This video was made by the SNAP Alumni Project
According to USDA
data, in 2013 some 47,636,085 people participated in the SNAP
program - somewhere between 4-5% of the population. SNAP disbursed some
$76,070,295,282 in benefits, with the average person receiving about $133 per
month and the average household receiving $275.
Controversy
has long been part of SNAP's history. Food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
have been the center of a battle about personal responsibility and the right to
food, as well as budget wars from overall social welfare spending to specific
Farm Bill dollars.
The list of
complaints by the general public runs the gauntlet; people who don’t actually
need aid are defrauding the system, recipients are in the program for too long,
families use the money to buy non-food items such as alcohol and tobacco,
people buy the wrong kinds of food with their benefits (i.e. junk food), and
finally the idea that people can/ are disincentives from working because they
can rely on a government program to feed them.
Some quick
points to address those complaints:
1)
Fraud
Currently,
the USDA estimates that fraud is contained at 1% - compared with 4% in the
1990s (still a very low amount) when SNAP issued paper coupons as food stamps.
Since 2002, SNAP recipient have received their monthly allotments on debit
cards, ending the illegal selling and trading of stamps. The current
investigative process involved in determining who gets SNAP has also evolved
and further insures that only those actually in need of food aid receive assistance
in buying food. Eligibility is limited to households with a gross income of equal to or
below 130% of the federal poverty line, however the majority of households
receiving benifits have income well below this maximum level. 83% of
SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline
(i.e. $19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about
91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have a gross income at or below 75%
of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013). Arguably,
these are people who are in need of aid. (In fact, a meager 14% of food-stamp households have incomes above the
poverty line.)
Rather than a
plethora of un-qualified people collecting benefits, it is estimated that
over 2/3 of people actually eligible for the program are not currently
enrolled. The general bureaucracy involved in applying, personal
shame, and a lack of understanding about eligibility are often listed as
reasons that eligible families are not served by this program. Furthermore,
in recent years it has become increasingly difficult for even people who are
completely qualified and understand the program to get SNAP, as many states are
cutting back on the workers who process these applications.
Although we
have seen growth in the number of beneficiaries in recent years, this has
largely been due to the fact that the program is doing what it was designed to
do – aid those in poverty who are unable to meet/ afford their basic food
needs. Historically SNAP
participation follows unemployment with a slight lag. Program growth has been due to an
increasing number of people who have slipped into, or further into, poverty
throughout the recession. 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.
2)
Length of Time on Benefits
While the myth of the 'Welfare' and 'Food Stamp Queen' lives strong, in reality, very few people receive food aid long-term. At this time most recipients rely on
federal SNAP funding for less than a year (with most recipients remaining in
the program for between 8-10 months).
3) Use
of SNAP Funds to Buy Non-food Items
There are very strict rules governing what
can be purchased with snap.
Non-food items in general are prohibited, such as cigarettes, tobacco,
and even items like paper towels, disposable plates, or toilet paper. Furthermore, alcoholic beverages –
liquor, wine, and beer – are all forbidden purchases as well. Even vitamins, prepared food that
can be eaten in a store and/or takeaway foods (in fact the use of SNAP on any
restaurant is not allowed), and pet food are on the list of items that are not
available for purchase with SNAP dollars.
4) SNAP
can be Used to Buy Unhealthy Foods
There has long been an argument that SNAP funds should
only be usable on healthy or nutritious foods. However, cakes, cookies,
soft drinks and other unhealthy options remain available. Both New York's
Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Philadelphia Mayor John Nutter recently attempted
to regulate the overall purchases of soft drinks. (Bloomberg attempted to
regulate the size beverage that could be sold in specific establishments and
Nutter attempted attach a citywide tax on soft drinks.) Both mayors share a strong
belief that – given soft drinks contribution to obesity – food aid dollars
shouldn't pay for soda. (Especially as studies increasingly show this and other
diet-related diseases to be more prevalent among the poor.)
However, the USDA has ruled against such
attempts, explaining that the issue of determining which foods should be banned
would be too complex a process – largely because many healthy foods have higher
sugar or fat content than other unhealthy options. This makes it difficult to define a clear standard or
category for proper amounts of fat, salt, or sugar. (e.g. a flat ban on food
items with high fat content would be relatively arbitrary, as some healthy
foods, such as granola bars, often have higher fat content than soft
drinks.) This idea was elucidated
in a 2007 USDA paper that explained the rules in use - "No clear standards
exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy."
Beyond the difficulty of categorization,
there remains the socio-political issue of who gets to decide what the diet of
another person should be. Many
anti-hunger, anti-poverty, and food justice advocates take the view that
micromanaging the poor (because they rely on taxpayer dollars) is not only
offensive, its also inappropriate and wrong. The argument is multi-faceted: 1) we (the American public) don’t
ask other groups who receive money from taxpayers to relinquish their dietary
choices to the public (e.g citizens on Social Security, government pensions, or
those with federal contracts); 2) the assumption that the poor are incapable if
making healthy dietary choices is offensive and incorrect; 3) if a population
is making uninformed, or unhealthy choices, limiting those choices rather than
working to educate and inform is narrow-minded and creates a missed opportunity
for developing an important skill-set.
Studies have shown that given additional
dollars, people are more likely to increase spending on nutritious foods,
rather than snack or junk foods.
Studies have also shown that many families faced with tough budget
constraints turn to unhealthy snacks and fast foods as low cost, high calorie
options to feed their families when healthier foods remain out of their price
range. In response to this
information, many larger cities such as New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco,
and Portland offer incentives for spending on healthy foods – each of these
cities have farmers' market program where SNAP recipients are encouraged to
increase their purchase of fresh fruits and vegetables by offering additional
dollar amount coupons for varying incremental SNAP dollars spent. (In NYC the
Greenmarket stands offers a $2 "Health Bucks" coupon for every $5 in
benefit dollars spent.)
5) SNAP
Funding is Sufficient to Pay for All of a Person or Families Food Needs and/ or
receipt of food stamps is keeping able-bodied people from working.
Not only do food stamps not provide all the
money necessary to support or even feed an individual or household, they
definitely do not keep people from looking for work, or needing to work.
First, it’s important to understand who is receiving
benefits. The primary recipients
of food stamps are children, elderly, disabled or temporarily unemployed – 76% of
SNAP households included a child, an elderly person or a disabled person, and
these vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits (according to
Feeding America). Of the SNAP
recipients who do not fall into the previously mentioned categories are working
– USDA statistics show that over 30% of SNAP households had earnings in 2011
and 41% of all SNAP participants lived in a household with earnings.
SNAP has a strict
time limit for unemployed workers. Adults who are able-bodied and without
dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3
year period, unless they are working a minimum of 20 hours per week or
participating in a job training program. Additionally, the benefit formula itself
provides a strong work incentive. Within
the formula there is not a dollar for dollar loss as income increased - for
each additional dollar a SNAP participant earns, their benefits decline by 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.
Second, SNAP is a supplemental program, and
has always operated as one, and there is little chance that any individual or
family could survive on these benefits without other income. In 2013 benefits amounted to an
average of $1.40 per person per meal; the average recipient received $133 per
month, and most families received an average of about $275.
Recent cuts to the SNAP program, due to the end
of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s maximum monthly benefits boost,
have resulted in significant losses for nearly all SNAP participants. In
opposition to the assumption that recipients are somehow “living large” on
taxpayer dollars, the cuts to these benefits will most certainly curtail each
individual and households’ ability to purchase basic food. In 2014 overall national SNAP funding will shrink by almost
$5 billion. At an individual and household level this represents a serious
decrease. Without the ARRA’s increase in allotted funding, SNAP benefits will
average less than $1.40 per person per meal this year; the cut is the
equivalent of taking away 21 meals a month for a family of four (calculated
using the $1.70 to $2 per meal allotted by the USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan). These reduced benefit levels are likely
to cause hardship for many SNAP participants – including some 22 million
children (10 million of whom live in “deep poverty,” with family incomes
below half of the poverty line) and 9 million elderly or seriously
disabled persons. While recent studies have found that SNAP funding
allowed some 50,000 families to move out of very high levels of food insecurity
– where one or more members are skipping meals or otherwise reducing the amount
of food they eat – these cuts will undoubtedly reverse this trend.
A final
thought on the effects on the broader economy, SNAP dollars not only help
low-income people buy much needed groceries, it also frees up money for other
expenses, such as medical care, clothing, home repairs and childcare. These
flexible purchases benefit local businesses and their employees, which can
serve to boost the economy as a whole.
Unlike higher-income families who are more likely to save additional
income, low-income families often have unmet needs, which means that additional
cash flows directly back into the economy. In fact, many economists consider SNAP one of the most
effective forms of economic stimulus. Moody’s Analytics estimates that in
a weak economy, every dollar increase in SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 in
economic activity; the USDA has shown this number to be slightly higher - an increase
of $1 billion in SNAP expenditures is estimated to increase economic activity
(GDP) by $1.79 billion. (In other words, every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates
up to $9 of economic activity.) Similarly, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) rated an increase in SNAP benefits as one of the
two most cost-effective of all spending and tax options it examined for
boosting growth and jobs in a weak economy. Unemployment insurance came in
second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less.
Think about
this in terms of the recent cut to SNAP or in terms of low income people who
were eligible but did not apply – this loss of benefits to individuals is also
a loss for their local communities, which do not benefit economically from
their participation. SNAP is the one of very few public benefit program that
also serves as a direct economic stimulus to the local economies where these
benefits are redeemed. By generating business at local grocery stores, new SNAP
benefits trigger labor and production demand, ultimately increasing household
income and triggering additional spending.
For more information about SNAP:
USDA Site, click here.
USDA: The Business Case for Increasing SNAP:
Congressional Research Services: The
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Categorical Eligibility
Feeding America: SNAP (Food
Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities
*The SNAP Alumni project champions successful
Americans -- citizens who once received food stamps and are now leaders in the
arts, government, business, sports and education. With a temporary lift from
this government program that continues to help feed millions of Americans every
day, these people have persevered to accomplish great things. The program also
seeks to debunk myths and common misperceptions about SNAP.
