Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Beneficiaries Research Articles

Addressing Program Sustainability: A Time Series Analysis of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the US

Food stamps, or, more formally, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), form a crucial support system for many individuals in the United States. The welfare benefit has been associated with improved nutritional outcomes, making it an effective strategy to address hunger. Additionally, it has been found to enhance labour market outcomes for recipients and contribute to higher birth weights among children born to SNAP recipient mothers. Furthermore, it has been linked to improved height and overall health outcomes. Overall, this benefit is a crucial resource during times of need and helps mitigate the adverse effects of economic fluctuations. Even with the manifold advantages of the program, there exist notable apprehensions about the program’s long-term viability. SNAP has experienced significant expansion over more than 50 years. The recipients grew more than 14 times, from approximately 2.9 million individuals in 1969 to over 41 million in 2022. This study utilizes data from the United States Department of Agriculture to investigate the temporal characteristics of this massive expansion. Augmented Dickey-Fuller tests are performed with and without trend and optimally selected lag lengths. In all specifications, the presence of a unit root cannot be rejected. An overwhelming body of evidence suggests that the growth in SNAP beneficiaries may need to be revised. Results of the unit root tests provide credence to the argument that the historical growth rate in the number of SNAP beneficiaries is highly unpredictable and may pose significant challenges to policymakers. This study does not attempt to calculate fraud and abuse in the program. Neither does the study attempt to ascertain the number of beneficiaries that may not be worthy of receiving the benefits.

The protective effect of SNAP during economic downturns: Evidence from the COVID‐19 pandemic

AbstractThis paper estimates the intra‐pandemic effects of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation on the risk of food insecurity over a period when the majority of SNAP beneficiaries received emergency allotments. Within‐person estimations using longitudinal data from the 2019–2020 National Health Interview Survey reveal that, relative to income‐eligible SNAP nonparticipants, the likelihood of food insecurity was 37% lower over August–December 2020 among SNAP participants. A heterogeneity analysis indicates that this was mainly driven by higher income SNAP participants who received larger SNAP benefits through movements from below the maximum benefit for their household size to the maximum. Indeed, compared to income‐eligible SNAP nonparticipants, the risk of food insecurity was 78% (6%) lower over August–December 2020 among SNAP participants with above‐median (below‐median) family income to poverty ratios.

Association of a Fruit and Vegetable Subsidy Program With Food Purchases by Individuals With Low Income in the US

Food insecurity is associated with a less healthy diet. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is associated with reduced food insecurity, but benefit levels may be insufficient for beneficiaries to afford healthy foods. To evaluate whether participation in SuperSNAP, a program that provides an additional $40 per month for the purchase of fruits and vegetables with no added sugar, sodium, or fat to SNAP beneficiaries, is associated with changes in food purchasing. This longitudinal cohort study used data from transaction records of a large supermarket chain with approximately 500 stores located across North Carolina from October 2019 to April 2020. Participants were SNAP beneficiaries. SuperSNAP participation. Monthly spending on all fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts (primary outcome); spending on less healthy food categories; and spending on sugar-sweetened beverages as 1 category of less healthy foods. Monthly data on purchases by SNAP beneficiaries before and during SuperSNAP participation were compared with data from SNAP beneficiaries not enrolled in the program who shopped at the same stores. Overlap weighting (a propensity score-based method) was used to account for confounding, and linear mixed-effects models were fitted with random effects to account for repeated measures and clustering by store. The study included 667 SuperSNAP participants and 33 246 SNAP beneficiaries who did not use SuperSNAP but shopped in the same stores; 436 SuperSNAP participants had preintervention data and were included in the main analysis. SuperSNAP participation was associated with increased monthly purchases of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes ($31.84; 95% CI, $31.27-$32.42; P < .001; 294.52 oz; 95% CI, 288.84-300.20 oz; P < .001). Only a small increase in spending on less healthy food categories compared with the SNAP beneficiaries who did not use SuperSNAP ($1.60; 95% CI, $0.67-$2.53; P < .001) was observed. As total spending increased, the proportion of total food and beverage spending on less healthy foods significantly decreased (difference, 4.51%; 95% CI, 4.27%-4.74%; P < .001). Monthly spending on sugar-sweetened beverages decreased (difference, $1.83; 95% CI, $1.30-$2.36; P < .001). In this cohort study, participation in SuperSNAP was associated with meaningful increases in healthy food purchasing. Subsequent studies should investigate whether healthy food incentive programs improve health outcomes.

Improving Food Access through Farmers Market Incentives: Barriers, Strategies and Agency Perceptions from Market Managers

Florida’s Fresh Access Bucks program provides incentives to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program beneficiaries to redeem fresh, locally grown fruits and vegetables at select farmers markets. Policy-makers and practitioners designed the program to improve access to fresh fruits and vegetables for limited-resource families while stimulating the local economy by supporting purchases from local farmers. While evidence suggests that related incentive programs improve access to nutritious food, there is currently little research regarding farmers market managers’ perspectives and experiences regarding program adoption and use, despite the critical role played by managers in administering the program. Using data collected from semistructured phone interviews with market managers, we applied a component of the Integrated Behavioral Model to explore the barriers managers face in engaging with limited-resource consumers at their markets through the Fresh Access Bucks program. Additionally, we explored managers’ perceptions of their ability to administer and market the program effectively through strategic interventions. Results indicate that market managers’ perception of their ability to administer the program was hindered by the following external environmental factors: bureaucratic limitations; availability of locally eligible producers and growers; organizational structure and funding support; and transportation and physical access. The following strategic efforts influenced manager perceptions of their ability to administer the program: risk-taking and experimentation; loyalty, trust, and relationship-building with vendors; cultivating market experiences; and strategic coordination with partner organizations. These find­ings have implications for improving outcomes for similar nutrition incentive initiatives at farmers markets. See the press release for this article.

Availability of Grocery Delivery to Food Deserts in States Participating in the Online Purchase Pilot

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides federally funded nutritional support to qualifying low-income persons.1 To increase SNAP beneficiaries’ access to grocers, the 2014 Farm Bill included an Online Purchase Pilot (OPP) that allows beneficiaries in 8 states to use SNAP to purchase groceries online. The 2018 Farm Bill extends this benefit nationwide after OPP completion. Delivery of online-purchased groceries offers an opportunity to expand food access where it is otherwise limited. However, to our knowledge, there are no studies assessing the availability of grocery delivery in USDA-designated food deserts, defined as low-income communities with limited vehicular access and grocer availability. To inform on the potential effect of delivery in these areas, we quantified the proportion of both rural and urban USDA-designated food deserts currently serviceable by online grocery purchase and delivery in the 8 OPP states.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Data: Why Disclosure Is Needed.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides funding to low-income households to purchase food at participating stores. The goals of the program include reducing hunger, improving nutrition, and strengthening the US food system. These are interrelated, as food access and choice depend on availability.SNAP generates data that could be useful for program evaluation and evidence-based policymaking to reach public health goals. However, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not collect or disclose all SNAP-related data. In particular, the USDA does not systematically collect food expenditure data, and although it does collect transaction (sales) and redemption data (the amount retailers are reimbursed through SNAP), it does not release these data at the store level.In 2018, Congress quietly changed the law to prohibit the USDA from disclosing store-level transaction and redemption data, and in 2019, the US Supreme Court blocked disclosure of these data. These federal proceedings can inform the outcome of additional efforts to disclose SNAP-related data, as well as future research and policy evaluation to support improved public health outcomes for SNAP beneficiaries.

SNAP and Paycheck Cycles

It is well documented that individuals do not spend the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits smoothly over the month after receipt. Rather, recipients spend a disproportionate share of benefits at the beginning of the benefit month. This has costs for recipients and stores. There is also evidence that other income streams, such as Social Security and paychecks, are not spent smoothly. The presence of these other income streams may bias estimates of the effects of this SNAP cycle on consumption for working SNAP beneficiaries and those who receive other government benefits. We use data from United States Department of Agriculture's National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey to explore how the SNAP cycle is affected by accounting for these other income streams. We find suggestive evidence that the cycle is more pronounced for workers who are paid on a weekly or monthly basis, but little evidence that cycles in other income streams mitigate or exacerbate the SNAP cycle.

The study on the effect of peritumoral electro-acupuncture combined with paclitaxel on tumor microenvironment in 4T1 breast cancer mice

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a public policy program that aims to reduce food insecurity—a social determinant of health that has been associated with suboptimal blood pressure control in the United States. The aim of the article was to explore the association between SNAP benefit timing and size and probability of hypertension-related emergency department (ED) claims.This study used the SNAP data from the Missouri's Department of Social Services for January 2010 to December 2013 linked to Medicaid ED claims data. The dependent variable was probability of hypertension-related and hypertensive emergency ED claims. The independent variables of interest were week of calendar and SNAP benefit months and SNAP benefit amount. Probit regression analyses were conducted. Average marginal effects are reported.In a sample of 6,013,951 Medicaid-insured SNAP beneficiaries, 11,709 hypertension-related claims were submitted for every 100,000 claims. The average marginal effect of SNAP benefit amount on hypertension-related ED claims was −0.0000638 (P < .001); thus, a $100 increase in SNAP benefits will reduce hypertension-related claims by 638 claims per 100,000 claim. The reduction in ED claims was higher for lower SNAP benefit amounts than at higher SNAP benefit amounts. There was no statistically significant association between week of calendar month in which SNAP benefit was received and probability of hypertension-related ED claims. Higher SNAP benefit amount was associated with a decreased probability of hypertension-related ED claims. The impact of an additional dollar of SNAP benefits was larger at lower SNAP benefit amounts.

Do Minimum Wage Increases Affect SNAP Benefits?

Abstract The recession of the late 2000s accompanied a steep increase in the number of people on the U.S. federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The economy recovered, yet the number of people on SNAP remained relatively high. This study investigates whether increases in minimum wages affected the number of SNAP beneficiaries and the per-capita cost of the program. Economic reasoning suggests a minimum wage increase can decrease poverty through higher wages or increase poverty by enacting a barrier to work. Using a panel data set (1997–2015) at the state level, two-way fixed effects estimates demonstrate a nonlinear relationship between minimum wages and SNAP benefits. At low minimum wages, increases in the minimum wage reduce SNAP enrollment and benefits; however, at high minimum wages, increases in the minimum wage increase SNAP enrollment and benefits. Twenty states have already passed the minimum wage turning point. Further increases can lead to more SNAP participants.

ГОСУДАРСТВЕННАЯ СИСТЕМА ПРОДОВОЛЬСТВЕННОЙ ПОМОЩИ В США

Social policy has become a key prerequisite for long-term economic growth; therefore, much attention is paid to the search for new instruments of social policy, and to rethinking existing ones. Addressing basic needs, of which access to sufficient and healthy food is crucial, has been one of the top social priorities in the USA for decades. The major American program to address food insecurity and provide food assistance for low-income families is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the former Food Stamp Program. The Program is nationwide, with uniform standards and access rules set at the federal level, and is the only social program in the US directed not at a certain group of recipients, but at the entire population with low incomes. The paper examines goals, history and operation of the Program with special focus on technical details (financing, administration, participation requirements and procedures, quality control) relevant for launching similar program in Russia. SNAP has a triple goal: to provide access to healthy nutrition, help agricultural producers and reduce poverty. The flexibility built into the program allows to react quickly both to national economic shocks and to changes in the financial situation of individual families. The author refers to the evidence of long-run positive effects of SNAP participation on poverty reduction, food security, health and well-being of participants. The point is made that SNAP proved to be a well-tuned reliable instrument customized to the particular needs of certain households, with comparably low administrative costs, error and trafficking rates, and high precision rates. The Program also serves as built-in stimulating and counter-cyclical tool. The Trump administration has proposed radical changes in food assistance policy, including reduction in number of SNAP beneficiaries and partial replacement of benefits by &ldquo;food boxes&rdquo;. However, the proposals are not likely to be accepted in full. The paper concludes with comments on poverty in Russia and ways to confront it. Introduction of the food assistance program in Russia is an urgent task, and it is reasonable to consider the successful US experience of operating a similar program. Such features as administrative, cost-minimizing and benefit size calculation techniques, high level of coverage of the needy population, methods of lowering fraud and control over the parties involved are of special interest to Russia.&nbsp;&nbsp

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program size and timing and hypertension-related emergency department claims among Medicaid enrollees

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a public policy program that aims to reduce food insecurity—a social determinant of health that has been associated with suboptimal blood pressure control in the United States. The aim of the article was to explore the association between SNAP benefit timing and size and probability of hypertension-related emergency department (ED) claims.This study used the SNAP data from the Missouri's Department of Social Services for January 2010 to December 2013 linked to Medicaid ED claims data. The dependent variable was probability of hypertension-related and hypertensive emergency ED claims. The independent variables of interest were week of calendar and SNAP benefit months and SNAP benefit amount. Probit regression analyses were conducted. Average marginal effects are reported.In a sample of 6,013,951 Medicaid-insured SNAP beneficiaries, 11,709 hypertension-related claims were submitted for every 100,000 claims. The average marginal effect of SNAP benefit amount on hypertension-related ED claims was −0.0000638 (P < .001); thus, a $100 increase in SNAP benefits will reduce hypertension-related claims by 638 claims per 100,000 claim. The reduction in ED claims was higher for lower SNAP benefit amounts than at higher SNAP benefit amounts. There was no statistically significant association between week of calendar month in which SNAP benefit was received and probability of hypertension-related ED claims. Higher SNAP benefit amount was associated with a decreased probability of hypertension-related ED claims. The impact of an additional dollar of SNAP benefits was larger at lower SNAP benefit amounts.

Double Up Food Bucks program effects on SNAP recipients' fruit and vegetable purchases

BackgroundTo encourage the consumption of more fresh fruits and vegetables, the 2014 United Sates Farm Bill allocated funds to the Double Up Food Bucks Program. This program provided Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program beneficiaries who spent $10 on fresh fruits and vegetables, in one transaction, with a $10 gift card exclusively for Michigan grown fresh fruits and vegetables. This study analyzes how fruit and vegetable expenditures, expenditure shares, variety and purchase decisions were affected by the initiation and conclusion, as well as any persistent effects of the program.MethodsChanges in fruit and vegetable purchase behaviors due to Double Up Food Bucks in a supermarket serving a low-income, predominantly Hispanic community in Detroit, Michigan were evaluated using a difference in difference fixed effects estimation strategy.ResultsWe find that the Double Up Food Bucks program increased vegetable expenditures, fruit and vegetable expenditure shares, and variety of fruits and vegetables purchased but the effects were modest and not sustainable without the financial incentive. Fruit expenditures and the fruit and vegetable purchase decision were unaffected by the program.ConclusionsThis study provides valuable insight on how a nutrition program influences a low-income, urban, Hispanic community’s fruit and vegetable purchase behavior. Policy recommendations include either removing or lowering the purchase hurdle for incentive eligibility and dropping the Michigan grown requirement to better align with the customers’ preferences for fresh fruits and vegetables.

EBT Payment for Online Grocery Orders: a Mixed-Methods Study to Understand Its Uptake among SNAP Recipients and the Barriers to and Motivators for Its Use

ObjectiveTo examine Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients' use of the first online supermarket accepting Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) payment. MethodsIn this mixed-methods study, the authors collected EBT purchase data from an online grocer and attempted a randomized controlled trial in the South Bronx, New York City, followed by focus groups with SNAP beneficiaries aged ≥18 years. Participants were randomized to shop at their usual grocery store or an online supermarket for 3 months. Focus groups explored barriers and motivators to online EBT redemption. ResultsFew participants made online purchases, even when incentivized in the randomized controlled trial. Qualitative findings highlighted a lack of perceived control over the online food selection process as a key barrier to purchasing food online. Motivators included fast, free shipping and discounts. Conclusions and ImplicationsElectronic Benefit Transfer for online grocery purchases has the potential to increase food access among SNAP beneficiaries, but challenges exist to this new food buying option. Understanding online food shopping barriers and motivators is critical to the success of policies targeting the online expansion of SNAP benefits.

Transactions at a Northeastern Supermarket Chain: Differences by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Use

Although one in seven Americans receives Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, little is known about how these benefits for food are spent because individual-level sales data are not publicly available. The purpose of this study is to compare transactions made with and without SNAP benefits at a large regional supermarket chain. Sales data were obtained from a large supermarket chain in the Northeastern U.S. for a period of 2 years (April 2012-April 2014). Multivariate multiple regression models were used to quantify relative differences in dollars spent on 31 predefined SNAP-eligible food categories. Analyses were completed in 2016. Transactions with SNAP benefit use included higher spending on less healthful food categories, including sugar-sweetened beverages ($1.08), red meat ($1.55), and convenience foods ($1.34), and lower spending on more healthful food categories, such as fruits (-$1.51), vegetables (-$1.35), and poultry (-$1.25) compared to transactions without SNAP benefit use. These findings provide objective data to compare purchases made with and without SNAP benefits. Next steps should be to test proposed SNAP modifications to determine whether they would have the intended effect of promoting healthier purchasing patterns among SNAP beneficiaries.

USDA’s Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Helps Bring Regional and Local Foods to Consumers

USDA’s Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services Helps Bring Regional and Local Foods to Consumers

Growth In SNAP Retailers Was Associated With Increased Client Enrollment In Georgia During The Great Recession.

Policies to improve food accessibility in underserved areas often use direct financial incentives to attract new food retailers. Our analysis of data on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in Georgia before and after the Great Recession suggests that increased program enrollment improves access to food for SNAP beneficiaries by acting as an indirect subsidy to retailers. We divided food stores into four categories: large, midsize, small, and specialty retailers. Between 2008 and 2011 the number of SNAP enrollees increased by 87percent, and between 2007 and 2014 the number of SNAP retailers in Georgia increased by 82percent, primarily because of growth in the number of authorized small retailers. Inside metropolitan Atlanta, changes in the numbers of SNAP enrollees and authorized retailers were positively and significantly associated for small retailers. For the areas outside of metropolitan Atlanta, the association between changes in numbers of enrollees and authorized retailers was strongest for small retailers; more modest associations were also seen for large and specialty retailers. Policy makers should consider how retailers' sensitivity to and reliance on SNAP funding can be leveraged to improve not only food availability, but also access to healthy foods.

Food and drink consumption among 1-5-year-old Los Angeles County children from households receiving dual SNAP and WIC v. only WIC benefits.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) are two of the more well-known food assistance programmes in the USA. The current study describes food consumption patterns of children aged 1-5 years living in households dually enrolled in these two programmes v. households enrolled only in WIC. Food consumption and SNAP participation were assessed using data from the 2014 Survey of Los Angeles County (LAC) WIC Participants and the Follow-Up Survey of the same households that were also SNAP beneficiaries. Telephone interviews were conducted with WIC parents regarding each child's (i.e. beneficiary's) food consumption patterns. Follow-up interviews were conducted with those who reported receiving SNAP. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess the relationships between food and beverage consumption and dual v. single food assistance programme participation. LAC, California. Children of WIC-enrolled households in LAC during 2014 (n 3248). This included a sub-sample of dual WIC- and SNAP-enrolled households (n 1295). Survey participants were the beneficiaries' parents. Children from dually enrolled households consumed 1·03 (P<0·05) and 1·04 (P<0·01) more servings of fruits and vegetables daily respectively, 1·07 more sugar-sweetened beverages daily (P<0·001) and ate sweets/sweetened foods 1·04 more times daily (P<0·001) than children from households participating only in WIC. Results suggest that SNAP+WIC enrolment is associated with increased consumption of both healthy foods and foods containing minimal nutritional value. Complementary nutrition education efforts across the two programmes may help beneficiaries maximize healthful food purchases with SNAP dollars.

Farmers' markets' uptake of food assistance programmes in East Tennessee, USA.

Limited acceptance of government food assistance programmes such as the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a barrier that produces unequal access to market products for SNAP beneficiaries. There is a dearth of published evidence to explain the limited SNAP acceptance at farmers' markets. The current project aimed to fill this gap; to identify and describe the barriers to markets' acceptance of SNAP. Cross-sectional, semi-structured interviews were conducted. All interviews were conducted via telephone. Twelve East Tennessee area market managers, vendors and other key stakeholders. Multiple barriers exist for SNAP implementation at markets including administrative and time limitations, prejudice from market vendors against SNAP beneficiaries, and resistance to invasive and burdensome requirements of the USDA SNAP application required for farmers' markets. SNAP acceptance at farmers' markets is a complex issue, especially for small, rural markets. If farmers' markets are to serve as sustainable resources to increase food access, these issues must be addressed so that SNAP can be accepted. Successful implementation of SNAP at rural markets requires increased administrative support and vendor education about SNAP and its beneficiaries. A revised USDA SNAP application process for farmers' markets should also be considered.

A Qualitative Study of Diverse Experts' Views about Barriers and Strategies to Improve the Diets and Health of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Beneficiaries

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the largest federal food assistance program, currently serves 44.7 million Americans with a budget of $75 billion in 2011. This study engaged leading experts for in-depth, semi-structured interviews to explore their opinions concerning the existing challenges and barriers to eating nutritiously in SNAP. Experts also proposed strategies for improving nutritional status among SNAP recipients. Twenty-seven individuals were interviewed from advocacy, government, industry, and research organizations. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed for thematic content. The high cost of nutrient-rich foods, inadequate SNAP benefits, limited access to purchasing healthy foods, and environmental factors associated with poverty were identified as barriers that influence nutrition among low-income households in the United States. Six themes emerged among respondents from diverse sectors about how to address these challenges, including providing SNAP participants with incentives to purchase nutrient-rich food consistent with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, restricting the purchase of nutrient-poor foods and beverages with program benefits, modifying the frequency of SNAP benefit distribution, enhancing nutrition education, improving the SNAP retailer environment, and increasing state and federal level coordination and consistency of program implementation. Given the recent dramatic increase in SNAP enrollment, policymakers must address existing barriers as well as consider new strategies to improve nutrition policies in SNAP so that the program can continue to address food insecurity needs as well as provide a healthful diet for SNAP beneficiaries.