Government, it diverts the benefits of the intended purpose of helping low-income families access nutritious food. Also trade can indirectly increase costs by encouraging participants to stay within the program longer than intended, or by giving incentives to new entrants who want to profit from trading. The FNS aggressively acts to control the trade by using SNAP's purchase data to identify suspicious transaction patterns, conduct undercover investigations, and collaborate with other investigative agencies.

Human trafficking deflects a cent of each SNAP dollar ($ 330 million per year) from SNAP benefits between 2006 and 2008. Human trafficking has declined over time from nearly 4 percent in the 1990s. Approximately 8.2 percent of all stores traded from 2006 to 2008 compared with 10.5 percent of SNAP's official stores involved in trading in 2011. Various store characteristics and arrangements are linked to trading levels. Although major stores account for 87.3 percent of all redemption of SNAP, they account for only 5.4 percent of the redemption trade. Trafficking is much less likely to occur between publicly owned and privately owned stores and is much less likely in stores in areas with lower poverty rates than more. The total annual value of traded allowances increases around the same rate as the overall growth of the program. The current forecast of total traded SNAP dollars is higher than that observed in the previous 2002-2005 period. This increase is consistent, however, with growth of nearly 37 percent in the average annual benefit of SNAP from the 2002-2005 study period to the most recent. The methodology used to generate these estimates has known limitations. However, given the variable data and resources, it is the most practical approach available to FNS. Further improvements to trafficking trafficking estimates will require new resources to assess the prevalence of trade among store random samples.

The USDA report released in August 2013 said the dollar value of trade increased to 1.3 percent, up from 1 percent in the USDA survey of 2006-2008, and "About 18 percent of the stores are classified as department stores or small groceries that are thought to have been traded For bigger stores (supermarkets and groceries), only 0.32 percent are estimated to be traded, in terms of redemption, about 17 percent of redemption and 14 percent of store redemption estimated to have been traded at level 0, 2 percent for big stores. "

USDA, in December 2011, announced a new policy to try to curb waste, fraud, and abuse. This change will include a rigid penalty for a captured retailer participating in illegal activities or fraud. "The Department proposes an increase in penalties for retailers and provides countries with access to large federal databases they will be required to use to verify information from applicants.The fraudulent benefits of SNAP, generally in the form of shop employees who purchase EBT cards from widespread recipients in urban areas area, with one in seven corner stores involved in such behavior, according to recent government estimates.There are more than 200,000 stores, and we have 100 agents spread across the country.Some do undercover work, but the main way we track fraud is through analysis of electronic transactions "for a suspicious pattern, USDA Under Secretary Kevin Concannon told The Washington Times. In addition, countries will be provided with additional guidance that will help develop tighter policies for those who wish to effectively investigate fraud and clarify trade definitions.

According to the Government Accountability Office, at the 2009 count, there was a mistake payment rate of 4.36% of SNAP benefits falling from 9.86% in 1999. The 2003 analysis found that two thirds of all improper payments were the errors of social workers, not participants. There are also instances of fraud involving the exchange of SNAP benefits for cash and/or for items not eligible for purchase with EBT cards. In 2011, the Michigan program elevates eligibility requirements for full-time students, in order to save taxpayers money and to end the students' use of the monthly SNAP benefits.

In Maine, recycling fraud incidents have occurred in the past where individuals once committed fraud by using their EBT card to buy canned or bottled beverages (requiring deposits to be paid at the point of purchase for each container), dispose of the contents out so that the empty containers can be returned for the redemption of deposits, and thus, allowing these people to finally purchase non-EBT official products with cash from the deposit of drink storage.

The State of Utah developed a system called "eFind" to monitor, evaluate and cross-check qualification and reporting of beneficiary asset data. The Utah eFind system is a "back end", web-based system that collects, filters, and organizes information from different federal, state, and local databases. Data in eFind is used to help eligible workers state the applicant's eligibility for public assistance programs, including Medicaid, CHIP, Supplemental Nutrition Programs (SNAP), Provisional Needs for Families (TANF), and child care assistance. When information is changed in a single database, reported changes become available to other departments that use the system. The system is developed with federal funds and is available to other countries for free.

The USDA only reports direct fraud and trade benefits, which are officially estimated at $ 858 million in 2012. Cato Institute reported that there were another $ 2.2 billion in wrong payments in 2009. Cato also reported that the wrong rate of payments fell significantly from 5.6 percent in 2007 to 3.8 percent in 2011.

src: sustainfloyd.org

The role of SNAP in a healthy diet

​​â € <â €

The Farm Bill 2008 stipulates $ 20 million to spend on pilot projects to determine whether the incentives given to SNAP recipients at the sales premises will increase the purchase of fruits, vegetables, or other healthful foods. Fifteen countries expressed interest in having a pilot program and, finally, five countries submitted applications to be considered for HIP. Hampden County, Massachusetts was selected as a Healthy Incentive Pilot site (HIP). The HIP is designed to run from August 2010 to April 2013 with the actual operating phase of the pilot program scheduled for 15 months, from November 2011 to January 2013.

HIP offers select 30% SNAP subscription recipients on the products, which are credited to the participant's EBT card, for 15 months. 7,500 households will participate HIP and the same amount will not; the differences between the two groups will be analyzed to see the effect of the program. Produce, under HIP, is defined as fresh, frozen, canned, or dried fruit and vegetables that have no added sugar, salt, fat, or oil.

Administrative responsibilities

The Massachusetts Transitional Assistance Department (DTA) is the state agency responsible for SNAP. DTA has recruited retailers to take part in HIP and sell more products, plan changes to the EBT system with country EBT vendors, and recruit six new HIP dedicated staff members. DTA has agreed to provide FNS with monthly reports, data collection and evaluation.

Proposals to limit "junk food" or "luxury goods"

Periodically, proposals have been proposed to limit the benefits of SNAP from being used to purchase various categories or types of food that have been criticized as "junk food" or "luxury goods". However, the Congress and the Ministry of Agriculture have repeatedly rejected the proposal on administrative burdens and reasons of personal freedom. The Food and Nutrition Service noted in 2007 that there was no federal standard to determine which foods should be considered "healthy" or not, that "vegetables, fruits, grain products, meat and meat alternatives for nearly three quarters of the value of food money used by household food vouchers "and that" food stamp receivers are no more likely to consume soft drinks than higher-income individuals, and are less likely to consume sweets and salty snacks. "Thomas Farley and Russell Sykes argue that the USDA should reconsider the possibility of limiting purchases "junk food" with SNAP to encourage healthy eating, along with incentives to purchase healthy goods through credit programs or rebates that make food like fresh vegetables and meat cheaper. They also note that many urban food stores do a poor job of storing healthy food and instead prefer high-profit-processed goods.

src: slideplayer.com

See also

• Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2007 Farm Bill)
• Challenge of food stamp
• Lone Star Card (Texas Electronic Benefit Transfer)
• National School Lunch Act
• Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
• Ministry of Agriculture v. Moreno , 413 U.S. 528 (1973)
• Lyng v. Castillo , 477 U.S. 635 (1986)

General:

• Hunger in the United States
• Social programs in the United States
• Social safety nets
• Food policy

src: www.gannett-cdn.com

References

src: sustainfloyd.org

Source

• US Department of Health and Human Services, "2002 Welfare Dependency Indicator Appendix A: Program Data: Food Stamp Program"
• Articles based on USDA Web publications: Brief History of the Food Food Program
• Eisinger, Peter K. Toward the end of hunger in America . Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1998.
• MacDonald, Maurice. Food, Stamps, and Revenue Maintenance. New York: Academic Pres, Inc., 1977.
• Gundersen, Craig; LeBlanc, Michael; Kuhn, Betsey, "Food Changing Landscape: Food Food Program in Post-Welfare Reform Environment, US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. (AER773) 36 pp, March 1999

src: pbs.twimg.com

External links

• This article incorporates public domain material from the US Department of Agriculture website or document.
• Additional Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in Food and Nutrition Services
• Video history of the Food Stamp Program of Centers on Budget Priorities and Policies
• Center your Budget and Policy Priorities-Everything You Want to Know About SNAP-July 2013
• SNAP/Food Challenge Food
• Food Stamp Fraud - Supermarket Owner Imprisoned for Multi-Million Dollar Fraud (FBI)

Source of the article : Wikipedia