Search

Recent research has shown that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is effective in reducing food insecurity. Questions remain, however, about whether SNAP also has any effects on the quality of low-income households’ diets. These questions have surfaced in the context of the increasing public costs of diet-related illnesses like diabetes, dyslipidemia, and heart disease. Policy recommendations to restrict what can be purchased with SNAP benefits are evidence of these concerns. We use a unique data set that matches state-level SNAP policy variables to individual level data in three waves of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We examine Healthy Eating Index (HEI) scores and intakes of macro-nutrients for low-income households that do and do not participate in SNAP. We find that, after controlling for observed and unobserved factors, SNAP recipients had overall diet quality comparable to their counterparts, although most differences are in the favor of non-participants. While SNAP purchase restrictions could improve diet outcomes, they might do so at the cost of impairing the effectiveness of SNAP at reducing food insecurity.

Public policy discussion of the problem of food deserts has concentrated on proximity to retail food stores providing nutritious, affordable foods. Because they offer a wide array of healthful products at lower prices, physical access to a supermarket or supercenter has come to be the standard of adequacy. Less attention has been given to how economic incentives influence access to retail food stores in the wider food environment. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) enacted a sizable increase in SNAP benefits effective April 2009. Though the primary purpose of the increase was to stimulate the economy, we argue that it had a secondary effect of encouraging SNAP participants to redeem more of their benefits at larger, lower-priced retailers. To investigate the effect of this policy change, we use county-level, administrative data on SNAP redemptions at different types of authorized food stores from May 2007 to May 2010. Data from the Economic Research Service’s Food Desert Locator are used to classify counties according to the percent of their population residing in food deserts. Results show that the SNAP benefit increase is associated with a greater percentage of redemptions at superstores. Estimates are stable across a number of specifications that also control for gas prices and store-type density. Within our sample of counties, we show that an $80 maximum SNAP benefit increased the percentage of benefits redeemed at supermarkets by 1.4 percentage points. In order to achieve a similar increase in redemptions at superstores, store density would have to increase from one superstore every 24 square miles to 1 superstore every 15 square miles. Impacts of the benefit increase were positive, but somewhat smaller in areas with more of their population residing in food deserts.

An estimated 85.1 percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2011, meaning that they had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households (14.9 percent) were food insecure at least some time during the year, including 5.7 percent with very low food security—meaning that the food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food. The prevalence rate of very low food security increased from 5.4 percent in 2010, returning to the level observed in 2008 and 2009. The change in food insecurity overall (from 14.5 percent in 2010) was not statistically significant. The typical food-secure household spent 24 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. Fifty-seven percent of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs during the month prior to the 2011 survey.

Eighty-five percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2008, meaning that they had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households (14.6 percent) were food insecure at least some time during the year, including 5.7 percent with very low food security—meaning that the food intake of one or more household members was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food. Prevalence rates of food insecurity and very low food security were up from 11.1 percent and 4.1 percent, respectively, in 2007, and were the highest recorded since 1995, when the first national food security survey was conducted. The typical food-secure household spent 31 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. Fifty-five percent of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs during the month prior to the 2008 survey.

The Food Stamp Program reduces benefits to households as their earnings rise. This reduction is affected by household participation in other Government assistance programs (cross-program effects) and by the wide variation in State-specific reduction rates for earnings in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). This study shows that, for food stamp recipients who also received cash benefits through TANF in 2005, an extra dollar of earnings led to a change in food stamp benefits ranging from a reduction of 36 cents to an increase of 9 cents. On average across all States, the overall reduction rate for food stamp benefits and TANF cash benefits was about 70 percent, or about double the benefit reduction rate for a household that received only food stamp benefits. Even with this high benefit reduction rate, households received larger net incomes by working and earning income. Cross-program effects and State-level variability in food stamp benefits are important considerations in integrating Government assistance programs into a support system for low-income households.

U.S. food insecurity was at a record-high level in 2008; following the less severe 2001 recession, food insecurity continued to worsen through 2004.

The Food Stamp Program is designed to provide low-income families with increased food purchasing power to obtain a nutritionally adequate diet. As in most other Federal Government assistance programs, benefits are adjusted in response to rising prices—in this case, rising food prices. The current method of adjustment results in a shortfall between the maximum food stamp benefit and the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet as specified by USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan. During fiscal year (FY) 2007, the food purchasing shortfall in the caseload-weighted maximum benefit for the program grew from $7 in October 2006 to $19 in September 2007. In FY 2008, the amount grew from almost $8 in October 2007 to $34 in July 2008 and to $38 in September 2008. In an average month, food stamp households faced shortfalls of over $2 in FY 2003, $12 in FY 2007, and $22 in FY 2008. These losses in food purchasing power account for 1 percent, 4 percent, and 7 percent of the maximum benefit in each respective year. Alternative adjustment methods can reduce the shortfall but will raise program costs.

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2007, meaning that all household members had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. The remaining households (11.1 percent) were food insecure at least some time during the year. About one-third of food-insecure households (4.1 percent of all U.S. households) had very low food security—meaning that the food intake of one or more adults was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food. Prevalence rates of food insecurity and very low food security were essentially unchanged from those in 2005 and 2006. The typical food-secure household spent 35 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. Just over half of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs during the month prior to the survey.

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2006, meaning that they had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households (10.9 percent) were food insecure at least some time during the year. About one-third of food insecure households (4.0 percent of all U.S. households) had very low food security—meaning that the food intake of one or more adults was reduced and their eating patterns were disrupted at times during the year because the household lacked money and other resources for food. Prevalence rates of food insecurity and very low food security were essentially unchanged from those in 2005. The typical food-secure household spent 31 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. Just over half of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food and nutrition assistance programs during the month prior to USDA’s annual Food Security Survey.

The Food Stamp Program provides benefits that low-income households can use to purchase food in grocery stores. The rise in obesity has raised the question of whether food stamp participants would purchase more healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables, if food stamp benefits were higher. This report examines household food spending patterns and how they differ across income levels to provide insight into how participants might change their food spending in response to additional income.

Food stamp recipients, like other Americans, struggle with nutrition problems associated with choice of foods, as well as amounts. This series of Economic Information Bulletins compiles evidence to help answer the question of whether the Food Stamp Program can do more to improve the food choices of participants. It examines the role of affordability and price of healthful foods in influencing food choices and the likely success of any policy targeted at changing food choices through food stamp bonuses or restrictions. It also examines other approaches to changing food choices, including nutrition education and potential strategies drawn from behavioral economics literature. Meaningful improvements in the diets of food stamp recipients will likely depend on a combination of many tactics. Measuring the effect of any policy change on food choices and health outcomes remains a challenge.

With obesity the most prevalent nutrition problem facing Americans at all economic levels, promoting diets that provide adequate nutrition without too many calories has become an important objective for the Food Stamp Program. Findings from behavioral economics suggest innovative, low-cost ways to improve the diet quality of food stamp participants without restricting their freedom of choice. Unlike more traditional economic interventions, such as changing prices or banning specific foods, the strategies explored in this brief can be targeted to those participants who want help making more healthful food choices.

As households participating in the Food Stamp Program and other public assistance programs work more, the additional earnings are partially offset by a reduction in food stamp benefits and cash assistance from Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The rate at which food stamp benefits and TANF or SSI cash assistance are reduced with an increase in earnings is referred to as the program's effective benefit reduction rate (EBRR). This report derives FSP EBRRs for earnings with and without cross-program effects from adjustments to TANF or SSI cash assistance due to the additional earnings. The estimated FSP EBRRs are combined with TANF EBRRs and SSI EBRRs to estimate an effective tax rate on earnings in terms of these program benefits. With the authority for TANF programs devolved to States in 1996 Welfare Reform Law, FSP and TANF EBRRs as well as effective tax rates on earnings will vary by State. This report illustrates the treatment of earnings among these programs and the variation in treatment across states.

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2005, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity declined from 11.9 percent of households in 2004 to 11.0 percent in 2005, while the prevalence of very low food security remained unchanged at 3.9 percent. This report, based on data from the December 2005 food security survey, provides the most recent statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs. Survey responses indicate that the typical food-secure household in the U.S. spent 34 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. Just over one-half of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food assistance programs during the month prior to the survey. About 22 percent of food-insecure households— 3.5 percent of all U.S. households—obtained emergency food from a food pantry at some time during the year.

Eighty-eight percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2004, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 11.2 percent of households in 2003 to 11.9 percent in 2004, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.5 percent to 3.9 percent. This report, based on data from the December 2004 food security survey, provides the most recent statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs. Survey responses indicate that the typical food-secure household in the United States spent 31 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. Just over half of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food assistance programs during the month prior to the survey. About 20 percent of food-insecure households- 3.5 percent of all U.S. households- obtained emergency food from a food pantry at some time during the year.

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year in 2003, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity, 11.2 percent of households, was not statistically different from the 11.1 percent observed in 2002. The prevalence of food insecurity with hunger was unchanged at 3.5 percent. This report, based on data from the December 2003 food security survey, provides the most recent statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs. Survey responses indicate that the typical food-secure household in the U.S. spent 34 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. Just over one-half of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food assistance programs during the month prior to the survey.

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2002, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.7 percent in 2001 to 11.1 percent in 2002, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.3 percent to 3.5 percent. This report, based on data from the December 2002 food security survey, provides the most recent statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs. Survey responses indicate that the typical food-secure household in the U.S. spent 35 percent more on food than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. Just over one-half of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food assistance programs during the month prior to the survey. About 19 percent of food-insecure households- 3.0 percent of all U.S. households- obtained emergency food from a food pantry at some time during the year.

Eighty-nine percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2001. The rest were food insecure at least some time during the year, meaning they did not always have access to enough food for active, healthy lives for all household members because they lacked sufficient money or other resources for food. The prevalence of food insecurity rose from 10.1 percent in 1999 to 10.7 percent in 2001, and the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger rose from 3.0 percent to 3.3 percent during the same period. This report, based on data from the December 2001 food security survey, provides the most recent statistics on the food security of U.S. households, as well as on how much they spent for food and the extent to which food-insecure households participated in Federal and community food assistance programs. Survey responses indicate that the typical food-secure household in the United States spent 32 percent more than the typical food-insecure household of the same size and household composition. About one-half of all food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three largest Federal food assistance programs during the month prior to the survey. About 19 percent of food-insecure households 2.8 percent of all U.S. households obtained emergency food from a food pantry at some time during the year.

Excerpts from the report Summary: Over the past twelve years a program of applied research related to the effects of agricultural and food subsidy policies on the food consumption behavior of nutritionally at-risk households has been undertaken by the Nutrition Economics Group (NEG)---a unit of the Technical Assistance Division of the Office of International Cooperation and Development at the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The work, which was supported by the Office of Nutrition of the U. S. Agency for International Development (A.I.D), included a series of food policy studies in developing countries of Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Although the studies were addressed to specific policy issues and were expected to generate results that would have an effect on the policy process, a major area of concern was the development of methods. Because the work did not deal explicitly with methodological development, there is a need to summarize what was learned about methods from the policy studies. This report addresses that need. The report focuses on interpretative and analytical methods that can be used with existing data. Documents from forty food policy studies done in 17 countries are reviewed. The types of data sources used and the techniques and analytical methods adopted in those studies are described. In addition to the food policy studies, NEG sponsored some work on conceptual and methodological issues. Findings from this work are incorporated into the general discussion., A Review of the Experience Generated from Food Policy Studies Funded by the Office of Nutrition, U. S. Agency for International Development and Coordinated by the Nutrition Economics Group, Technical Assistance Division, Office of International Cooperation and Development, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Report prepared under Purchase Order No. 40-319R-8-0053.

This paper analyzes survey data on farmer worry and actual effects for right-to-farm conflicts in New Jersey via logit models. Findings reveal that farm operation characteristics are more strongly linked to land use conflicts than either farmer characteristics or urban pressure.