Search

A recent ERS study estimated the economic impacts if 90 percent of infants participating in WIC in 2016 were breastfed for 12 months and received no infant formula. Under this scenario, mothers would stay in the program longer and annual WIC costs would rise by $252.4 million. These higher program costs would be partially offset by lower Federal Medicaid costs. WIC households and their health insurance providers would also realize health-related cost savings.

In March 2018, Congress directed USDA’s Economic Research Service to report on the economic benefits of breastfeeding, including its potential cost savings for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and Medicaid. As a result of that directive, this study examined the effects of a hypothetical increase in breastfeeding rates among WIC participants from their 2016 levels to medically recommended levels. The study defined medically recommended levels as 90 percent of infants are exclusively breastfed for their first 6 months, followed by continued breastfeeding with the addition of complementary foods—but not infant formula—for the next 6 months. Results indicate that the number of mothers who participated in WIC that year would have increased by an estimated 646,000 per month, an 8-percent increase in the total number of WIC participants. WIC program costs would have risen by an estimated $252.4 million, or 4.2 percent of total costs in 2016. As a result of health benefits associated with breastfeeding, Federal Medicaid costs would have decreased by at least $111.6 million, resulting in an estimated increase of $140.9 million in combined Federal WIC and Medicaid costs. On the other hand, health-related cost savings that accrue to WIC households or their health insurance providers would have totaled $9.0 billion (excluding the savings that accrue to the Federal portion of Medicaid). Holding other factors constant, if the hypothetical increase in breastfeeding rates was sustained for future years, these estimated values for 2016 would represent cost impacts that recur each year.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—formerly, the Food Stamp Program—provides low-income participants with electronic benefits that are used like debit cards to purchase eligible food items in authorized retail food stores. Over the program’s long history, policymakers have implemented numerous changes in program design in response to the political, economic, and budgetary environment. Even though SNAP is a mature program, a number of issues continue to arise, such as whether to change SNAP to a block grant program, what types of foods program benefits should cover, and whether benefit amounts and program accessibility are adequate. This report examines the evolution of SNAP—highlighting the effects on the program of major policy and economic changes—to shed light on why the program takes its current form. The report also examines several current issues—each of which has been raised multiple times in the past—and identifies tradeoffs between various program design features. By providing historical and analytical perspective on major program design issues, this report looks ahead by looking back.

Participants in USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) typically consume less than the amounts of fruits and vegetables (FVs) recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The study considers three economic mechanisms to incentivize purchases of FVs: a bonus for FV spending; a rebate for FV spending; and a Cash Value Voucher (CVV) redeemable for FVs up to a fixed dollar amount. This USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) report uses neoclassical economics to provide a unifying conceptual framework for explaining the effects of these mechanisms, using simplified abstract models. In principle, all three mechanisms can increase FV purchases for the average SNAP consumer. Distributional effects matter in addition to average effects; SNAP consumers who purchase no FVs (in a typical month) can be a sizable subgroup that is important for analysis. For that subgroup, implementing a CVV tends to increase purchases by more than other mechanisms. If the nonpurchasing subgroup is a large proportion of SNAP households, a CVV also tends to be the mechanism that increases average FV purchases the most. If the subgroup is relatively small, a rebate or bonus may promote average FV purchases the most.

USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides food and nutrition benefits to low-income households based on a formula that adjusts the benefit amount a household receives based on monthly need. This study assesses the extent to which SNAP reaches the poorest households, also known as benefit targeting, by estimating benefit receipt by annual household income relative to poverty. To conduct this analysis, ERS linked 2008-12 SNAP administrative records from New York State to data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), a primary source for national, State, and local information on the use of SNAP and other public assistance programs. The linked data provide better information on SNAP receipt than that which would be estimated by the ACS alone and permit a more complete characterization of SNAP targeting. Study findings show that the assessment of SNAP targeting varies by the three measures of benefit receipt examined. Estimates of SNAP targeting toward low-income households improve when using either of two measures of intensity of SNAP participation relative to measures of ever-in-the-year participation. Replacing survey-based data on SNAP benefit receipt with administrative records of SNAP benefit receipt and adjusting the survey households to more closely reflect administrative SNAP units also improves estimates of targeting to low-income participants. Finally, estimated program targeting is improved by removing sample households that do not report income and for which income is imputed in the survey from the analysis.

A key aspect of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service’s (FNS) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the extent to which it reaches its target population—the rate of participation among people who are eligible for SNAP benefits (eli - gibles). FNS publishes national and State-level estimates of participation among eligibles for an average month of the year. This report demonstrates the feasibility and usefulness of estimating an annual SNAP participation rate, which counts the number of individuals who participated at some time during the year as a share of individuals who were eligible at some time during the year. An annual SNAP participation rate matches the annual timeframe that several Federal surveys adopt when collecting data on SNAP participation. It also captures how well the pro - gram reaches all people who are eligible for it at any time during the year, independent of the number of months they were eligible. The monthly rate tends to capture those who have rela - tively more months of eligibility during the year. Results show that the national annual SNAP participation rate among eligibles for 2012 (the most recent year with suitable data) is about 70.7 percent—more than 10 percentage points below the monthly participation rate of 83.1 percent.

This report provides nationally representative annual estimates for 2004-09 of households’ multi-program or “joint” participation patterns in both the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program, including breakouts of household types categorized by household income relative to poverty, race/ethnicity, and education level. SNAP and UI are two strands of the Nation’s recessionary safety net—the subset of safety-net programs for which participation is responsive to the business cycle. Using data from the Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement to the Current Population Survey, the study found that an estimated 14.4 percent of SNAP households also received UI at some time in 2009 (a recessionary year), an increase of 6.6 percentage points from 2005 (a full-employment year). Conversely, an estimated 13.4 percent of UI households also received SNAP in 2009, an increase of 2.3 percentage points from 2005. SNAP households with lower annual income relative to poverty or with householders who did not complete high school were relatively less likely to also have UI, indicating that these populations were relatively more likely to rely on SNAP benefits alone (without UI).

This report provides nationally representative annual estimates for 2004-09 of households’ multi-program or “joint” participation patterns in both the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program, including breakouts of household types categorized by household income relative to poverty, race/ethnicity, and education level. SNAP and UI are two strands of the Nation’s recessionary safety net —the subset of safety-net programs for which participation is responsive to the business cycle. Using data from the Annual Social and Economic (ASEC) Supplement to the Current Population Survey, the study found that an estimated 14.4 percent of SNAP households also received UI at some time in 2009 (a recessionary year), an increase of 6.6 percentage points from 2005 (a full-employment year). Conversely, an estimated 13.4 percent of UI households also received SNAP in 2009, an increase of 2.3 percentage points from 2005. SNAP households with lower annual income relative to poverty or with householders who did not complete high school were relatively less likely to also have UI, indicating that these populations were relatively more likely to rely on SNAP benefits alone (without UI).

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 increased benefit levels for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) and expanded SNAP eligibility for jobless adults without children. One goal of the program changes was to improve the food security of low-income households. We find that food expenditures by low-income households increased by about 5.4 percent and their food insecurity declined by 2.2 percentage points from 2008 to 2009. Food security did not improve for households with incomes somewhat above the SNAP eligibility range. These findings, based on data from the nationally representative Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement, suggest that the ARRA SNAP enhancements contributed substantially to improvements for low-income households.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 increased Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit levels and expanded SNAP eligibility for jobless adults without children. After these enhancements, SNAP participation and inflation-adjusted food spending by low-income households increased. Food insecurity declined by 2.2 percentage points among low-income households but was unchanged among households with incomes somewhat above SNAP-eligibility cutoffs.

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.

This report develops an economic model that provides the theoretical framework for the econometric analyses presented in the report's companion volume, WIC and the Retail Price of Infant Formula (FANRR-39). The model examines supermarket retail prices for infant formula in a local market area, and identifies the theoretical effects of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and its infant formula rebate program. Special attention is given to the rebate program's sole-source procurement system by which a single manufacturer becomes a State's "contract brand"-the State's one supplier of formula to WIC infants-in exchange for paying rebates to WIC. When a manufacturer's brand is designated a State's contract brand, the model predicts that supermarkets increase that brand's retail price. The model also predicts that an increase in the ratio of WIC to non-WIC formula-fed infants in a local market results in an increase in the price of the contract brand and, through demand substitution, a relatively small price increase for noncontract brands.

Rebates from infant formula manufacturers to State agencies that administer the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) support over one-quarter of all WIC participants. However, concerns have been raised that WIC and its infant formula rebate program may significantly affect the infant formula prices faced by non-WIC consumers. This report presents findings from the most comprehensive national study of infant formula prices at the retail level. For a given set of wholesale prices, WIC and its infant formula rebate program resulted in modest increases in the supermarket price of infant formula, especially in States with a high percentage of WIC formula-fed infants. However, lower priced infant formulas are available to non-WIC consumers in most areas of the country, and the number of these lower priced alternatives is increasing over time.

The Second Food Security Measurement and Research Conference (February 23-24, 1999) was co-sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service and Economic Research Service and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Center for Health Satistics. The conference was the second in a series and was attended by researchers from government, academia, and the private sector. The conference was part of an ongoing program of Federal food security research, the goal of which has been to establish a stable measurement strategy to assess annually the food security status of the U. S. population. This report is volume 1 of a two-volume set and contains abbreviated proceedings of all presentations and remarks by discussants at all sessions from the conference. The companion publication, Second Food Security Measurement and Research Conference. Volume II: Papers (February 2001, Stock # ERS-FANRR-11-2) contains a set of research papers that conference participants prepared to provide further detail on the content and findings of some research presented at the conference.

With 1.5 billion people covered globally, food and voucher programs provide an important lifeline for the poor and vulnerable. The study is the 1.5 Billion People Question: Food, Vouchers or Cash Transfers? reveals that while countries increasingly support people with cash as a form of safety net, food-based programs are still important interventions in some contexts. The analysis highlights how food and voucher programs remain relevant, and in most circumstances, have improved over time.It is against such a backdrop that this book explores how to genuinely integrate the agendas of social protection and food assistance. To be clear: over the past decades, efforts to introduce, expand, and upgrade social protection systems in low- and middle-income countries primarily revolved around cash transfers—and for good reasons. At the same time, about 1.5 billion people worldwide have been covered by in-kind food programs, 1 billion of whom live in countries examined in this volume. In-kind transfers have been a key vehicle to provide income support to poor consumers; but, on average, they have often done so at high cost and as part of broader agricultural support and food price risk management efforts. In other words,in-kind programs can generate technical and political economy quandaries that go well beyond income support to poor consumers.The book provides a long-awaited and very much-needed analysis on such a shift: when viewed through the lenses of history, countries are increasingly moving from in-kind provisions to cash-based transfers, often with vouchers as an intermediate step. Yet this process is far from straightforward, and it is checkered by the bumpy and erratic pathways of evolution. In particular, the book argues that many of the precursors of current cash transfer programs were in-kind measures and that such measures are still relevant in certain circumstances. The volume’s analysis—one at the intersection of economics, political economy, politics, sociology, and history—would help debunk some long-standing myths about food assistance, highlight the complex and inter- twined objectives pursued by well-intentioned food programs, and identify insightful lessons from reform processes that are, regrettably, seldom available internationally.