Food Stamps Myths and Realities

[MachineGhost]

Categorical Eligibility

Categorical eligibility allows many people to automatically enroll in SNAP who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for the program.

    Categorical eligibility does not allow households to enroll automatically; they must still apply through the regular SNAP application process, which has rigorous procedures for documenting applicants’ income, citizenship, work status, and other circumstances.
    Categorical eligibility allows states the option of aligning SNAP eligibility rules for gross income and assets with TANF to reduce administrative costs and simplify the eligibility determination process. While three-fourths of SNAP households were categorically eligible, almost all would also have been eligible for SNAP under standard rules.
    While a small number of households would not have met gross income and asset eligibility rules without categorical eligibility, SNAP families are still among the poorest households:
        SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with gross income under 130% of poverty and net income at or below 100% of poverty. The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $731 and net monthly income of $336. Only 1% of SNAP households in 2009 had monthly net income above 100% of the poverty line.
        SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with assets of no more than $2000. The average SNAP household still has assets of only $333. [xvi] Additionally, the SNAP asset limit of $2,000 has not been adjusted for inflation in 25 years and has fallen by 48% in real terms since 1986.


Categorical eligibility has dramatically increased program participation.

    The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years. As the number of people unemployed increased by 110% from 2007 to 2010, SNAP mirrored that growth with a 53% increase in participation over the same period, responding quickly and effectively to growing need in the recession.
    Because SNAP participation closely follows unemployment, as the economy slowly recovers and unemployment begins to fall, SNAP participation and costs too can be expected to decline. The Congressional Budget Office projects that SNAP will shrink nearly to pre-recession levels as the economy recovers and need abates.

Eliminating categorical eligibility would significantly reduce costs.

    Eliminating categorical eligibility would achieve savings by causing about 1 million low-income people currently enrolled in SNAP to lose their benefits. Many more families newly applying for assistance would have their benefit issuance delayed because of the increased complexity of applying and additional processing time required. This human cost is too high a price to pay with so many families struggling to get by in this economy.
    §  In addition to the loss of needed food assistance for struggling families, this savings would come at the expense of increased administrative costs. Eliminating the streamlined application process that categorical eligibility allows would require states to allocate staff time to duplicate enrollment procedures and incur the cost of modifying their computer systems, reprinting applications and manuals, and retraining staff.

Administrative Savings

We could achieve significant savings by cutting administrative expenses alone without doing harm to SNAP participants.

    SNAP administrative expenses are small. Federal administrative expenditures for SNAP equal less than 4.5% of overall federal SNAP costs. About 94% of that is the federal share of state administrative costs for operating the program. SNAP caseloads have risen by more than 75% since FY2007 due to historic unemployment, but federal spending on state administrative costs has only risen by 17% over the same period.
    SNAP administrative expenses are essential. Administrative expenditures cannot be cut significantly without compromising program integrity. Administrative expenditures in SNAP are used for essential functions like verifying eligibility, preventing benefit trafficking, administering work requirements, and related functions.
    Much of the administrative savings that is being discussed isn’t what you or I would consider program administration. For example, it includes spending on employment and training services that help SNAP participants move from welfare to work and federal oversight of the roughly 200,000 retail stores that accept SNAP benefits. Overstating the level of administrative spending really amounts to a call for cuts to SNAP benefits, eligibility, and essential services.

It’s only fair to spread budget cuts across programs, and the cut the Agriculture Committee has proposed would only require nutrition programs to take a 1% cut.

    Our nation’s budget is a moral document, and the decisions we make have a real impact on real people. It’s easy to lose sight of that when you’re in Washington talking about numbers. But if you come to visit our food bank back home, you’ll see this isn’t about percentages or decimal points. This is about real people, your neighbors, your constituents, who are struggling just to put food on the table.
    The cuts to nutrition assistance programs are not only immoral, they are short-sighted. The impact of our nation’s hunger problem is estimated at over $167 billion per year. By improving access to food, federal nutrition programs protect families from hunger and improve their health and educational outcomes, making these programs a critical investment in people and communities for both the short and long-term.

Everyone has to contribute their share to deficit reduction. 


    Washington has a long history of a bipartisan commitment to protecting the safety net and low-income people in past deficit reduction agreements. The three major deficit-reduction packages of the last two decades — the 1990, 1993, and 1997 packages — all adhered to this principle. This principle was upheld in the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Deficit Commission.
    Low-income families have already given more than they can bear to our nation’s economic policies. They have lost their homes and have experienced unemployment at a far higher rate. They have seen their wages decline as our nation has experienced a growing income gap between rich and poor.

Program Costs and Participation 

Generous eligibility rules and program fraud and abuse have caused participation in SNAP to balloon, sharply driving up the cost of the program when the nation can least afford it.

    The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years. As the number of people unemployed increased by 110% from 2007 to 2010, SNAP mirrored that growth with a 53% increase in participation over the same period, responding quickly and effectively to growing need in the recession.
    Because SNAP participation closely follows unemployment, as the economy slowly recovers and unemployment begins to fall, SNAP participation and costs too can be expected to decline. The Congressional Budget Office projects that SNAP will shrink nearly to pre-recession levels as the economy recovers and need abates. 

SNAP ARRA Temporary Benefit Increase

The benefit increase provided by ARRA is not needed and Congress should take it back early.

    Congress made a promise not to put our most vulnerable families in a situation in which their benefits were suddenly pulled out from underneath them. Under the proposed cut, this is exactly what would happen. Rescinding the ARRA boost to SNAP benefit levels would cause the average family of four to see an immediate monthly reduction of $57 in SNAP benefits. Faced with this sudden drop in their monthly food budget, SNAP households are likely to turn to our nation’s food banks to help make ends meet. This increase in demand will only add to the strain felt by an emergency food system already struggling to meet elevated need in the recession.
    The SNAP benefit boost is working to protect families from hunger as they struggle with unemployment, reduced wages, and rising food prices. Without the ARRA boost in SNAP benefits, the number of food insecure Americans would certainly be much worse. While hunger spiked dramatically in 2008 in the first year of the recession, since the ARRA boost went into effect in 2009, food insecurity has remained level and even decreased despite the fact that poverty has continued to rise.
    For many families SNAP benefits do not last the entire month. The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $130, or less than $1.50 per person per meal, hardly enough for an adequate nutritious diet. Most participants run through their SNAP benefits by the third week of the month, and 58% of food bank clients currently receiving SNAP benefits turn to food banks for assistance at least 6 months out of the year.
    One in seven American households struggles to put enough food on the table. Unemployment is stuck above 9 percent nationally, and the need for food assistance will remain high for some time. In the meantime, families are being hit with soaring food inflation. Grocery prices have increased 6.3 percent in the last 12 months, more than twice the average annual rate.

Work Requirements

SNAP doesn’t do enough to encourage participants to get a job, and the program needs stronger work requirements.

    SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working a minimum of 20 hours per week or participating in a job training program.
    About two-thirds of SNAP participants are children, elderly, or disabled, people for whom work requirements do not apply. Of all adult, nonelderly participants, 27.6% are employed and 26.2% are actively looking for work.[xvii]
    The SNAP benefit formula is structured to provide a strong work incentive – for every additional dollar a SNAP participant earns, their benefits decline by about 24 to 36 cents, not a full dollar, so participants have a strong incentive to find work, work longer hours, or seek better-paying employment.

Citizenship Requirements

We need tougher enforcements on illegal immigrants using SNAP.

    Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for SNAP. Additionally, there is already a strict waiting period for documented immigrants. Documented adult immigrants (those with a greencard) are subject to a five-year waiting period before they are eligible for SNAP.

Noncitizens make up a very small portion of SNAP participants – only 3.9% of participants are noncitizens (documented immigrants or refugees).[xviii]