USDA Restores Original Intent of SNAP: A Second Chance, Not A Way of Life

"At the direction of President Donald J. Trump, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue today announced a final rule to move more able-bodied recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) towards self-sufficiency and into employment. The rule restores the system to what Congress intended: assistance through difficult times, not a way of life.

"Americans are generous people who believe it is their responsibility to help their fellow citizens when they encounter a difficult stretch. Government can be a powerful force for good, but government dependency has never been the American dream. We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand,” said Secretary Perdue. “Now, in the midst of the strongest economy in a generation, we need everyone who can work, to work. This rule lays the groundwork for the expectation that able-bodied Americans re-enter the workforce where there are currently more job openings than people to fill them.”

More from Secretary Perdue can be found in his Arizona Daily Star oped: The dignity of work and the American Dream.

Background:

In 1996, when then President Bill Clinton signed welfare reform instituting the current work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) he said, “First and foremost, it should be about moving people from welfare to work. It should impose time limits on welfare... It [work] gives structure, meaning and dignity to most of our lives.”

With a booming economy that has more jobs than workers to fill them and the lowest unemployment rate in more than 50 years, now is the time for every work-capable American to find employment. In fact, the latest U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) figures show the unemployment rate is 3.6% and there are 7.0 million job openings. The longer an individual is out of the workforce, the harder it is to re-enter. Now is the time for these individuals to enter, reenter, and remain in the workforce.

To put things in perspective, in 2000, the unemployment rate was 4% and the number of Americans receiving SNAP benefits was just over 17 million. In 2019, during the longest economic expansion in history, the unemployment rate is 3.6% and yet the number of Americans receiving SNAP is over 36 million.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) final rule promotes work for able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 without dependents and does not apply to children and their parents, those over 50 years old including the elderly, those with a disability, or pregnant women.."
SNAP (food stamps)

New CEA Report Finds that SNAP Benefits are Crucial for Families but Sometimes Inadequate

"The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps, is the cornerstone of U.S. efforts to alleviate hunger by supplementing the food budgets of low-income households. Last year, SNAP lifted at least 4.7 million people out of poverty—including 2.1 million children. 

As we prepare to celebrate the holidays with family and friends, too many families are struggling with food insecurity. A new report today from the White House Council of Economic Advisers finds that while SNAP is highly effective at reducing food insecurity, benefit levels are often inadequate to sustain families through the end of the month — causing children to go hungry and endangering their health, educational performance, and life chances..."
SNAP

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

"The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps) provides benefits to low-income households to help them purchase food. The program is an “automatic stabilizer,” meaning that its number of beneficiaries and amount of spending increase
automatically during tough economic times. In fiscal year 2011, total federal expenditures on SNAP—$78 billion— and participation in the program (measured as the number of participants and as a share of the U.S. population) were the highest they have ever been. In an average
month that year, nearly 45 million people (or one in seven U.S. residents) received SNAP benefits ..."

Food Stamp/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Receipt in the Past 12 Months for Households by State: 2009 and 201

"As households continue to face uncertain economic times, food stamp/SNAP participation continues to increase in the United States. This report presents data on food stamp/SNAP receipt for the past 12 months at the national and state levels based on the 2009 and 2010 American Community Surveys (ACS). The data in this report are for households, not individuals. If any person living at the sample address at the time of the interview received food stamps/SNAP, the household is included in the count. Respondents were asked to report any spells of food stamp/SNAP receipt for the past 12 month..."

Low-Income Women’s Experiences With Food Programs, Food Spending, and Food-Related Hardships: Evidence From Qualitative Data
"This study examines the economic coping strategies of low-income families, using data collected through qualitative interviews conducted in 2006-08 with 35 low-income women residing in the Detroit metropolitan area. Three rounds of interviews found that the majority of the sample were employed at least some of the time, and most had children living with them. Despite careful shopping practices, rising food prices forced cutbacks in purchase of certain foods, including milk, cereal, fruits, and meat. Just under half reported running out of food at some point during the year. As for government assistance, the then named Food Stamp Program, and now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), was their mainstay. Even when eligible for benefits, many of the families did not receive cash assistance, unemployment benefits, or workers’ compensation due to perceived access barriers.

Disclaimer: This study was conducted by University of Michigan under cooperative agreement number 59-5000-6-0103. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of ERS or USDA."

The Costs of Benefit Delivery in the Food Stamp Program: Lessons From a Cross-Program Analysis
"This study compares the Food Stamp Program (FSP) with eight other public assistance programs across four measures of program effectiveness—administrative costs, error payments, program access, and benefit targeting. The comparison includes two other USDA nutrition assistance programs, three cash assistance programs, and three programs providing noncash benefits other than food or nutrition assistance. Results show that the FSP and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) present contrasting patterns. The EITC program has lower administrative costs and higher program access rates than the FSP, but the FSP is more successful in limiting overpayments. Missing information makes it hard to generalize across the other programs, but there is some evidence suggesting that programs with higher errors have lower administrative costs. Low administrative costs also appear to be inversely associated with good program access for recipients. Also, programs that are more highly targeted tend to have higher benefit delivery costs."

Food Stamps and Obesity: What Do We Know?
"Results from reviewed studies indicate that for most participants in the Food Stamp Program—children, nonelderly men, and the elderly—use of food stamp benefits does not result in an increase in either Body Mass Index (BMI) or the likelihood of being overweight or obese. However, for nonelderly women, who account for 28 percent of the food stamp caseload, some evidence suggests that participation in the Food Stamp Program may increase BMI and the probability of obesity. Different results for age and sex subgroups remain unexplained. Further, because food stamp benefits are issued to households, not individuals, mixed results across age and sex subgroups make it difficult to target policy alternatives to address potential weight gain among some participants while not affecting others in the household."