UNDERSTANDING THE SNAP PROGRAM For food policy councils

I INTRODUCTION

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program,

or SNAP, is the largest federal food program, both

in terms of its cost and the number of Americans

it reaches. Almost 46 million people used SNAP

beneﬁts in 2015, which is one in seven Ameri-

cans. To provide some context, that’s more than

the entire population of the state of California

and about equal to the number of people who live

in Georgia, Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania

combined. These shoppers bought $70 billion in

groceries with SNAP “dollars”.

SNAP serves as

a tool to ﬁght food insecurity and can also play

an important role in the food retail landscape,

especially in low-income communities.

There are many ways that food policy councils

(FPCs) can inﬂuence the way SNAP works in their

states and local communities. FPCs can also

play an important role in national SNAP policy

by providing feedback and new ideas to Congress

and the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA). This guide will provide a brief history

of the program, explain SNAP’s basic framework

and at what levels of government SNAP decisions

are made.

1. frac.org/reports-and-resources/snapfood-stamp-month-

ly-participation-data/

2. Formerly known as Food Stamps, many states use diﬀerent

names for the program. www.usac.org/_res/documents/li/

pdf/samples/SNAP-Programs-by-State.pdf

II HISTORY

The concept of nutrition assistance dates back to

the 1930s and was a response to the simultaneous

farm and hunger crises of the Great Depression.

A 1939 project allowed low-income families to

purchase “food stamps” that boosted their over-

all food buying power and provided a mechanism

for the federal government to distribute surplus

domestic food commodities. This program end-

ed in 1943 but Congress revived the idea in the

late 1950s and President Kennedy’s ﬁrst Execu-

tive Order in 1961 instructed the USDA to imple-

ment a new version of the food stamp program.

The 1960s pilot was transformed with the Food

Stamp Act of 1964, part of President Johnson’s

larger War on Poverty. The Act made the pro-

gram permanent with the goals of improving

the nutrition of low-income families and sup-

porting the domestic agricultural economy. It

maintained the “buy in” design that required

participants to pay for a package of food stamps

of a higher value but these food stamps were no

longer limited to the purchase of speciﬁc foods

and could be used to buy any domestic food for

human consumption. The earlier program had

included food stamp packages for the purchase

of fruits and vegetables. The program gradually

expanded geographically and was available na-

tionwide in 1974

3. www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap

UNDERSTANDING THE SNAP PROGRAM

For food policy councils

KATE FITZGERALD, ANNE PALMER AND KAREN BANKS

[2]

Johns Hopkins Center for A Livable Future

III SNAP TODAY

The Food Stamp Act of 1977, still in eﬀect today,

provided automatic eligibility for any low-in-

come American who met basic income and as-

set requirements. Program participation is no

longer capped by available funding and anyone

whose income qualiﬁes them is “entitled” to re-

ceive food stamps

. Food stamps are counter-

cyclical; participation expands and contracts in

response to the health of the economy. Partici-

pation surges during economic downturns and

drops when the economy improves.

The federal

government pays 100 percent of SNAP beneﬁts,

and administrative costs are shared equally be-

tween the federal and state governments.

Congress reassesses the SNAP program about ev-

ery ﬁve years as part of the farm bill deliberations,

but the basic structure has remained much the

same for the last 25 years

. Since 2008, the Food

Stamp program has operated as an electronic

beneﬁt system (EBT) with magnetic stripe cards.

The transition from paper vouchers to electron-

ic beneﬁts started in the 1980s, mimicking the

growing use of credit cards and was designed to

reduce participant stigma, administrative costs

and fraud.

The 2008 farm bill changed the pro-

gram’s name to the Supplemental Nutrition As-

sistance Program (SNAP)

4. Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands are excep-

tions and receive block grants in lieu of automatic beneﬁts

for all income eligible individuals. In these places SNAP is

not an “entitlement” program since funding can run out

and some income eligible people may not be served.

5. www.cbpp.org/research/summary-of-the-2014-farm-bill-

nutrition-title-includes-bipartisan-improvements-to-snap

6. www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22131.pdfß

7. www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/ops/IOMSNAPAllot-

ments.pdf

8. The program is known as SNAP nationally but some states

refer to their programs by diﬀerent names (CalFresh, the

Lone Star Card, etc) www.usac.org/_res/documents/li/pdf/

samples/SNAP-Programs-by-State.pdf

While SNAP is the principal way the U.S. gov-

ernment prevents widespread hunger, a key and

oen forgotten underlying assumption is that

SNAP beneﬁts will not account for all of an in-

dividual or family’s food spending during the

month, thus the word “supplemental” in the pro-

gram name. SNAP beneﬁts are designed to ﬁll

the gap between a family’s available food budget

and the monthly cost of the Thriy Food Plan, a

low-cost but nutritionally sound short-term diet.

USDA has used the cost of the Thriy Food Plan

to calculate beneﬁts since the 1960s. The poor-

er the individual or family, the greater the SNAP

beneﬁts. In 2015, the average monthly beneﬁt

for an individual was about $127 per month

SNAP participation doubled between 2007 and

2014, serving a stunning 47 million Americans

in the depth of the Great Recession. Almost half

of SNAP participants are children, and most par-

ticipating households include a child, elderly or

disabled person

IV SNAP POLICY THEMES

Many of today’s debates about SNAP are recur-

ring themes that have been discussed at various

times over the past 50 years. For example, how

can one ensure that food beneﬁts are easily avail-

able to all who need them without compromis-

ing program integrity? Farmers markets are an

example of this challenge. While markets can

provide aﬀordable, nutritious food in under-

served communities they are less formally orga-

9. www.cbpp.org/research/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibili-

ty-and-beneﬁts; www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutri-

tion-assistance-program-snap

10. www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/detail.aspx-

?chartId=40104

11. www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/chart-book-snap-

helps-struggling-families-put-food-on-the-table

[3]

Johns Hopkins Center for A Livable Future

nized than grocery stores so less easy to inspect

and regulate. Should there be restrictions on the

foods that can be purchased with SNAP beneﬁts

or does that violate individuals’ right to choose?

One review of SNAP studies concluded that the

eﬀect of proposed food restrictions on diet is

unknown, and such restrictions may cause a de-

cline in participation rates due to stigma

. Is the

Thriy Food Plan still a reasonable way to calcu-

late a 21

century family’s food needs?

The SNAP program accounted for about 80 per-

cent of the total spending in the last farm bill,

which raised questions about whether it still

makes sense to unite federal nutrition and farm

programs in one piece of legislation. The food

stamp program was founded on the conceptual

union between the country’s agriculture, rural

economy and food assistance needs, but a glob-

al food system has made that connection more

tenuous. On the other hand, there is growing

interest from a variety of sectors in looking at

food and farming as interrelated systems. From

that perspective it makes sense to maintain

production and consumption programs in one

piece of legislation.

As unemployment falls but poverty and hun-

ger rates remain high, some ask whether SNAP

should be doing more. Is it just an anti-hunger

program, or is it an anti-poverty program with

a responsibility to help move participants into

ﬁnancial self-suﬃciency? These are important

questions and discussions that will be conten-

tious in the next several years while pressure con-

tinues to reduce federal spending. FPCs see ﬁrst

hand how the program works in communities.

12. Andreyeva, T, Tripp, A. Schwartz, M. Dietary Quality of

American by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Participation Status A Systematic Review, Am J Prev Med

2015; 49 (4) 594-604

That information will be vital to policymakers

at all levels of government as they try to balance

conﬂicting needs.

V SNAP BASIC STRUCTURE

Federal

Congress establishes the legislative parameters

of SNAP through the farm bill, a ﬁve-year, omni-

bus piece of legislation that also includes crop

insurance, marketing, natural resources, energy

programs, trade, and rural development initia-

tives. Congress uses the farm bill to establish

large policy approaches, including requiring the

transition from paper food stamps to delivering

beneﬁts electronically (EBT) and limiting bene-

ﬁts to legal U.S. residents.

USDA Food and Nutrition Service’s job (FNS) is

to turn farm bill legislative language into nation-

al SNAP program rules. For example, when Con-

gress mandated the transition to electronic ben-

eﬁts, FNS wrote the regulatory requirements that

all electronic beneﬁt systems must meet and pro-

vided funding for state agencies to research and

design the systems they wanted. FNS authorizes

retailers to accept SNAP, oversees state SNAP im-

plementing agencies, approves state processing

contracts, oversees special programs (such as the

new Employment and Training Center for Excel-

lence

), grants funding and waivers to test inno-

vative practices or to address systemic issues

and manages program research

13. USDA to Establish First-Ever SNAP Employment & Train-

ing Center of Excellence. www.fns.usda.gov/pressre-

lease/2015/030215

14. USDA Helps States Improve Technology to Combat

Traﬃcking of SNAP Beneﬁts. www.fns.usda.gov/pressre-

lease/2015/fns-000915

15. Healthy Incentives Pilot. www.fns.usda.gov/hip/healthy-in-

centives-pilot

[4]

Johns Hopkins Center for A Livable Future

State

State legislatures have the authority to build on

the legal framework Congress creates to guide

how the SNAP program works in their states.

This can include additional rules on eligibility,

disqualiﬁcation (such as failure to pay child sup-

port or pass a drug test), work and job training

requirements or program outreach

. It might be

helpful to think of this as similar to the structure

of the Constitution: the states have authority in

areas in which the federal government is silent

or expressly provides options.

Increasing SNAP participation injects new food

dollars into a state’s economy but also increases

the cost of administering the program. State pol-

icies can either suppress or encourage program

participation. Disallowing direct qualiﬁcation of

households that receive Temporary Assistance

for Needy Families will probably reduce case-

loads, while authorizing and funding outreach

campaigns may boost participation – and state

administrative costs, for example.

State social or human services departments

manage the program at the state level, imple-

ment the federal rules and adjust their programs

to respond to mandates from their state leg-

islatures. They also have a degree of authority

over how the program is administered and can

institute processes to make it work better. This

can include augmenting the minimum beneﬁt

oﬀered with state funds or staggering the dates

of the month on which SNAP beneﬁts are distrib-

uted. This can be especially helpful for smaller

grocers with a large proportion of SNAP shoppers

because it distributes food demand throughout

the month and allows for stable stocking and

16. In 2015, for example, the Texas Legislature changed a state

law that had barred convicted drug felons from ever being

eligible for SNAP in the state

employment. State agencies can also authorize

private organizations to conduct outreach, help

clients enroll, and administer Disaster SNAP in

cases of emergencies.

Local

City, county or private social service organiza-

tions are the face of the SNAP program at the lo-

cal level. They explain how the program works to

potential participants, collect client information,

help with applications, and update information.

While they do not make program rules, they act

as the representatives of the state agency on the

ground. They can also explain program chang-

es that can seem mystifying to clients, such as

the temporary increase in beneﬁts in 2009 that

was funded through the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and then dis-

appeared suddenly in 2013 when the temporary

ARRA funding ended.

VI FOOD POLICY COUNCILS & SNAP

FPC members understand how the food system

works in their communities and can be reliable,

trusted advisers to policymakers at every level of

government. The breadth of the FPCs’ member-

ship means ideas can be considered from multi-

ple points of view, and connections with advoca-

cy organizations can make it easy to follow SNAP

policy changes at the state and federal levels.

Federal Engagement: Members of Congress rely

on information from groups in their districts and

state. They do not have large staﬀs and FPCs can

provide a valuable service by providing accurate,

speciﬁc and timely information when changes to

SNAP are being considered in the farm bill.

[5]

Johns Hopkins Center for A Livable Future

Federal agencies are required to solicit, consider

and respond to public feedback before ﬁnalizing

new program rules. No federal rule goes into ef-

fect without a public comment period and FPCs

can have a real impact by submitting thoughtful

responses to proposed rules. Notices of these

processes are published in the Federal Register

and FPCs can rely on national organizations to

learn about when rules germane to their work

are published and how to submit comments

FPCs and individuals can also always meet with

regional USDA representatives to learn more

about the decisions over which they have author-

ity and provide them information to help them

in that process.

State-level engagement: Communicating with

members of state legislatures and state agency

personnel is easy and can be as important as

developing relationships with federal oﬃcials.

Many states have part-time legislatures and

members need data and information to make in-

formed decisions. State agency staﬀ may appre-

ciate feedback and ideas about ways in which the

FPC could help ensure SNAP works as well as it

can. To ﬁnd out which organizations are working

on SNAP policy in your state, contact your local

food bank

or state policy priorities center

Local level engagement: One of the most com-

mon ways that local FPCs work on SNAP issues

is through advocating for the use of SNAP EBT

beneﬁts at farmers markets, and, in some cas-

es, doubling the dollar value of those beneﬁts

to incentivize produce and other food purchas-

es at the market. While these remain less than

17. www.federalregister.gov www.federalregister.gov/arti-

cles/2016/02/17/2016-03006/enhancing-retailer-stan-

dards-in-the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program

18. www.feedingamerica.org

19. statepriorities.org/state-priorities-partners/

1 percent of total SNAP purchases, it is a popular

strategy because it supports local and regional

producers, keeps more food dollars circulating

in the local economy, supports neighborhood

businesses and helps low income shoppers af-

ford healthier food options. The 2014 farm bill

includes the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentives

(FINI) grants for public agencies and non-prof-

it organizations to test incentive approaches to

help SNAP participants purchase fruits and veg-

etables

VI CONCLUSION

Elected oﬃcials and government personnel of-

ten hear from special interests that represent

narrow perspectives that may not reﬂect a larg-

er public good. FPCs, on the other hand, reﬂect

the combined wisdom of multiple stakeholders

within a region’s food system. The expertise of

council members can give decision makers con-

ﬁdence that the proposals the FPCs promote are

practical and will serve the whole community.

Engage, it will make our system better.

20. nifa.usda.gov/program/food-insecurity-nutrition-incen-

tive-ﬁni-grant-program

[6]

Johns Hopkins Center for A Livable Future

RESOURCES

Program Regulations and Administration

◼

2014 Farm Bill: Agricultural Act of 2014

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr2642enr/pdf/BILLS-113hr2642enr.pdf

◼

USDA: SNAP www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

◼

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: A Quick Guide to SNAP Eligibility and Beneﬁts

www.cbpp.org/research/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-beneﬁts

◼

USDA: SNAP Waivers of Rules www.fns.usda.gov/snap/waivers-rules

◼

USDA: SNAP Policy Memos www.fns.usda.gov/snap/policy

◼

SNAP State Options www.fns.usda.gov/snap/state-options-report

◼

Federal Register www.federalregister.gov/agencies/food-and-nutrition-service

Data

◼

Food Research Action Center: SNAP Participation Data

frac.org/reports-and-resources/snapfood-stamp-monthly-participation-data/

◼

USDA: SNAP Participation Data

www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

◼

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities State Fact Sheets

www.cbpp.org/research/a-closer-look-at-who-beneﬁts-from-snap-state-by-state-fact-sheets

◼

Feeding America Map the Meal Gap map.feedingamerica.org/county/2014/overall

SNAP Outreach

◼

USDA: SNAP Outreach www.fns.usda.gov/snap/outreach

◼

Food Research Action Center: SNAP Outreach Toolkit

www.frac.org/snapfood-stamps-outreach-and-access-toolkit/

Nutrition Education

◼

SNAP and Nutrition Education www.fns.usda.gov/snap/nutrition-education

◼

SNAP-Ed snaped.fns.usda.gov

Farmers Markets and EBT

◼

USDA: SNAP and Farmers Markets www.fns.usda.gov/ebt/snap-and-farmers-markets

◼

Farmers Market Coalition: SNAP Guide for Farmers Market

farmersmarketcoalition.org/education/snap/

◼

USDA: SNAP and EBT

www.fns.usda.gov/ebt/general-electronic-beneﬁt-transfer-ebt-information

State and Local Contacts

◼

Feeding America www.feedingamerica.org

◼

State Priorities Partnership statepriorities.org/state-priorities-partners/

◼

USDA: Food and Nutrition Services Regional Oﬃces www.fns.usda.gov/fns-regional-oﬃces

◼

USDA SNAP Application and Local Oﬃce Locator

www.fns.usda.gov/snap/snap-application-and-local-oﬃce-locators

[7]

Johns Hopkins Center for A Livable Future

FOOD POLICY COUNCILS AND SNAP

SNAP, Food Insecurity and Local Government Funding

TEXAS

The Austin Travis County Food Policy Board has

traveled around a block or two of Austin to un-

derstand the needs of food insecure families in

the self-proclaimed Live Music Capital. Research

by the Board’s Food Security Working Group

showed that a little over half of eligible persons

in Travis County participated in SNAP. To address

this low participation rate, the Board submitted

recommendations to the Austin City Council

and the Travis County Commissioners Court to

fund a position devoted to SNAP outreach and

enrollment, an outreach campaign aimed at rais-

ing awareness about SNAP, and to establish EBT

systems and incentive programs for SNAP recip-

ients at area farmers markets and farm stands.

As a result of the Board’s research and meeting

with individual councilmembers and commis-

sioners, both the Austin City Council and the

Travis County Commissioners Court approved

funding for the Board’s recommendations for

two consecutive years.

21. http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/ﬁles/ﬁles/Health/

SustainableFood/Recommendation__20140512-7D.pdf

State Administration

MARYLAND

In some states, SNAP beneﬁts issuance to recip-

ients is spread across the month. In others, ev-

ery recipient receives their beneﬁts on the same

day. In Maryland, SNAP beneﬁts were issued over

a ten-day period, which was putting a strain on

food retailers, particularly retailers in under-

served areas. Issuance of SNAP beneﬁts within a

limited time frame causes a spike in demand for

products, making it challenging for retailers to

maintain adequate stock. Retailers also need ad-

ditional staﬀ to stock and serve customers during

this temporary increase in demand, but cannot

oﬀer full-time employment during the slower

times of the month. This spike in sales followed

by inconsistent and slower sales for the remain-

der of a month places a ﬁnancial and human re-

sources strain on food retailers. To address this

pattern of instability, the Food Policy Director

for the City of Baltimore Food Policy Initiative

worked with the Maryland Health and Social

Services department and other Baltimore City

oﬃcials to stagger the issuance period of SNAP

beneﬁts over 20 days in a month. Staggering the

release date ensures a steady income for retailers

and helps them to maintain a consistent stock of

perishable products, like fresh produce.

[8]

Johns Hopkins Center for A Livable Future

SNAP and Farmers Markets

MASSACHUSETTS

The Cambridge Food and Fitness Policy Coun-

cil is blazing a novel funding path to support

a SNAP dollar match program at farmers mar-

kets. The SNAP Match Coalition established by

the Cambridge Food and Fitness Policy Council

and Cambridge in Motion is a group of farmers

markets, public health and hunger relief advo-

cates and city planners working collectively to-

gether to raise funds to support the SNAP dollar

match program. The strength of this Coalition

is that members fundraise as a team to supple-

ment their individual fundraising eﬀorts. The

Coalition relies on grant writing and an exten-

sive crowd funding campaign pared with broad

community outreach to drum up ﬁnancial sup-

port, awareness and participation in the pro-

gram. To measure the impact of these eﬀorts,

member farmers markets in the Coalition track

SNAP usage through routine data collection.

This model enables the Coalition to oﬀer fami-

lies $15 extra to spend with their SNAP beneﬁts

at the farmers markets.

MONTANA

For the Community Food and Agriculture Coali-

tion in Missoula, Montana supporting local farm-

ers goes hand-in-hand with supporting families

that receive SNAP. The Coalition is working to

expand opportunities for families with SNAP to

purchase local produce by EBT cards at a variety

of retail venues, doubling the value of SNAP ben-

eﬁts, and engaging SNAP recipients as advocates

for these programs. SNAP EBT is accepted at two

farmers markets, a local food cooperative and for

a community supported agriculture (CSA) pro-

gram. In 2015, the Coalition, in partnership with

the North Missoula Community Development

Corporation, Missoula Community Food Coop-

erative, Clark Fork Market, Missoula Farmers’

Market, and Western Montana Growers’ Coop-

erative, began a program to double the value of

SNAP beneﬁts. Families using SNAP can receive

up to $20 extra to use at the farmers markets and

food cooperative and up to $200 to participate

in the CSA. The Coalition recently launched a

new grassroots marketing and civic engagement

initiative informed by SNAP recipients. The ini-

tiative combines research from focus groups

and surveys to hear from SNAP recipients about

their impressions of the double SNAP dollars

program with community outreach led by SNAP

recipients to educate their peers and communi-

ty about opportunities to use SNAP to purchase

local produce. From the focus groups, the Coa-

lition learned that the bus system and a cap on

the amount of double SNAP dollars at each mar-

ket were causing some families to miss out on

doubling the value of their SNAP beneﬁts. In re-

sponse, the Coalition is removing the cap on the

availability of double SNAP dollars at the mar-

kets. For the Coalition, the individuals that use

SNAP are the best ambassadors for the program.

[9]

Johns Hopkins Center for A Livable Future

SNAP-Ed

MINNESOTA

Ensuring all Minnesotans have healthy, aﬀord-

able, and safe food is the central goal to the Min-

nesota Food Charter. The result of a two-year

public input process, the Food Charter is a

roadmap for state agencies, local food councils,

legislators, educators, and businesses to make

long-term, systems changes to improve healthy

food access. To track and ensure successful im-

plementation of the strategies outlined in the

Charter, the Minnesota Food Charter Network

was formed in concert with the Minnesota Food

Charter. The Minnesota Food Charter Network is

supported by the Center for Prevention at Blue

Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, the Minneso-

ta Department of Agriculture, the Minnesota De-

partment of Health, the Minnesota Department

of Human Services, the University of Minnesota

Extension and a host of other organizations. In

addition to this unique combination of support

from a healthcare provider, three state agencies

and a university Extension program, the Network

is also able to leverage SNAP-Ed funds in cre-

ative ways. As ﬁscal and organizational host, the

University of Minnesota Healthy Foods, Healthy

Lives Institute is putting some of its SNAP-Ed

funding toward helping to support staﬀ and

work team members within the Network. The

University of Minnesota Extension Health and

Nutrition program, one of Minnesota’s SNAP-

Ed implementing agencies, fulﬁlls the role of

community engagement for the Minnesota Food

Charter Network. In this role for the Network,

Extension provides technical assistance to local

food councils and other projects to align with the

Food Charter strategies. In 2015, Extension also

provided funding to 15 agencies through SNAP-

Ed Community Partnership Funding for policy,

systems and environmental change in commu-

nities. This funding has been used, for example,

to set up EBT systems to accept SNAP at farmers

markets, to establish a food garden program on

public land, and to provide capacity building as-

sistance to local food councils.