Introduction
Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program (SNAP) is a United States government program that seeks to support low-paid working families, low-income older adults, and other individuals with low incomes. About two-thirds of SNAP participants are in families with children, and over one-third are in households with older adults or people with disabilities (Berkowitz et al., 2017). Program provides over 47 million individuals in nearly 23 million low-income households (Berkowitz et al., 2017). Noteworthy, that The SNAP Program assists about 72 percent of people who live in households with children (Rivera et al., 2019). In addition, nearly 25 percent of households with seniors and individuals with disabilities are assisted (Berkowitz et al., 2017). However, while SNAP is an essential tool for providing food to many people in the United States, it has faced criticism from some quarters for its cost, legislative changes, and potential for abuse.
The Procedure of SNAP
To be eligible for SNAP, a household’s income and resources must satisfy three tests. The first test is the household’s gross monthly income, which is income before any of the program’s deductions are applied. Usually, it must be at or below 130 percent of the poverty line. The poverty level is higher for those with more family members in the household and lowers for those with smaller families. The second test is the household’s net income, or income, after deductions are applied. It must be at or below the poverty line to be eligible. The last test is that household assets must fall below a certain limit.
Benefits from SNAP
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) reduces hunger and food insecurity by providing very low-income people with desperately needed, targeted assistance. Using this help, people are able to purchase food at grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and other regular commercial food outlets through an efficient Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system (You et al., 2022). Recent studies described by Rivera (2019) estimate that $1 of SNAP benefits leads to between $1.50 and $1.80 in total economic activity during a recession (Rivera, 2019). This fact demonstrates the program’s importance in sustaining families’ problematic financial situation during the country’s economic downturn.
It is important to emphasize that SNAP reaches key vulnerable populations. The number of 79.5 percent of SNAP households include a child, an older adult, or a person with disabilities; 84.7 percent of all SNAP benefits go to such households (Allen, 2021). Losing a job is the most common event causing a household to seek SNAP (Berkowitz, 2017). In the fiscal year 2017, 55 percent of SNAP households with children worked and had earnings and only 11 percent of SNAP households with children received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (Berkowitz, 2017). It is important to stress that when the national, regional, state, or local area economy is in trouble, SNAP is among the most effective government responses.
Disaster SNAP (D-SNAP) has been deemed effective and responsive in quickly delivering nutrition assistance to people recovering from hurricanes, tornadoes, and other disasters, as recently seen in the aftermath of Hurricanes Dorian, Florence, and Michael. SNAP lifted 3.2 million Americans out of poverty in 2018 (Allen, 2021). According to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, SNAP is nearly as effective as the Earned Income Tax Credit in lifting families above the poverty line (Allen, 2021). SNAP relieves pressure on overwhelmed food banks, pantries, religious congregations, and other emergency food providers across the country. They recognize the comprehensive approach needed to end hunger and see SNAP as the cornerstone of national, state, and local anti-hunger efforts and are the first to note their inability to meet added demand that would come from weakening SNAP.
Challenges and Critics of SNAP
Some of the major challenges that face SNAP include block granting SNAP. Typically, block granting provides States with a fixed amount of Federal funding, and the States (not the Federal Government) take responsibility for determining how the program is operated. Block granting SNAP would represent a fundamental change in the program and may end its entitlement-like characteristics. Block grants give the States flexibility to tailor the program’s policies to their specific needs and circumstances; however, there are trade-offs. First, if funding is fixed, the program may no longer respond to increased needs—for example, during an economic downturn. Second, in the absence of national eligibility standards, it is possible that two people with identical circumstances may receive different treatment simply because they reside in different States. Conclusively, critics argue that SNAP should be more tightly targeted to those in need, and more emphasis should be on promoting personal responsibility and self-sufficiency among program participants.
Critical Legislative Changes to Policy
One of the changes in program’s legislation is limiting the types of food participants can purchase. SNAP participants can redeem program benefits for most types of food intended for home consumption. However, in recent years, States and organizations have increasingly urged USDA to restrict what recipients can purchase with SNAP benefits (Carper, 2022). Restrictions could potentially improve participants’ nutrition, but they diminish consumer choice and possibly reduce SNAP participation. In addition, restrictions may be ineffective to the extent that people use their own money to purchase SNAP-restricted items.
Another legislation concerning the SNAP Program is store eligibility requirements. To become SNAP authorized, a food retailer must meet various eligibility requirements, which policymakers continue to modify. Stricter standards regarding the variety and types of foods offered can enhance the nutritional content of foods in those stores that meet the requirements. On the other hand, stricter standards can reduce the number of stores that are authorized, restricting participant access and potentially diminishing participation.
Analysis of SNAP and Adequacy of its Benefits
Several recent reports have raised concern that SNAP benefits are too low because they do not take into account (1) geographic variation in food prices; (2) cost variations associated with the age and nutrient requirements of household members; and (3) the costs of time spent in food preparation (You et al., 2022). Since 2000, States can choose to implement SNAP broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), which allows them to align the SNAP asset test or gross income eligibility thresholds with certain other non-cash means-tested programs (Allen, 2021). BBCE promotes participant access and reduces administrative costs. On the other hand, some argue that BBCE has allowed higher income people to participate in SNAP and raised overall program costs.
In addition, work requirements are criticized while evaluating the SNAP. Individuals must comply with general work requirements or face disqualification. General work requirements include registering for work, taking a suitable job or not voluntarily quitting a job, and participating in workfare which is an unpaid work through a special State-approved program (Gritter, 2017). In addition, able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) are subject to time-limited participation in SNAP if they do not meet certain work requirements (Gritter, 2017). Although work requirements can increase earnings and training, the associated termination of SNAP benefits may affect those who are unable to find work.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is vital to highlight that the SNAP Program is of great importance to the population of the USA. Many families and households benefit from the program and can survive financially. In the paper, the population categories, such as the elderly, families with children, and the unemployed, who can get a chance to live, were considered. However, specific restrictions and legislative changes, such as limiting the types of food and store eligibility requirements, make it more challenging to participate in the program and reduce its effectiveness.
References
Allen, T. N. (2021). Food inequalities. ABC-CLIO.
Berkowitz, S. A., Seligman, H. K., Rigdon, J., Meigs, J. B., & Basu, S. (2017). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation and health care expenditures among low-income adults. JAMA internal medicine, 177(11), pp. 1642-1649.
Carper, L. B. (2022). Stigma and social support on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Rowman & Littlefield.
Gritter, M. (2017). Undeserving: SNAP reform and conceptions of the deserving poor. Lexington Books.
Rivera, R. L., Maulding, M. K., & Eicher-Miller, H. A. (2019). Effect of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program–Education (SNAP-Ed) on food security and dietary outcomes. Nutrition Reviews, 77(12), pp. 903–921, Web.
You, W., Davis, G. C., & Yang, J. (2022). Viewpoint: An assessment of recent SNAP benefit increases allowing for money and time variability. Food Policy, 106, Web.