Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Program Research Articles

When do part‐time workers increase effectiveness? A study of food banks and the SNAP program outreach

AbstractThe use of part‐time employees to support operations has been a contentious topic in the literature. While part‐time employees add cost‐effective flexibility to operations, their impact on operational outcomes has largely been documented as negative. However, there are a number of sectors (e.g., non‐profit) which rely heavily on part‐time employees, with anecdotal evidence supporting their role in improving outcomes. Through this research, we seek to shed light on these contradicting perspectives. We do so by investigating the impact of the percentage of part‐time employees in the workforce dedicated to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) outreach efforts at United States (U.S.) food banks on the effectiveness of this initiative. SNAP is the largest domestic hunger program in the U.S., assisting over 42 million individuals, and food banks play a critical role in outreach and enrollment for SNAP. We utilize data on the operational characteristics and SNAP activities of food banks that are members of the Feeding America network and U.S. Census data on the demographic characteristics of their service area. We find that an increased percentage of part‐time FTEs (full‐time equivalent) in a food bank's workforce dedicated to SNAP outreach efforts increases its effectiveness, particularly in relation to operational and contextual factors that can benefit from a more flexible workforce. Based on these findings and our review of the literature, we propose a conceptual framework on the effectiveness of part‐time employees in different settings.

THE RELEVANCE OF SNAP PROGRAM ACCESSIBILITY FOR FOOD INSECURITY, FOCUSING ON ADULTS WITH DISABILITIES

Abstract Individuals with disabilities are not only more likely than their peers without disabilities to experience food insecurity, but also encounter disproportionate barriers to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) enrollment. This study examined associations between state-level measures of SNAP enrollment accessibility (flexibility, efficiency, and accessibility in the enrollment process; and the presence of either broad-based categorical eligibility or the Combined Application Project) with SNAP participation and food insecurity levels among low-income participants (income ≤185% of the poverty threshold) aged ≥15 years in the 2021 Current Population Survey, both overall (n=19,895) and among those with disabilities (n=3,484). In multi-level models adjusted for individual and state characteristics, living in a state with broad-based categorical eligibility was associated with higher rates of SNAP participation among all low-income individuals (b= 0.300, 95% CI: 0.096, 0.505). Among those with disabilities, having greater flexibility in SNAP enrollment (b= 0.141, 95% CI: 0.007, 0.276) and living in a state with the Combined Application Project (b= 0.271, 95% CI: 0.017, 0.525) were associated with a higher likelihood of SNAP participation. Living in a state with more efficient SNAP enrollment was associated with lower food insecurity levels (b= -0.073, 95% CI: -0.136, -0.010) among all low-income individuals and having broad-based categorical eligibility was associated with lower food insecurity levels (b= -0.237, 95% CI: -0.451, -0.022) among those with disabilities. These findings highlight the importance of SNAP program accessibility to address food insecurity among all low-income Americans and suggest that enrollment barriers may differ for people with and without disabilities.

Effects of Inclusion of Food Purchase Restrictions and Incentives in a Food Benefit Program on Diet Quality and Food Purchasing: Results From a Randomized Trial

BackgroundThere is interest in reshaping the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to better support family nutrition. ObjectiveThe Grocery Assistance Program Study (GAPS) for Families evaluated the effects of prohibiting using program funds for the purchase of certain sugary foods on the nutritional quality of foods purchased and consumed by program participants. DesignA randomized experimental trial was carried out with participants randomized to one of three food benefit conditions. Baseline and follow-up measures collected included interviewer-administered 24-hour dietary recalls, food purchase receipts, food security, height, and weight. Participant/settingAdult–child dyads in households eligible for SNAP but currently not enrolled were recruited from the Minneapolis/St Paul MN metropolitan area from May of 2018 through May of 2019. A total of 293 adult–child dyads received the intervention as allocated. Of these dyads, 233 adults completed follow-up measures and met criteria for inclusion in the analytic sample, resulting in an attrition rate of 20.5%. A total of 224 children completed follow-up measures and met criteria for inclusion in the analytic sample, resulting in an attrition rate of 23.5%. InterventionParticipants were randomized to 1 of 3 conditions: restriction (not allowed to buy sugar-sweetened beverages [SSB], sweet baked goods, or candy with program funds); restriction paired with incentive (30% incentive for fruits and vegetables [FV] purchased with funds); and control (funds provided with no restrictions or incentives). Funds were provided on a 4-week cycle for 20 weeks via a study-provided debit card. Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2015 total score. Additional outcomes included selected HEI-2015 component scores; energy intake; food security; body weight; and purchasing of SSB, sweet baked goods, candies, fruits, and vegetables. Statistical analysisLinear regression analyses were conducted with change in the outcome regressed on treatment condition for the primary outcome analyses. ResultsNo differences were observed between conditions in change in the nutrition and food security measures examined. Purchases of SSB and sweet baked goods and candies significantly differed by experimental condition. Purchase of restricted foods was lower at follow-up in the restriction and restriction paired with incentive conditions compared with the control condition. For example, spending on SSB at follow-up was significantly lower in the restriction ($2.66/week) and restriction paired with incentive ($2.06/week) conditions in comparison with control condition ($4.44/week) (P < 0.0003 and P < 0.0001, respectively). ConclusionsThis study failed to find evidence in support of prohibiting the purchase of sugary foods with food program funds as a strategy to improve program participant nutrition, even when paired with an FV incentive. Research carried out in the context of the SNAP program is needed for a more robust evidence base.

Advancing Equity in the Farm Bill: Opportunities for the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP).

The Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) is a federally funded grant program that provides nutrition incentives-subsidies for purchasing fruits and vegetables (FV)-to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants. GusNIP currently advances nutrition equity by improving FV access for people with low incomes, yet inequities exist within GusNIP. We sought to identify inequities in GusNIP at the community, organization, partner, and individual levels and develop recommendations for farm bill provisions to make the program more equitable. In Spring 2021, a group of nutrition incentive experts (n = 11) from across the country convened to discuss opportunities to enhance equity in GusNIP. The iterative recommendation development process included feedback from key stakeholders (n = 15) and focus group participants with GusNIP lived experience (n = 12). Eleven recommendations to advance equity in GusNIP in the farm bill emerged across six categories: (1) increase total GusNIP funding, (2) increase funding and support to lower-resourced organizations and impacted communities, (3) eliminate the match requirement, (4) support statewide expansion, (5) expand and diversify retailer participation, and (6) expand program marketing. Including these recommendations in the upcoming and future farm bills would equitably expand GusNIP for SNAP participants, program grantees, and communities across the country.

The development of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program enrollment accessibility (SNAP-access) score

BackgroundThe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal public benefit providing food assistance to millions of Americans. However, it is typically administered by states, creating potential variation in accessibility and transparency of information about enrollment for people with disabilities. ObjectiveTo develop and demonstrate the use of a method to assess the accessibility and transparency of information about the disability-inclusive process and practices of SNAP enrollment. MethodsCross-sectional data was collected from SNAP landing and enrollment webpages from all 50 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and New York City from June–August 2021. Based on principles of universal design and accessibility, scores were determined for each SNAP program across three areas: flexibility in the enrollment process (6 points), efficiency of finding information about enrollment on SNAP websites (6 points), and the accessibility of SNAP webpages (6 points). Total scores were the sum of these sub-categories (18 points maximum). ResultsOf the 52 SNAP programs assessed, mean scores were 10.66 (SD = 2.51) for the total score, 2.67 (SD = 0.91) for flexibility in the enrollment process, 3.32 (SD = 1.19) for efficiency of finding information about enrollment on SNAP websites, and 4.67 (SD = 1.72) for the accessibility of SNAP webpages. No programs received the maximum flexibility score (6 points) on flexibility, 2 programs received the maximum on efficiency, and 31 programs the maximum on accessibility. ConclusionsWe found differences in the accessibility, flexibility, and efficiency of SNAP program enrollment information available on SNAP websites and outline room for improvement across all three of these areas.

Inadequate calcium and vitamin D intake and osteoporosis risk in older Americans living in poverty with food insecurities.

Poverty may be a barrier to acquiring adequate nutrient levels for the prevention of osteoporosis. Age and nutritional intake are major factors that contribute to osteoporosis prevalence. This study examined the relationship between markers of poverty with calcium / vitamin D intake and osteoporosis. A cross-sectional analysis of the United States population was performed using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 2007–2010 and 2013–2014 for older US adults (n = 3,901 participants, 50 years old and older). Odds of inadequate calcium / vitamin D intake and dietary supplement use and risk of probable osteoporosis were calculated in order to determine the relative difference and possible associations between household income, the Family Monthly Poverty Level Index, food security, and participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). A sub-analysis of ethnic disparities and biological sex was also performed. In general, women age 50 and older consistently have inadequate calcium intake, regardless of economic level including poverty. While inadequate calcium intake has a larger prevalence among women, markers of poverty increased the risk of inadequate calcium intake in all men and risk of osteoporosis among some subgroups, with the exception of SNAP program participation. Over one fourth of Non-Hispanic black men in the US are below the poverty line. Approximately half of this population has inadequate calcium (58.9%) and vitamin D (46.7%) intake. Typically, osteoporosis risk is relatively low for Non-Hispanic Black males, however considering poverty status, risk is significantly increased (Relative Risk Ratio [RR]: 2.057 ± 0.012) for those with low income suggesting that calcium and vitamin D supplementation may be of benefit for this population.

Distributional impacts of food assistance: How SNAP payments to the rural poor affect incomes in the urban core

AbstractThis paper examines how benefits of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to low‐income households spillover between Portland, Oregon‐metropolitan core and its periphery trade area. The paper studies the impact of the SNAP program on four income classes by comparing the income increases generated by SNAP in 2006 in each income class in each region with a counterfactual scenario in which the taxes that would be needed from taxpayers in the region to support SNAP are treated as income and spent. The analysis shows that overall, SNAP payments net of taxes stimulate the regional economy and are significantly redistributive.

The Effect of SNAP and School Food Programs on Food Security, Diet Quality, and Food Spending: Sensitivity to Program Reporting Error

There is an extensive research literature on the effects of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on food‐related outcomes which has shown somewhat mixed results but generally favorable effects. However, most of the research has used data sets whose information on SNAP participation is gathered from responses on household surveys, and such responses are subject to reporting error. This study uses the National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey data set to examine the effect of reporting error on food‐related outcomes, for that data set contains information on SNAP participation gathered from government administrative records. Our analysis shows that the degree of reporting error is small and has little effect on the estimated impact of participation in the SNAP program on food security, diet quality, and food spending. A supplemental analysis of the effect of school food programs likewise shows no difference in using survey or administrative data in the analysis.

Arguments Used in Public Comments to Support or Oppose the US Department of Agriculture’s Minimum Stocking Requirements: A Content Analysis

BackgroundIn 2016, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Retailer Rule proposed several changes for SNAP-authorized retailers, including: requiring retailers to have at least 85% of their food sales come from items that are not cooked or heated on site before or after purchase; requiring stores to stock seven varieties of qualifying foods from four staple food groups; requiring stores to carry perishable foods in three of the four staple groups; requiring stores to carry six units of qualifying foods at all times (depth of stock); disqualifying multiple ingredient foods and accessory foods from counting toward depth of stock requirements. ObjectivesTo better understand arguments used to support or oppose the USDA’s proposed rule that all SNAP-authorized retailers carry more nutritious foods. DesignWe conducted a qualitative content analysis of a random sample of public comments posted to the US Federal Register (a publicly available database) in response to the USDA’s proposed rule. Participants/settingA random sample of 20% of all public comments submitted by individuals and organizations to the US Federal Register were analyzed (n=303) for this study. ResultsThree main themes were discussed: 1) arguments used in opposition to the rule; 2) arguments used in support of the rule; and 3) facilitators to assist stores in implementing the rule. Some of the subthemes included focusing on definitions used in the rule, reduced food access caused by stores leaving the SNAP program, lack of space and equipment for healthy foods, and the potential for increasing healthy food access. ConclusionsNutrition and dietetics practitioners may be tasked with working with stores to implement healthy changes. Nutrition and dietetics practitioners must understand the role that the USDA has in food policy. In addition, understanding how federal food policy influences the environments in which dietetics professionals’ clients are making food choices is important.

Low-Income Urban Mothers’ Experiences with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

BackgroundFood insecurity remains a public health concern in the United States, particularly among low-income urban ethnically diverse families, even with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Limited phenomenologic data exist to capture how programmatic changes to SNAP address the needs of users and why a gap in SNAP use may exist. ObjectiveThe primary aim of this study was to examine the experiences of low-income, Baltimore, MD, mothers in applying for and maintaining access to SNAP. Secondary aims included understanding participants’ perspectives on the influence of changes in SNAP over a 3-year period and how SNAP fits into the overall system of social services for families. DesignIn this qualitative, phenomenologic study, in-depth interviews were conducted with 13 mothers and three focus groups with 20 mothers, for a total sample of 33 mothers receiving SNAP benefits. Ten mothers participated in the first round of data collection (January to May 2010), and 23 in the second round (February to May 2013). Participants/settingParticipants were 33 mothers receiving SNAP benefits in Baltimore City, MD. Main outcome measuresBaltimore SNAP users’ experiences with applying for and maintaining access to SNAP, as well as with program changes to the SNAP program. Data analysisData were analyzed using an iterative emergent design and phenomenologic approach. A constructivist perspective was implemented throughout the coding process. ResultsSNAP functioned as a valuable support system within the broader social safety net for mothers living in poverty, yet participants expressed frustration about the processes of applying for and maintaining benefits due to communication problems and poor integration of services. In applying for and accessing SNAP, positive interactions with caseworkers and previous knowledge of the SNAP program were important for maintaining benefits. Interviews and focus group discussions revealed the need for additional outreach and education about the implemented program changes to build trust and improve access to SNAP among participants. ConclusionsImproving communication and supporting participants’ ability to maintain relationships with the same caseworkers, as well as developing better integration with other aid programs, could improve the SNAP program.

Self-Stigmatizing Identity and Democratic Participation Among Low-Income Individuals

Political quiescence among low-income Americans is well documented but its causes are not well understood. This study explored the hypothesis that a self-stigmatized identity in low-income individuals is associated with a reluctance to participate in democratic activity. We engaged in participant/observation at nine mealtimes to analyze the discourse of guests of our local community “soup kitchen” and also administered a survey to investigate their perceptions of the poor, their beliefs about causes of poverty, and their knowledge of the demographics of recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. We then offered respondents to the survey the opportunity to sign a petition, write a letter, or both to communicate to their Congressional representatives their position on the question of whether SNAP program funding should be cut. We found that low-income guests with stigmatized attitudes toward the poor were significantly less likely to sign petitions or write letters. We also noted that distancing, embellishment, and embracement were prevalent among the discourse of these guests, all phenomena associated with the struggle to negotiate an identity of value in a stigmatized individual. Our findings suggest that a self-stigmatizing sense of identity is a barrier to participation in civic activity.

The Role of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in the Relationship Between Food Insecurity and Probability of Maternal Depression

ABSTRACTFood insecurity is a substantial stressor for many households. Though an association between food insecurity and depression has been well established, most studies have been cross-sectional. Although many receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), its role in reducing distress associated with food insecurity is unclear. Using data from 1225 women who participated in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, this study investigated whether (1) change in food security status predicts change in depression severity over a 2-year period, (2) participating in SNAP predicts depression, and (3) the relationship between food insecurity and depression varies based on receipt of SNAP. Food insecurity was linked to probability of depression over time. Additionally, for those who became food insecure over the 2-year period, losing SNAP benefits was associated with increased probability of depression, whereas gaining benefits was associated with reduced probability of depression. This suggests that the SNAP program offsets emotional hardship for those who have recently become food insecure. Further research is needed to evaluate the most efficient and efficacious means to reduce food insecurity and improve emotional well-being among vulnerable families.

How Does the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Affect the U.S. Economy?

The impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on the national economy is examined using a general equilibrium model and comparing measures of the economy from 2010 to a simulation of that economy without SNAP. Without the SNAP program, the overall size of the economy hardly differs—demand for labor increases slightly. However, households that would be eligible for SNAP experience a net loss. They have 5.5 percent less disposable income while ineligible households have approximately 1 percent more income without SNAP, and output of products eligible for purchase with SNAP funds declines approximately one billion dollars.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Analysis of Program Administration and Food Law Definitions.

Under the current version of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), participants can purchase virtually any food or beverage (collectively, food). Research indicates that SNAP recipients may have worse dietary quality than income-eligible nonparticipants. Policymakers have urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to pilot SNAP purchasing restrictions intended to support a healthier diet, and state legislators have proposed similar bills. The USDA rejected these invitations, stating that it would be administratively and logistically difficult to differentiate among products, amid other concerns. However, the USDA's Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) do just that. Further, state governments define and differentiate among foods and beverages for tax purposes. This paper reviews several factors intended to inform future policy decisions: the science indicating that SNAP recipients have poorer diet quality than income-eligible nonparticipants; the public's support for revising the SNAP program; federal, state, and city legislators' formal proposals to amend SNAP based on nutrition criteria and the USDA's public position in opposition to these proposals; state bills to amend eligible foods purchasable with SNAP benefits; state retail food tax laws; and the retail administration and program requirements for both WIC and SNAP. The paper finds that the government has a clear ability to align SNAP benefits with nutrition science and operationalize this into law.

Understanding Accessibility to Snap-Accepting Food Store Locations: Disentangling the Roles of Transportation and Socioeconomic Status

Research suggests that spatial inaccessibility to food stores adversely affects the health status of individuals living in predominantly low income or racial minority geographic areas. Previous studies examining geographic accessibility to food stores have focused on defining ‘food deserts’ using a variety of methods to map and quantify inaccessibility. However, the ability to afford and purchase healthy food must also be considered, and a scan of recent research reveals few studies that have accounted for the role of government assistance programs and how this might impact people’s accessibility. In this paper, we analyze specific at-risk populations’ accessibility to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) accepting locations using GIS-based estimates of specific personal transportation costs. In the U.S., the SNAP program attempts to alleviate food insecurity among low-income groups who qualify for assistance. We focus on understanding the relative accessibility of potentially vulnerable demographic populations as captured at the Census block group level and their potential ability to reach SNAP accepting food store locations. A mid-sized city in Florida is used as a test case. Network-based approaches are employed using GIS to gauge accessibility in terms of walking, automobile, and public transit modes. Ultimately, we seek to better understand possible differences in accessibility across socioeconomic groups, emphasizing characteristics such as vehicle ownership, race, and income, while recognizing the importance of the SNAP program. Findings suggest that higher income, high vehicle access, and white populations are more accessible to food opportunities than lower income, low vehicle access, and African American populations and potential policy implications of this work include whether certain transportation costs should be subsidized for individuals receiving SNAP benefits.

SNAP benefits: Can an adequate benefit be defined?

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) increases the food purchasing power of participating households. A committee convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examined the question of whether it is feasible to define SNAP allotment adequacy. Total resources; individual, household, and environmental factors; and SNAP program characteristics that affect allotment adequacy were identified from a framework developed by the IOM committee. The committee concluded that it is feasible to define SNAP allotment adequacy; however, such a definition must take into account the degree to which participants' total resources and individual, household, and environmental factors influence the purchasing power of SNAP benefits and the impact of SNAP program characteristics on the calculation of the dollar value of the SNAP allotment. The committee recommended that the USDA Food and Nutrition Service investigate ways to incorporate these factors and program characteristics into research aimed at defining allotment adequacy.

The Anti-Hunger Empowerment Act of 2013

Hunger and poverty affect countless Americans. Food security plays a critical role in establishing positive medical and health outcomes. As the national nutritional safety net, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is essential to combating hunger and malnutrition. It provides substantial nutritional and economic benefits to children and families living in impoverished conditions. Yet these families often struggle with accessing SNAP benefits. This article examines current literature on the consequences of food insecurity and potential barriers to the SNAP program, particularly its impact on children. It also introduces current policy, H.R. 208 “Anti-Hunger Empowerment Act.” Finally, future policy recommendations are suggested based on expert opinion and literature synthesis.

Nutritional Policy Changes in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Some experts have proposed limiting the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, for calorie-dense foods or subsidizing SNAP purchases of healthier foods. To estimate health effects and cost-effectiveness of banning or taxing sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) or subsidizing fruits and vegetables purchased with SNAP. . Microsimulation. Data Sources. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, US Department of Agriculture Quarterly Food-at-Home Price Database, and SNAP program data. US adults aged 25 to 64 y. Time Horizon. 10 y. Perspective. Governmental. Incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), body mass index, Alternative Healthy Eating Index, Food Security Score, diabetes person-years, and deaths from myocardial infarctions (MIs) and strokes. of Base-Case Analysis. Banning SSB purchases using SNAP benefits would be expected to avert 510,000 diabetes person-years and 52,000 deaths from MIs and strokes over the next decade, with a savings of $2900 per QALY saved. A penny-per-ounce tax on SSBs purchased with SNAP dollars would produce higher cost savings due to tax revenues but avert fewer chronic disease deaths. However, some SNAP participants are likely to preferentially purchase SSBs through their disposable income, indirectly reducing their food security. A 30% produce subsidy would be expected to avert 39,000 diabetes person-years and 4600 cardiovascular deaths over 10 y without effects on food security. Results of Sensitivity Analysis. Results are sensitive to the intake elasticities of SSBs and produce. Limitations. Input data did not provide information on heterogeneity in response to price changes within the SNAP-using SNAP restrictions on SSBs could lower chronic disease mortality, but further testing should examine indirect effects on disposable income and food security. Subsidizing produce could confer fewer benefits or risks but at higher cost.

Grocery Store Beverage Choices by Participants in Federal Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs

Sugar-sweetened beverages are a target for reduction in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Concerns have been raised about sugar-sweetened beverages purchased with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. This paper describes purchases of non-alcoholic refreshment beverages among participants in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and SNAP. Grocery store scanner data from a regional supermarket chain were used to assess refreshment beverage purchases of 39,172 households in January-June 2011. The sample consisted of families with a history of WIC participation in 2009-2011; about half also participated in SNAP. Beverage spending and volume purchased were compared for WIC sampled households either using SNAP benefits (SNAP) or not (WIC-only). Analyses were completed in 2012. Refreshment beverages were a significant contributor to expenditure on groceries by SNAP and WIC households. Sugar-sweetened beverages accounted for 58% of refreshment beverage purchases made by SNAP households and 48% of purchases by WIC-only households. Soft drinks were purchased most by all households. Fruit-based beverages were mainly 100% juice for WIC-only households and sugary fruit drinks for SNAP households. SNAP benefits paid for 72% of the sugar-sweetened beverage purchases made by SNAP households. Nationwide, SNAP was estimated to pay at least $1.7 to $2.1 billion annually for sugar-sweetened beverages purchased in grocery stores. Considerable amounts of sugar-sweetened beverages are purchased by households participating in WIC and SNAP. The SNAP program pays for most of the sugar-sweetened beverage purchases among SNAP households. The upcoming SNAP reauthorization could be a good time to reconsider the program priorities to align public funds with public health.