Search

Policymakers have suggested and implemented work requirements for safety-net programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). If these work requirements impact program participation, they may lead to greater food insecurity. This paper investigates the effects of implementing the work requirement for the SNAP on emergency food assistance usage. Data were used from a cohort of food pantries in Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi, which imposed the SNAP work requirement in 2016. Event study models were run in 2022, leveraging geographic variation in exposure to the work requirement to measure changes in the number of households served by the food pantries. The 2016 introduction of the SNAP work requirement increased the number of households served by food pantries. The impact is concentrated among urban food pantries. On average, an urban agency exposed to the work requirement served 34% more households in the 8 months after the work requirement than an agency with no exposure. Individuals who lose SNAP eligibility owing to the work requirement remain in need of assistance and seek other sources of food. SNAP work requirements thus increase the burden on emergency food assistance programs. Work requirements for other programs may also lead to increased emergency food assistance use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is an effective component in reducing food insecurity in the U.S. In the discussion of strategies to also help SNAP participants maximize diet quality, it is important to know their current dietary patterns and food choices. This paper provides a systematic review of recent U.S. studies on dietary quality, food consumption, and spending among SNAP participants as compared to income-eligible and higher-income nonparticipants.Evidence Acquisition: The review, completed in 2014, summarized studies that were peer-reviewed, published between January 2003 and August 2014, and provided data on dietary quality and intake of SNAP participants and nonparticipants.Evidence Synthesis: Twenty-five studies were included in this review. Daily caloric, macronutrient, and micronutrient intake of SNAP participants did not differ systematically from those of income-eligible nonparticipants; however, differences in dietary quality emerged. Adult SNAP participants scored lower on the Healthy Eating Index than either group of nonparticipants. Children's diets were similar among SNAP participants and low-income nonparticipants, but were less nutritious than diets of higher-income children. The evidence regarding sugar-sweetened beverage consumption was mixed, with most studies indicating significantly higher beverage intake among SNAP participants compared with higher-income nonparticipants, but no difference compared to income-eligible nonparticipants.Conclusions: SNAP effectively alleviates food insecurity in terms of caloric, macronutrient, and micronutrient intake. Still, SNAP participants are struggling more than income-eligible and higher-income nonparticipants to meet key dietary guidelines. Future policies should ensure that this vital food assistance program addresses diet quality while reducing food insecurity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Price incentives, or rebates, have been proposed as one promising strategy for improving diet quality among Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants. This paper explores the existing evidence on effectiveness of rebates in this program. In particular, this paper considers findings from a recent RCT of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program rebates, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Healthy Incentives Pilot, in the context of the broader literature on rebate strategies. The paper concludes that rebates have a moderate impact on food intake, at moderate cost relative to alternative interventions. There is further evidence that implicit promotional effects may contribute to impacts of rebate interventions, beyond the impacts of price effects alone. However, existing studies on complementary effects of explicit promotion have been limited by relatively small sample sizes and correspondingly low power to detect differences. This appears to be a promising area for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides a historical background for the current nutrition issues faced by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Food Stamp Program evolved into SNAP during a period when U.S. diets, particularly those of the poor, became less healthful. During the 1960s, the U.S. (Kennedy-Johnson era) addressed malnutrition first with a pilot project focused on retail sales and cash food stamps, which showed that low-income consumers purchased relatively healthy foods for a fairly high-quality diet. Southern politicians in the House of Representatives wanted a program similar to an earlier subsidized commodity distribution program. The pilot provided the evidence northern urban politicians sought, and they held the farm bill hostage until southern rural interests agreed to an unfettered Food Stamp Program that allowed purchases directly from retailers. A final Food Stamp Program law was incorporated into the farm bill and passed. This program shifted in 1977 to a full cash benefit system later, first using food stamps to act as cash and later an Electronic Benefit Transfer program. The program was designed at a time of a very healthful diet of lower-SES Americans. As diets of lower-income Americans changed and the entire food system shifted, the program has not been adjusted in any manner. Today, 50%-66% of the calories in the American diet, particularly that of low-SES Americans, come from highly processed foods containing excessive refined carbohydrates, sodium, unhealthy saturated fats, and added sugar. The SNAP design has not responded to these shifts in diet and the powerful interests controlling our food system. This twist in the U.S. diet and food system presents a major dilemma to those attempting to form a healthy food program based on the results of an effective pilot project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]