Sunday, February 25, 2018

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Note:  It has been a while since I have posted here.  I can't promise that there will be any more frequent postings but the following is a term paper from my American Politics class.  There are some important issues here regarding the pending 2018 Farm Bill.  Please take a few moments to read this and feel free to provide constructive criticism and proposals on how we can better approach SNAP.


Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Final Paper
Denis R. Lachapelle
Southern New Hampshire University


“It’s a messed-up situation.”  Danny Lamb is 41.  He lives in Pittsburg, Kansas.  And he is the face of food insecurity in the United States.  “You got people who really do depend on a little bit of assistance through the state," Lamb said. "It seems like they really don't care if somebody goes hungry or whatever" (Efrenfreund & Ferdman, 2016). 
The USDA defines Danny as an “ABAWD”, Able Bodied Adult Without Dependents.  This definition limits his ability to collect assistance.  Danny has been filling out employment applications for several weeks. He does not have a degree and has bad knees, old football injuries from high school, that restrict the kind of work he can do.  And since his 8-year-old son lives with the boy's mother, Lamb legally has no dependents.
Danny is an example of the one in eight people struggling with hunger in the United States.  Poverty, often caused by unemployment or under-employment, and job instability are the leading causes of food insecurity and hunger in the United States.  Food insecurity describes a household’s inability to provide enough food for every person to live an active, healthy life (Feeding America, 2018).  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, formally known as food stamps, provide a fundamental safety net for over 42 million Americans (USDA, 2018).  These benefits are considered the fundamental safety net in the United States and are the only public assistance program that is available to all family types (Hoynes & Schanzenbach, 2012).

What does SNAP do?

SNAP benefits, as the name implies, are supplemental.  The benefits are designated to be a supplement to food purchases made with a household’s own income.  SNAP can be used at supermarkets, large and small grocery stores, convenience stores, and farmers markets to purchase foods for use at home or seeds for plants to produce food.  Alcohol and tobacco cannot be purchased.  (USDA, 2012)

Who is Responsible for SNAP?

Individual states administer the SNAP program and certification of eligibility for SNAP benefits, however these benefits are 100% federally funded.  Benefits are provided via an electronic debit card to most households with gross income less than 130 percent of the federal poverty guidelines (USDA, 2017). 
(130 percent of poverty) (100 percent of poverty) Maximum Benefit Allotment
1 $1,307 $1,005 $192
2 $1,760 $1,354 $352
3 $2,213 $1,702 $504
4 $2,665 $2,050 $640
5 $3,118 $2,399 $760
6 $3,571 $2,747 $913
7 $4,024 $3,095 $1,009
8 $4,477 $3,444 $1,153
Each additional member $453 $349 $144
SNAP Income Eligibility Limits - October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018

SNAP’s budget is administered by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA).  As part of the USDA, it shares an annual budget with other areas including farm and foreign agricultural services, rural development, food safety, and natural resources and environment.  Within the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services department, SNAP is just one program of many that domestic nutrition assistance programs including WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), TEFAP (The Emergency Food Assistance Program), and FDPIR (Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations).  Combined, these Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services programs make up over 70% of the USDA’s budget annually (USDA Budget, 2016). 

The History of Food Stamps

At the height of the latest financial crisis, December 2012, an all-time high of 47.8 million Americans participated in SNAP (LaRose, 2016).  Today, an estimated 42 million people rely on SNAP to supplement their household food purchases.  Formally known as Food Stamps, there have been federally supported governmental programs successfully providing surplus food as early as 1939.  Between 1939 and 1944 over 20 million people were provided with surplus food through the Food Stamp program (USDA, 2017).  The modern Food Stamp program dates back to President Kennedy’s first executive order which established a pilot program in eight counties.  This was later expanded in 1964 into The Food Stamp Act as part of President Johnson’s Great Society program.  Its goal was to strengthen the agricultural economy and to provide improved levels of nutrition among low-income households.  The program took several years to ramp up and did not universally cover the United States until 1975 as funding controlled its growth (Hoynes & Schanzenbach, 2012).  With the passage of the Farm Bill of 2008 the Food Stamp program was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Why is SNAP controversial?

Historically there has been a belief in an “Ideology of the Dole”: a belief that many relief recipients were “undeserving poor”, lazy, immigrants, people of color, unwed mothers, and did not want to work (Rose, 1989).  That belief carries over to the impression people have of SNAP recipients.  They have no intention to take part in the “American Dream” but wish to be dependent on the Federal Government.  In contrast, four out of five recipients are employed (Redden, 2013).  Low unemployment rates mask the reality that the working poor and many low-skilled workers are trending towards more precarious job conditions, with fluctuating schedules, low hours, and irregular paychecks.  Roughly 4 in 10 workers who are paid hourly are informed of their schedules less than a week in advance.  "Even if you get a job, you're not guaranteed more than 20 hours a week" (Efrenfreund & Ferdman, 2016).

Taking a Side

From the earliest days of the colonies, there has been publicly funded relief for the poor and dependent people.  Local government officials were given the authority to raise taxes as needed to build and manage poorhouses, supply food, and put the able bodied to work (or in prison).  Colonial legislatures and later the States passed legislation that established the tradition of public responsibility for care of the poor (Hansen, 2011).  Yet prior to the Great Depression, most of this relief was handled at the local and town level by local government units and charities (Rose, 1989).  This changed with the New Deal, and specifically with the passage of The Social Security Act of 1935.  This was the first time that the government, at a federal level, had attempted to protect the health and well-being of the nation.
As the United States has continued to grow into a country of spread across 2.3 billion acres with over 300 million citizens, the national welfare state has grown.  It is no longer a question as to whether or not the government addresses the issues of poverty and hunger but is now a debate as to the degree to which the Federal Government responds.

Is it the Government’s Job to Fight the War on Poverty?

President Johnson, in his 1964 State of the Union Address stated the goal of the War on Poverty was, “…not only to relieve the symptom of poverty, but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it” (Johnson, 1964).  But after more than fifty years, has the war been successful?  Adjusting for inflation, over 21 trillion dollars have been spent on various entitlement programs including Head Start, Food Stamps, and Medicare (Woodhill 2014).  Yet rather than reduce poverty, this has only increased the size of the welfare state and possibly changed the very moral fiber of our country.  In 1967, 14.2% of Americans fell below the poverty line.  Thirty-eight years later, in 2005, 12.7% of Americans fell below the poverty line – based on US Census Bureau data from the March Current Population Surveys (Grieger, 2009).    The government pushed forward with plans that were supposed to help America’s poor become self-sufficient, but measured against these statistics, it can be argued that the war has been a failure.
Looking at just the changes in poverty rate is a simplistic approach to assessing Johnson’s War on Poverty.  The question should be, what would the rate of poverty have been without the government programs?  Government programs have played a large role in maintaining a flat rate in growth for poverty.  Without the anti-poverty programs in place, it is estimated that poverty levels would be at the 27-29% (Wimer, 2013).

A Handout or a Helping Hand

Many government programs fall into the category of entitlements: housing assistance, Pell grants, Head Start, LIHEAP, Lifeline, and the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit.  Each of these programs provide benefits to segments of the American population.  With issues as complex and politically charged as entitlements, it is not possible to arbitrarily end them, however, limitations and budgetary restraints are often put in place to slow the growth or prevent abuse.
Each program has its own unique set of rules and regulations.  The eligibility and benefit stipend size for SNAP is determined by several criteria: income, household composition, citizenship/immigration status, and resources.  As earnings increase, the system automatically adjusts benefits amount, weaning the recipient off the program.
SNAP recipients are also limited if they are classified as ABAWD.  North Carolina recently implemented its policies regarding Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents.  These adults, aged 18 to 49, without dependents or children under the age of 18, and able to work, are subject to a 3-month maximum benefit within a 36-month period if they do not work a minimum of 20 hours per week or 80 hours per month (NCDHHS, 2016).  The program is designed to provided incentive to look for work or enroll in job training.

The Local Food Pantry Should Not Be the Only Answer

SNAP was designed to be supplemental, but for many it doesn’t work out that way.  Many people do not have sufficient income after paying for rent and utilities, they have no money left for food or medicine.  "One of the solutions the government has put out there is telling people to go to their local food bank, but we don't have the resources to step in in place of the government," said Margarette Purvis, president of the Food Bank for New York City.  "This whole thing is not about whether or not they need food," she said. "That's a big problem. These people desperately need the help" (Efrenfreund & Ferdman, 2016).
Food Insecurity dramatically increased during the Great Recession of 2008 and its aftermath due to the sharp rise in unemployment.  By 2011, the rate of households classified as food insecure nationally had peaked at 15% - a figure 34% higher than before the recession.  Most dramatically, post-recession the fraction of food insecure households has remained significantly higher than a decade before. (Executive Office, 2015)

“We have a lot of elderly clients that come in here every day,” stated Roy Jarrard, volunteer coordinator of Samaritan Kitchen of Wilkes, a North Carolina based food pantry.  “Many of them have custody of their grandchildren.  Their food stamps are sometimes as low as 15 dollars a month where last year they were getting 100 dollars.  We see on average 1000 families a month”
Samaritan Kitchen of Wilkes is one of many organizations that work together with Feeding America.  Feeding America is one of the most well-known and largest of the private organizations that helps to fight hunger every day.  As a network of over 200 food banks across the nation, it works with its 60,000-member organizations to help distribute surplus food to over 46 million people annually (Feeding America).  Feeding America believes the “SNAP is our nation’s first line of defense against hunger,” furthermore, “Hunger is unacceptable, particularly because it is solvable” (Weill, 2017).

A Proposal to Fix a Broken System

The Farm Bill

The primary source of appropriations for SNAP came in 2014 from the most recent Farm Bill.  Farm Bills are renewed approximately every five years, which gives Congress a predictable opportunity to comprehensively review agricultural and food issues.  The most recent farm bill, the Agricultural Act of 2014, is an omnibus, multi-year law that governs an array of agricultural and food programs.  SNAP comprised 80% of the nutrition component of the bill.  Under the Farm Bill, nutrition assistance programs including TEFAP, a program that provides USDA foods and federal support to food banks and food pantries like the Food Bank of New York City and Samaritan Kitchen of Wilkes, are also supported.  Outside of nutritional assistance programs, the bill covers an array of other agricultural and farm commodity programs (Johnson & Monke, 2017). 
The House Committee on Agriculture, chaired by Representative K. Michael Conaway (Republican, Texas), oversees funding for the USDA, and specifically the Nutrition Subcommittee, chaired by Jackie Walorski (Republican, Indiana), oversees the SNAP program.  In 2016, the Committee submitted a report of an audit they conducted of SNAP.  They found that since other forms of welfare had become more difficult to obtain and since SNAP’s eligibility criteria was more relaxed, SNAP had become a catchall for individuals and families that received no or lower benefits from those other programs.  The net effect was to increase in SNAP enrollment.  To adjust for this increase in enrollment, the report pointed out that “the need for nutrition assistance cannot be addressed by just one program or just one group—it requires more collaboration between governments, charities, businesses, health systems, communities, individuals, and many others” (Conway, 2016).

The 2018 Farm Bill (New)

Currently in committee is the 2018 Farm Bill.  There are likely to be two major issues that will be discussed.  The first will be a change or possible increase to the ABAWD guidelines to 30 hours, and the second will be limitations to limit what people can buy with SNAP benefits.  There is continuing debate in restricting the use of SNAP benefits for soda and other “unhealthy” products (Vilsack, 2018).  In 2015 the TEFAP program was converted to block grant funding.  There is also a good possibility that there will be discussion of transitioning SNAP to block grant funding.
Also new to the table will be President Trump’s recent recommendation of the “Harvest Box” Program.  The proposal is that households participating in SNAP that receive more than $90 per month would receive a package of food in lieu of monetary benefits.  The program claims proposed savings over ten years of over $129 billion.  It does not address religious or dietary restrictions, costs for transportation and logistics, or losses to retail grocers.
Groups including Feeding America have already come out against these proposed changes.  Diana Aviv, CEO stated, “Our message to elected officials is this: No structural changes, no block grants, and no budget cuts for federal nutrition programs that help low-income Americans.” (Weill, 2018)

Block Grants

A sweeping set of welfare reforms pushed through Congress in 1996.  One of the major reforms was made to AFDC.  The cash welfare program known as AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) was converted into a new program known as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).  Two major changes were made to the program.  The first was a work and activity requirement for benefits.  The second was changing the funding to block grants (Conway, 2016).
A block grant is a consolidation of several categorical grants into one single grant.  In theory, block grants provide states and cities considerable freedom in determining how to spend money while helping to relieve their tax burdens.  History has proven that block grants present more problems than they solve.  Block grants tend to have four issues:
·                     The amount of money available from of the block grants do not grow as fast as the states had hoped or as fast as it had through categorical grants;
·                     The federal government continued to attach strings to supposedly “unrestricted” money;
·                     They tended to grow slower than categorical grants because of the nature of the kinds of political coalitions supporting each type.  Liberal politicians and interest groups tend to distrust the states, so they tend to support categorical grants.  Conservative politicians and interest groups tend to support the states over the federal government and thus support block grants;
·                     Because block grants cover such a wide range of activities, no single organization or interest group has a vital stake in enlarging the grant (Wilson, 2017).
Congress in considering proposals to make SNAP a block grant program with the 2018 Farm Bill.  "The way to think about this block grant proposal is it's a placeholder that the Republicans have put on the table as a way of signaling that they believe the SNAP program has to be changed, whether it's actually a block grant or not" (Fessler, 2015).
By converting SNAP to a block grant program, individual states would have control over the allocation of funds, possibly making deep cuts in eligibility and benefits., or allocate the funds to other uses.  Additionally, by adding 54 or more additional layers of bureaucracy (each of the fifty states controlling their own budget, plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Federal Indian Reservations), they will be less likely to be responsive to economic downturns or crises, either national (e.g. recession) or localized (e.g. natural disaster). 

A Three-Point Plan for Reform

A proactive approach must be taken in order to protect the majority of benefits that SNAP provides.  With the 2018 Farm Bill under consideration, and the potential for massive funding changes and restructuring of the program, it is essential that the report the House Committee on Agriculture prepared on SNAP be analyzed to see where changes in the program can be made that maintain and expand benefits where appropriate while protecting it for years to come.  Thus, I propose a three-pronged strategy of 1) ABAWD reform with an enhanced training and job placement program, 2) Expansion of benefits for children and the elderly with a partnership with Medicare and Medicaid and a focus on nutrition, and 3) a focus on fraud enforcement and penalties.

ABAWD Reform and Training

"Making people hungrier isn't going to make them find work faster," said Rebecca Vallas, managing director of the Poverty to Prosperity Program at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. "One of the most helpful things for someone looking for work is helping them not worry about putting food on the table" (Efrenfreund & Ferdman, 2016). 
The current debate is for possible tightening of the requirements for ABAWD.  Based on the Wisconsin FoodShare program, the proposal would require the recipient to be working 30 hours per week or earning the equivalent of 30 hours at minimum wage to qualify for benefits.  There are exemptions for students, caregivers, and other reasons (FoodShare Wisconsin Handbook, 2018)
ABAWD requirements target people who are already dealing with food insecurity due to unemployment or underemployment.  The requirements for ABAWDs need to be reduced or maintained at current levels.  Additionally, to help get people off of the program altogether, we need to increase opportunities for job training and placement.  Former Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack gave high praise to programs in Vermont and Mississippi.  While their programs were vastly different, Vermont targeted hard-to-employ individuals, like homeless or ex-cons, for special help getting work, and Mississippi gave recipients a four-week intensive job readiness courses. Vilsack said the goal was to find which methods worked best and apply them nationwide. (Fessler, 2015)
"These are, again, adults - no dependents, physically and mentally capable of working," Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Kasich's presidential campaign, said in a recent interview. "Just as much as we believe in the social safety net, we also believe it's a sin not to help oneself" (Efrenfreund & Ferdman, 2016).  Therefore, if we can follow the lead of Vermont and Mississippi and provide intensive job training and placement, we can begin to alleviate the need for SNAP.

Benefits for Children and Elderly

Close to half of all participants in SNAP are children, and over half of all non-elderly, non-disabled adult participants live with children (CBPP, 2017).  And 8% of all children nationally are food insecure (USDA – ERS, 2017). 
Childhood hunger and food insecurity, is associated with many health and developmental issues including poor social and emotional development, less advanced mental proficiency, anxiety and depression, and poor self-control.  Inadequate diet may also impede children’s ability to perform academically (Executive Office of the President, 2015).

Organizations like Samaritan Kitchen of Wilkes and other food pantries offer backpack programs to assist children to supplement their diets on the weekend.  Roy Jarrard explained that in Wilkes County, NC, Samaritan Kitchen has seen a 13% jump in the number of students receiving supplemental food backpacks.  “We have given out over 13 thousand bags already this school year, that’s over 53 thousand pounds of food to children in 21 schools who otherwise would go hungry over the weekend.  700 children every week get two ready to eat breakfasts, lunches, and dinners, plus snacks in each bag.  I know they’ll have food through the school year, but I worry about these kids during the Summer when school is out.”
According to Eric Schneidewind with AARP, “Elderly households, which are defined as those with an individual over age 60, represented 19 percent of all SNAP recipients in FY 2014.”  Many of these seniors have specialized diets or very specific dietary needs.  These can be difficult to afford on a limited budget.  Certain illnesses, such as diabetes, require special consideration.  When dietary restrictions are not followed, health expenses rise.  The USDA does have some programs to address senior needs, including assignment of card benefits and the CSFP (Commodity Supplemental Food Program), and some food banks are equipped to assist in providing a larger range of healthy alternatives for families with dietary restrictions.  However, the increasing number of seniors with dietary restrictions poses a significant challenge (Conway, 2016).
The current proposal by the Trump administration for the Harvest Basket program reduces the amount of benefits by half, replacing it with food.  Without taking into consideration these specialized diets or dietary restrictions, much of this food will be wasted.  There are two alternatives.  The first would be to pair up cross-departmentally with Medicare, and possibly Medicaid, to have doctors or nutritionists identify these individuals that have dietary restrictions and treat the diets or correct food as a prescription.  The cost of the food could then either be granted as a stipend on the EBT card as supplemental income required to pay for the additional food or, since Medicare and Medicaid are being involved, a deductible could be paid.
The second would be to reclassify the foods that are in the system and change the benefit structure to encourage purchase of healthier alternatives.  With the help of a nutritionist, help the consumer to make healthy choices.  Certain items could be 50% of regular cost (beans, rice, fruits & vegetables, skim milk, juice), certain items could be full cost (regular grocery items), and certain items that are “unhealthy choices” (sugary sodas) could also be full cost but not tax exempt.  This alternative could help promote healthier diets and reduce the perception of fraud in the system.

Enforcement and Penalties

Food stamp fraud is considered rampant, anecdotally.  There are also stories about people buying lobsters and filet mignon with their EBT cards, purchasing beer and cigarettes with cash, and then getting into their brand-new Escalade and driving away.  In truth, the reality of fraud in the SNAP program is much less dramatic. 
The period from 2012-2014 saw a record-high level of fraud in the system, with $1.1 billion wasted.  But that needs to be put in perspective.  The cost of providing nutritional assistance is $72.1 billion. Therefore, the amount of fraud is about 1.5 percent of all of the money spent (Willey, et al., 2017).  Continued diligence and investigation by law enforcement should keep this number low.
Consumer misuse is a perspective issue.  If a customer was to go into a grocery store and purchase gluten free bread and soy milk, would it be ok if they used SNAP?  What if they bought Coca Cola and Twinkies?  Why should someone who requires assistance not have the right to purchase what they please?  Does a person who is poor not have the right to have something they might enjoy, and if not at what point does it become the business of the government?  SNAP limits purchases of many items including hot foods ready-to-eat.  Some states, including Maine, have attempted to limit the purchase of junk food and sugary soda but have been blocked from doing so. 
Ultimately, solutions to the fraud issues come down to the enforcement of existing laws and elimination of the stigma of the “Ideology of the Dole”.  Adoption of new programs like the Harvest Box will potentially open up new fraud issues including disposal or resale of unwanted or undesirable food.  It is also possible that disreputable retailers may resell some of this food to make up for the loss of revenue from SNAP sales.

Two key theories of American Government

In discussing SNAP, two key theories underlie the issues:  America as the welfare state and Federalism.  Within the Twentieth century, there have been two periods that solidified America into a welfare state: the 1930s with Roosevelt’s New Deal, and the 1960s with Johnson’s Great Society.  Roosevelt’s first 100 days were marked by the rapid approval of relief legislation that included the Emergency Conservation Work Act (which created the Civilian Conservation Corps), the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Federal Emergency Recovery Act (FERA) (Trowbridge, 2017).  Johnson’s Great Society was focused on his “War on Poverty.” Important programs during his administration included the Economic Opportunity Act, the Food Stamp Act, Head Start, and expansions to Social Security.  Both presidents undertook massive political efforts to protect and enhance the health and well-being of all Americans.  Their efforts fundamentally shifted the way America views its government.
In creating a welfare state, significant financial expenditures were required.  These were done at both the state and national level.  For example, Roosevelt’s Federal Emergency Recovery Act provided $3 billion to the states for direct payments and to create jobs in various public works projects (Trowbridge, 2017).  But the Social Security Act of 1935 (and subsequent changes and expansions, including Johnson’s) were completely Federal programs.  Food Stamps, and later SNAP, were designed more like FERA as they were federally funded but state run.  This is a clear example of Federalism.


Assessing the Current Political Climate

The President, the House, and the Senate are all currently Republican controlled.  Historically, there is little expansion in domestic entitlement programs under these conditions.  The current Congress and Administration is trying to cut entitlement programs.  The controversial Affordable Care Act is their primary target, but along the way programs like The Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) were temporarily defunded.  The government shut down as part of the budget battle as well.  Major recommendations have been proposed that would alter SNAP have been proposed, from block grants, to ABAWD, to Harvest Boxes.  The future for those that are battling hunger and food insecurity and rely on SNAP and other governmental nutrition program is bleak. 
However, Congress is currently drafting the 2018 Farm Bill.  The “Three-point plan for Reform” would need to be addressed now and while the bill is in subcommittee.  Once the 2018 Farm Bill is cleared through the Nutrition Subcommittee and then the House Committee on Agriculture, it may be too late to make any effective change.  When the bill reaches the floor of the House of Representatives, it will most likely pass.  It is important that we communicate with our Congressional Representatives and Senators to recommend this plan as well as other possible alternatives.  Invite them to local food pantries and soup kitchens so they can see the problem of hunger in their own communities.

Three Rebuttal Arguments

Abuse of the System

SNAP has been characterized by some as an out-of-control entitlement program, with participants becoming dependent on their monthly benefits.  Furthermore, participants get trapped in a cycle of dependency on government handouts, and the program is ineffective against reducing hunger.
The participants in SNAP tend to be food insecure, and the SNAP is not designed to provide the entire food budget, but a supplement.  When comparing the number of people relying on SNAP against the number of people at the 130% of poverty line, the trends track identically (Center on Budget, 2017).  Poverty is a trap that is hard to get out of.  But people do improve their situation.  The average person receiving SNAP benefits participates between 37 and 48 months (United States Census Bureau, 2015).  Ultimately, as Roy Jarrard said, “We want to run out of hungry people someday and go out of business.”

Drug Users

The 2014 Farm Bill did not include changes to broad-based categorical eligibility or a state option to drug test SNAP applicants; these options have been included in House proposals.  (Johnson & Monke, 2017).  Many people feel that drug testing should be mandatory for SNAP participants just as it is for welfare recipients.
Not all states are testing welfare recipients, and each state that requires testing handles it differently.  The cost involved could be very high if all 46 million SNAP recipients were required to undergo mandatory screenings.  However, if new applicants were screened based on certain pre-determined (or random) criteria, costs could be limited to the workhours required to screen the candidate.  Even then, would the potential savings found from denying a positive drug user offset the cost of the labor and testing?
There is no denying that drug abuse is an issue.  Roy Jarrard pointed out that a lot of the newer, younger clients at Samaritan Kitchen of Wilkes are meth addicts.  This may be due to high unemployment and poverty in the Wilkes County, North Carolina area, the Appalachian region, or it may be indicative of the entire United States.

Disproportionate use of the system versus Demographics

African-Americans and illegal immigrants are very often cited as the primary users, and abusers, of SNAP.  But in February of 2015, Mississippi state legislator, Gene Alday, a Republican, had to issue an apology for telling a reporter that all the African-Americans in his hometown of Walls, Mississippi, are unemployed and on food stamps (Le Coz, 2015).  Undocumented immigrants have never been permitted to receive SNAP benefits (USDA, 2017).
The USDA reports that nationally, most of the people who receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are white.  Roy Jarrard concurred, “Our clients here match the demographics of [Wilkes] county.”

Is a new law necessary?

From an appropriations standpoint, the 2018 Farm Bill is necessary.  The problem is, anytime the act is reviewed, the provisions it contains become politicized.  This year’s Farm Bill is critical to the survival of SNAP in its present form.  Block grants, ABAWD, Harvest Boxes, and even drug testing, are all points up for debate that may change program.  There are areas and opportunities within SNAP that could make it more effective.  Adding the three-point proposal listed in this report into the Farm Act could help better regulate while expand services and potentially cut costs.  Otherwise, a new legislation or regulation is not necessary.

Why Representative Foxx and Senator Burr should consider this proposal

“We will launch a special effort in the chronically distressed areas of Appalachia” (Johnson, 1964).  Living in the Wilkes County, NC, in the Foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, I have seen the generational cycles of poverty.  Representative Foxx is the Congressional Representative over this district and has seen the crisis of hunger and food insecurity first hand.  In August of 2016, Ms. Foxx toured Samaritan Kitchen of Wilkes as it played host for a roundtable on hunger.  During the meeting, Sue and James Watts, local residents, SNAP recipients, and clients of Samaritans explained about their particular situation.  The Watts have custody of one grandchild and one great-grandchild.  They are on a fixed income and only receive $74 per month in Food Stamps.  After utilities bills, they have a choice every month of either buying food or medicine.  Thus, they come to Samaritan Kitchen monthly for food (Dunn, 2016).  The Watts’s story is not unique in Appalachia, or the United States.
The Watts’s are examples of a family that could take advantage of the second part of the three-point plan.  With better benefits that tied in with their Medicad and Medicare, they might be able to receive additional food for a low co-pay and they might be able to get lower priced more nutritious food.
As the Representative for the district, and the Senator for the state respectively, one would hope that our local politicians would see the logic and merit to these proposals and work with the Congress and the Senate to pass common sense legislation that would help the most impoverished among us.


CBPP. (2017). Chart Book: SNAP Helps Struggling Families Put Food on the Table.  Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2017). SNAP tracks changes in share of population that is poor or near-poor. Downloaded from
Conway, K. M. (2016). Press Releases: Chairman Conaway Unveils SNAP Report: Findings from the “Past, Present, and Future of SNAP” Hearing Series.  House Committee on Agriculture. Retrieved from
Dunn, K. (2016). Foxx asked to support current school food policy.  Wilkes Journal Patriot. Vol. 110, No. 172
Efrenfreund, M. & Ferdman, R. A. (2016). The controversial reason tens of thousands of people just lost their food stamps. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
Executive Office of the President (2015). Long-term benefits of the supplemental nutrition assistance program. Retrieved from
Fessler, P. (2015). Both Parties Agree The Food Stamp Program Needs To Change. But How? The Salt. Retrieved from
FoodShare Wisconsin Handbook. (2018, 01 17). Retrieved from State of Wisconsin Department of Health Services:
Grieger, L. D., Danziger, S., & Schoeni, R. F. (2009). Accurately measuring the trend in poverty in the United States using the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Journal Of Economic & Social Measurement, 34(2/3), 105-117. doi:10.3233/JEM-2009-0313
Hansan, J.E. (2011). Poor relief in early America. Retrieved February 25, 2018 from
Hoynes, H. W., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2012). Work incentives and the Food Stamp Program. Journal Of Public Economics, 96151-162. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.08.006
Johnson, L. B. (1964). Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union. Retrieved from
Johnson, R. & Monke, J. (2017) What is the Farm Bill? Congressional Research Service. RS22131.  Pg.  9 – 10. Retrieved from
LaRose, E. (2016). No More Free Lunch. Econ Focus, 20(1), 8.
Le Coz, E. (2015, 2 17). Rep. Alday publicly apologizes for race-tinged remarks. Retrieved from Clarion Ledger:
NCDHHS. (2016). Food and Nutrition Services FSs245.  North Carolina DHHS On-Line Manuals. Retrieved from
Redden, M. (2013). This is why food stamp reliance has exploded. New Republic. Downloaded from
Rose, N. E. (1989). Work relief in the 1930s and the origins of the Social Security Act. Social Service Review, 63(1), 63–91.
Trowbridge, D. J. (2017). A history of the United States: 1865 to present. Asheville, NC: Soomo Learning. Available from
United States Census Bureau. (2015, 05 28). Retrieved from 21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month:
USDA. (2012).  Building a Healthy America: A Profile of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.  Retrieved from
USDA. (2017). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Downloaded from
USDA. (2018, 02 02). FY15 through FY18 National View Summary. Retrieved from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):
USDA Budget. (2016). United States Department of Agriculture FY 2017 BUDGET SUMMARY. Retrieved from
USDA – ERS. (2017).  Food Security Status of U.S. Households with Children in 2016.  United States Department of Agriculture: Economic Research Service.  Retrieved from
Vilsack, T. (2018, 01 16). What the 2018 farm bill means for urban, suburban and rural America. Retrieved from The Conversation:
Weill, D. A. (2017, 3 3). President, Congress must protect programs that keep hunger at bay. Retrieved from The Hill:
Willey, J. & Fetting, N., & Hale, M. (2017). The Extent of Trafficking in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: 2012–2014. USDA. Retrieved from
Wilson, J. Q. (2017). American Government Institutions and Policies. Cengage Learning. 66
Wimer, C. &. (2013). Trends in Poverty with an Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure. New York: CUNY.
Woodhill, L. (2014). Opinion: The War on Poverty Wasn't A Failure -- It Was A Catastrophe. Forbes. Retrieved from

No comments: