CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
5,230
edits
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Difference between revisions
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (view source)
Revision as of 23:10, 13 March 2025
, 13 Marchno edit summary
(→Pilot Food Stamp Program (1961–1964): Made a minor correction.) |
No edit summary |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Program | |||
|ProgramName=Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program | |||
|ProgramType=Program | |||
|OrgSponsor=Food and Nutrition Service | |||
|TopOrganization=Department of Agriculture | |||
|CreationLegislation=Food Stamp Act of 1964 | |||
|Purpose=SNAP provides nutritional assistance to low-income individuals and families to help them afford healthy food. The program aims to alleviate hunger and improve nutrition by supplementing grocery budgets through electronic benefits. | |||
|Website=https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program | |||
|ProgramStart=1964 | |||
|InitialFunding=$75 million | |||
|Duration=Ongoing | |||
|Historic=No | |||
}} | |||
{{Short description|United States government food assistance program}} | {{Short description|United States government food assistance program}} | ||
{{ | {{Obligation right box|year=2024|id=3551}} | ||
{{Infobox government agency | {{Infobox government agency | ||
| agency_name = United States Department of Agriculture | | agency_name = United States Department of Agriculture | ||
| formed = {{Start date and age|1939}} | | formed = {{Start date and age|1939}} | ||
| type = Program | | type = Program | ||
| logo | | logo | ||
| logo_width = | | logo_width = | ||
| logo_caption = | | logo_caption = | ||
| Line 21: | Line 29: | ||
| jurisdiction = [[Federal government of the United States]] | | jurisdiction = [[Federal government of the United States]] | ||
| budget = | | budget = | ||
| website = | | website = | ||
}} | }} | ||
| Line 275: | Line 283: | ||
The lack of [[affordable housing]] in urban areas means that money that could have been spent on food is spent on housing expenses. Housing is generally considered affordable when it costs 30% or less of total household income; rising housing costs have made this ideal difficult to attain. | The lack of [[affordable housing]] in urban areas means that money that could have been spent on food is spent on housing expenses. Housing is generally considered affordable when it costs 30% or less of total household income; rising housing costs have made this ideal difficult to attain. | ||
This is especially true in | This is especially true in New York City, where 28% of rent stabilized tenants spend more than half their income on rent.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.housingnyc.com/html/research/html_reports/schill/schill2.html |title=Housing Conditions and Problems In New York City: An Analysis of the 1996 Housing and Vacancy Survey |publisher=Housingnyc.com |access-date=2013-12-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131219061147/http://www.housingnyc.com/html/research/html_reports/schill/schill2.html |archive-date=2013-12-19 |url-status=unfit}}</ref> Among lower income families the percentage is much higher. According to an estimate by the [[Community Service Society of New York|Community Service Society]], 65% of New York City families living below the federal poverty line are paying more than half of their income toward rent.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cssny.org/userimages/downloads/Making_the_Rent_08_Report.pdf |title=Making The Rent: Who's At Risk? |publisher=Cssny.org |access-date=2013-12-31}}</ref> | ||
The current eligibility criteria attempt to address this, by including a deduction for "excess shelter costs". This applies only to households that spend more than half of their net income on rent. For the purpose of this calculation, a household's net income is obtained by subtracting certain deductions from their gross (before deductions) income. If the household's total expenditures on rent exceed 50% of that net income, then the net income is further reduced by the amount of rent that exceeds 50% of net income. For 2007, this deduction can be no more than $417, except in households that include an elderly or disabled person.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100310150710/http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm|url-status=dead|title=Fact Sheet on Resources, Income, and Benefits|archivedate=March 10, 2010}}</ref> Deductions include: | The current eligibility criteria attempt to address this, by including a deduction for "excess shelter costs". This applies only to households that spend more than half of their net income on rent. For the purpose of this calculation, a household's net income is obtained by subtracting certain deductions from their gross (before deductions) income. If the household's total expenditures on rent exceed 50% of that net income, then the net income is further reduced by the amount of rent that exceeds 50% of net income. For 2007, this deduction can be no more than $417, except in households that include an elderly or disabled person.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100310150710/http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm|url-status=dead|title=Fact Sheet on Resources, Income, and Benefits|archivedate=March 10, 2010}}</ref> Deductions include: | ||
| Line 462: | Line 470: | ||
[[File:SNAP Benefits Paid 2005-2012.png|thumb|Total program costs from 2000 to 2016. The amount increased sharply after 2008 due to the [[Great Recession]], and has fallen since 2013 as the economy recovers.]] | [[File:SNAP Benefits Paid 2005-2012.png|thumb|Total program costs from 2000 to 2016. The amount increased sharply after 2008 due to the [[Great Recession]], and has fallen since 2013 as the economy recovers.]] | ||
[[File:SNAP benefits.png|thumb|SNAP benefits cost since the 1960s]] | [[File:SNAP benefits.png|thumb|SNAP benefits cost since the 1960s]] | ||
Amounts paid to program beneficiaries rose from $28.6 billion in 2005 to $76 billion in 2013, falling back to $66.6 billion by 2016.{{Citation needed|date=September 2022}} This increase was due to the high unemployment rate (leading to higher SNAP participation) and the increased benefit per person with the passing of [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|ARRA]]. SNAP average monthly benefits increased from $96.18 per person to $133.08 per person. Other program costs, which include the Federal share of State administrative expenses, Nutrition Education, and Employment and Training, amounted to roughly $3.7 million in 2013.<ref name=FNS /> There were cuts into the program's budget introduced in 2014 that were estimated to save $8.6 billion over 10 years. Some of the states are looking for measures within the states to balance the cuts, so they would not affect the recipients of the federal aid program.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Jalonick|first1=Mary|title=Only 4 states will see cuts to food stamps|url=http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/politics/13603087-95/only-4-states-will-see-cuts-to-food-stamps|publisher= | Amounts paid to program beneficiaries rose from $28.6 billion in 2005 to $76 billion in 2013, falling back to $66.6 billion by 2016.{{Citation needed|date=September 2022}} This increase was due to the high unemployment rate (leading to higher SNAP participation) and the increased benefit per person with the passing of [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|ARRA]]. SNAP average monthly benefits increased from $96.18 per person to $133.08 per person. Other program costs, which include the Federal share of State administrative expenses, Nutrition Education, and Employment and Training, amounted to roughly $3.7 million in 2013.<ref name=FNS /> There were cuts into the program's budget introduced in 2014 that were estimated to save $8.6 billion over 10 years. Some of the states are looking for measures within the states to balance the cuts, so they would not affect the recipients of the federal aid program.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Jalonick|first1=Mary|title=Only 4 states will see cuts to food stamps|url=http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/politics/13603087-95/only-4-states-will-see-cuts-to-food-stamps|publisher=Associated Press|access-date=18 September 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160107150837/http://www.concordmonitor.com/news/politics/13603087-95/only-4-states-will-see-cuts-to-food-stamps|archive-date=7 January 2016}}</ref> | ||
===Politics=== | ===Politics=== | ||
| Line 556: | Line 564: | ||
=== Proposals to restrict "junk food" or "luxury items" === | === Proposals to restrict "junk food" or "luxury items" === | ||
Periodically, proposals have been raised to restrict SNAP benefits from being used to purchase various categories or types of food which have been criticized as "junk food" or "luxury items". However, Congress and the Department of Agriculture have repeatedly rejected such proposals on both administrative burden and personal freedom grounds. The Food and Nutrition Service noted in 2007 that no federal standards exist to determine which foods should be considered "healthy" or not, that "vegetables, fruits, grain products, meat and meat alternatives account for nearly three-quarters of the money value of food used by food stamp households" and that "food stamp recipients are no more likely to consume soft drinks than are higher-income individuals, and are less likely to consume sweets and salty snacks."<ref>[http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/arra/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf Implications of Restricting the Use of Food Stamp Benefits – Summary] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304190626/http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/arra/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf |date=2016-03-04 }}, [[Food and Nutrition Service]], March 2007</ref> Thomas Farley and Russell Sykes argued that the USDA should reconsider the possibility of restricting "junk food" purchases with SNAP in order to encourage healthy eating, along with incentivizing the purchase of healthy items through a credit or rebate program that makes foods such as fresh vegetables and meats cheaper. They also noted that many urban food stores do a poor job of stocking healthy foods and instead favor high-profit processed items.<ref name=NYTSykesFarley>[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/opinion/see-no-junk-buy-no-junk.html?_r=0 See No Junk Food, Buy No Junk Food]. Sykes, Russell & Thomas Farley, '' | Periodically, proposals have been raised to restrict SNAP benefits from being used to purchase various categories or types of food which have been criticized as "junk food" or "luxury items". However, Congress and the Department of Agriculture have repeatedly rejected such proposals on both administrative burden and personal freedom grounds. The Food and Nutrition Service noted in 2007 that no federal standards exist to determine which foods should be considered "healthy" or not, that "vegetables, fruits, grain products, meat and meat alternatives account for nearly three-quarters of the money value of food used by food stamp households" and that "food stamp recipients are no more likely to consume soft drinks than are higher-income individuals, and are less likely to consume sweets and salty snacks."<ref>[http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/arra/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf Implications of Restricting the Use of Food Stamp Benefits – Summary] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304190626/http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/arra/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf |date=2016-03-04 }}, [[Food and Nutrition Service]], March 2007</ref> Thomas Farley and Russell Sykes argued that the USDA should reconsider the possibility of restricting "junk food" purchases with SNAP in order to encourage healthy eating, along with incentivizing the purchase of healthy items through a credit or rebate program that makes foods such as fresh vegetables and meats cheaper. They also noted that many urban food stores do a poor job of stocking healthy foods and instead favor high-profit processed items.<ref name=NYTSykesFarley>[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/opinion/see-no-junk-buy-no-junk.html?_r=0 See No Junk Food, Buy No Junk Food]. Sykes, Russell & Thomas Farley, ''The New York Times'', 21 March 2015</ref> Some data suggests that it would benefit public health by making [[soft drink|sugar-sweetened beverages]] ineligible to purchase with SNAP benefits. SNAP households use about 10% of their food budgets on sugar-sweetened beverages. Removing eligibility for sugar-sweetened beverages could result in a 2.4% reduction in obesity prevalence, 1.7% reduction in type II diabetes prevalence, and elimination of 52,000 deaths from stroke and heart attack over the course of ten years.<ref name="Bleich"/> The soda and broader food industries have received criticism for lobbying against reforms that would exclude “junk food” including soda from purchase with SNAP funds.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Oshin |first=Olafimihan |date=2023-05-09 |title=Rubio calls for Congress to bar SNAP purchases of soda, junk foods |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3995624-rubio-calls-for-congress-to-bar-snap-purchases-of-soda-junk-foods/ |access-date=2024-02-04 |website=The Hill |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=O’Connor |first=Anahad |date=2016-10-10 |title=Coke and Pepsi Give Millions to Public Health, Then Lobby Against It |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/well/eat/coke-and-pepsi-give-millions-to-public-health-then-lobby-against-it.html |access-date=2024-02-04 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> | ||
The original implementation of food stamps was intended to help working farmers earn fair wages. The passing of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 that eliminated the surplus produce clause for blue stamps helped to boost the market for processed food retailers.<ref name=moran/> After 1964, when the program grew more expensive and economic effects of the Depression and world wars were forgotten, Congress introduced more intense eligibility standards for the program in an attempt to mitigate costs that went towards helping those in need. Through the 1970s and 1980s many communities made claims that federal safety net and private charities were failing to meet the needs of poor individuals who needed greater resources and access to food.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Nestle|first=Marion|date=1992|title=Hunger in the United States: rationale, methods, and policy implications of state hunger surveys|journal=Department of Nutrition, Food, and Management by the Department of Health Education|via=JSTOR}}</ref> | The original implementation of food stamps was intended to help working farmers earn fair wages. The passing of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 that eliminated the surplus produce clause for blue stamps helped to boost the market for processed food retailers.<ref name=moran/> After 1964, when the program grew more expensive and economic effects of the Depression and world wars were forgotten, Congress introduced more intense eligibility standards for the program in an attempt to mitigate costs that went towards helping those in need. Through the 1970s and 1980s many communities made claims that federal safety net and private charities were failing to meet the needs of poor individuals who needed greater resources and access to food.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Nestle|first=Marion|date=1992|title=Hunger in the United States: rationale, methods, and policy implications of state hunger surveys|journal=Department of Nutrition, Food, and Management by the Department of Health Education|via=JSTOR}}</ref> | ||
| Line 603: | Line 611: | ||
{{USDA agencies}} | {{USDA agencies}} | ||
{{Contemporary social welfare programs in the United States}} | {{Contemporary social welfare programs in the United States}} | ||
{{Authority control}} | {{Authority control}} | ||