SNAP: An Analysis of the Effects of Food Stamps System. This new legislature was designed to provide much needed funds to the agriculture community,

Transcription

1 Maravel 1 Deanna Maravel MCH 250 Professor Jill Gross 21 May 2014 SNAP: An Analysis of the Effects of Food Stamps System In early February 2014, President Obama signed into law the controversial Farm Bill. This new legislature was designed to provide much needed funds to the agriculture community, albeit at the expense of the Americans who rely on federal aid for food, as funding was set to be cut from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). No one ever said that helping the agriculture community was a bad thing, but the idea of potentially cutting funding from the largest nutrition assistance program in the nation caused uproar amongst politicians and concerned citizens. This contention brought the issue of food hardship to the forefront, and with so many American facing food insecurity and hunger, it is amazing to think that this isn t seen as a more critical issue. Just in New York City, there are approximately 1.3 million residents who struggle to have access to adequate food. One in five children living in the city come from food insecure households, who depend on federal assistance to get by. Everyone has heard of food stamps, but when faced with such staggering numbers of food hardship, the real question here is just how effective is the SNAP program in increasing access to nutritious food for people who require assistance? And more specifically, in what ways do these benefits impact New York City residents who receive them? If one takes a step back and looks at the situation surrounding the idea of food stamps and other federal nutrition aid programs, it seems as though the heart of the problem revolves around the concept of food security. Researchers Tim Lang and David Barling state that food security is

2 Maravel 2 defined by the UN s FAO as a time when all people at all times have physical, social, and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy lifestyle (313). On the other hand, when people lack this access, it is referred to as food insecurity. This is something that is much more widespread than it would appear, as it has been estimated that 14.5% of American households, which is approximately 17.6 million households, have faced some type of food insecurity in 2012 (Coleman-Jensen, Nord, and Singh 4). It appears as though the solution to this would be to increase access to food for these people, but the reality is not so simple. Food insecurity can stem from a number of reasons, one of them being food deserts. When the reasons behind the inaccessibility are physical or economic, the area is referred to as a food desert. Hillary Shaw notes that there are many factors that play into how an area could become a food desert. Some examples of factors are the distance to the grocery store, what foods are available at the store, individual preference, how the person will get the groceries home, and storage of the products. During a study of food stores in the areas of Leeds and North Lincolnshire in the UK, Shaw reports that there were fewer shops in poorer economic neighborhoods such as East Park, Leeds, as many retailers are reluctant to branch into those areas (236). Residents of those areas stated that it was difficult to access fresh fruits and vegetables, and when they did make the journey to local stores, they paid double the prices of foods sold at supermarkets (Shaw 236). Even in more affluent neighborhoods such as Cookridge or Alwoodley, there were still some accessibility issues. As most residents have access to cars, they are able to drive to supermarkets, as there aren t many food stores within the Leeds neighborhood. The elderly and disabled, who do not have access to a car, often have trouble getting to the market for fresh foods and essentials. A local resident stated, people s eating

3 Maravel 3 habits have deteriorated from the lack of local stores selling fresh foods (Shaw 238). While Shaw s study might have taken place in another country, the concept of unequal access to food remains the same. There are many factors at play, and the combinations of transportation, poverty, and distance are issues for many Americans. Most people picture a food desert to be like the situation Shaw described in East Park, Leeds; a place where there are few food stores and high rate of poverty. It s hard to think that there could be a food desert in a place like New York City, but food deserts take many forms. So even though a person might be able to physically access a food store, but he or she might not be able to afford the food being sold. That would create a food desert for a certain demographic, and this is where food stamps are necessary to supplement that person s income. It is a widely known fact that New York City is an expensive place to live in. With rising rent prices, many New Yorkers find themselves on tight budgets. Close to 1.9 million New York City residents rely on benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in order to ensure they have enough food (Food Bank for New York City, ). Yet there are time where SNAP benefits are still not enough, and another 1.4 million residents require additional assistance from other emergency food sources (Food Bank for New York City, ). These people turn to the city s food banks, charities, and soup kitchens, which can only cope with a limited demand as 63% of these providers were already experiencing supply shortages prior to policy changes. When cuts to SNAP were put into effect in November 2013, it reduced benefits by $29 per month, something that translates close to $19 million per month in New York City. This drastic reduction caused an increase in usage of 85% of NYC emergency food suppliers, which puts an even greater strain on limited food sources (Food Bank for New York City, ).

4 Maravel 4 Families who struggle with food insecurity often face difficult budgeting decisions. Rather than spending the extra money on produce, dairy, meats and fish, all fresh food products that have a short shelf life, they choose to buy cheaper grains, cereals, and legumes. These products have a longer shelf life and allow these families to stretch their restricted funds. In 2012, 25% of low-income families skipped meals, and 48% of them reduced their meal size to try and save food and money (Food Bank for New York City, 2013). Additionally, many of these families must sacrifice food in order to pay for other fees like rent, medical bills, utilities, etc. Even though the difficulty affording food slightly decreased overall amongst New York City residents in 2012, the difficulty faced by low-income residents spiked from 54% to 70% (Food Bank for New York City, 2013). But it is unacceptable to allow these people to sacrifice their health for the expense of trying to make ends meet, and this is where government assistance steps in, specifically in the form of SNAP. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has its roots in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of Originally called the Federal Surplus Relief Corporation, it was designed to help American farmers survive the Great Depression. The government purchased the surplus produced and then distributed it amongst the emergency food programs at both the state and local community level. Henry Wallace, the Secretary of Agriculture at the time, soon formalized this distribution as the Food Stamps Plan initiative, and it became part of the backbone of President Franklin D. Roosevelt s New Deal Program (SNAP to Health!). Participants in the food stamp program were allowed to purchase booklets of orange stamps, which allowed them to buy basic household items and food. The exception was that these stamps could not be used to purchase goods like tobacco or alcohol. Additionally, for every dollar spent on orange stamps, participants were given $0.50 in blue stamps, which could be used

5 Maravel 5 to purchase surplus items from the store. This included items like flour, eggs, dried beans, and even fresh vegetables. The program revolved around the idea that since the participants had to purchase the stamps, this ensured that the money would be allocated for necessities and food items, rather than it being wasted. In the end, this specific program reached its end in 1943 due to the economic boom that followed the end of World War II (SNAP to Health!). But economic booms do not last forever, and assistance was once again required during the Presidency of John F. Kennedy with the implementation of pilot Food Stamp Programs in a sew states in The bulk of food assistance in the 1960s was due to Lyndon Johnson s Great Society Program. The Food Stamp Act allowed participants to purchase stamps at discounted prices, where they might also receive bonuses depending on his or her income status. This was to ensure that American s had access to low-cost, nutritious food. It was designed so that the Federal government would fund the program, and the states would handle the applications and distribution of funds. The act was revised in 1977 so that participants no longer had to purchase the stamps. The program was also expanded to minority communities and given a national eligibility standard (SNAP to Health!). Two critical events surrounding the Food Stamps Program happened in President Ronald Regan s administration cut the budget of the program, which was immediately followed by an increase in food insecure Americans. This event highlights the importance of food stamps. Without the additional supplement to their budgets, participants were unable to afford nutritious food. In that same year, a nutrition education program was also implemented. This can be considered the foundation of what we now call SNAP-Education. This optional program allowed states to apply for funds to establish education programs for food stamp eligible citizens (SNAP to Health!).

6 Maravel 6 In the past decade, many changes have been made to the food stamp system. Participation has significantly increased, and regulations surrounding eligibility have decreased. For example, immigrants and children younger than the age of 18 are now able to qualify for benefits. The traditional idea of a paper stamp has been traded in for an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card. The idea was to try and streamline the program, and EBT cards would help reduce fraud and make the use of benefits easier for participants. The program was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under the 2008 Agriculture Act, with the addition of several pilot programs designed to encourage users to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables (SNAP to Health!). The SNAP program is currently the largest federal nutrition assistance program in the United States, serving over 45 million residents. Although concept was for it to act as a safety net, a temporary assistance to help struggling Americans get their feet back on the ground, SNAP has the ability to become the most influential nutrition and health initiatives that we have. As a result of this, SNAP has also become the center of much controversy in legislation and policy change. There have been proposals to prohibit food stamp recipients from using their benefits on items like heavily processed junk foods or soft drinks, and as mentioned earlier, the proposal of cutting funds to the program is also a source of contention. Perhaps it is better to understand in what ways the program helps or does not help its participants, before changes are made to help improve the program. On one hand, the SNAP program is beneficial from an economic standpoint. After an increase in SNAP benefits in 2008, the researchers Mark Nord and Mark Prell of the USDA have found that the benefits have significantly improved food security in the United States. From , there was a reported 3.3% increase in SNAP participation amongst low-income households. It also found that benefits received in low-income households increased

7 Maravel 7 approximately 13%, and in that two year time frame, the USDA found that the rates of food insecurity decreased by 1.16% and very low food security fell by 1.38% (14). It was interesting to note that households that almost qualified for SNAP benefits actually become more food insecure from , when compared to the benefit recipients. This is important as it shows that food stamps are doing their job, acting as a safety net to help prevent and reduce the incident of food security among those most at risk. Researchers Caroline Ratcliffe and Signe-Mary McKernan of The Urban Institute also found that food stamps reduced the risk of food insecurity among users. They initially hypothesized that SNAP benefits should directly reduce food insecurity, through the direct monetary support provided. Yet it could also indirectly cause food insecurity, as additional funds might lead to some households reducing their labor supply, resulting in reduced earnings and food purchases. After selecting a data pool of low-income families, including both SNAP eligible and those right on the margin, they studied data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation to gain a better understanding. They found that SNAP benefits can help reduce food insecurity by approximately 16.2%, and when the fact that about a quarter of their sample pool was food insecure, this shows that the benefits do play a critical role for them (14). These benefits help alleviate the food insecurity faced by these people, which is exactly what the program was designed to do. Additionally, their results suggest that without these benefits, the SNAP recipients food insecurity would actually rise about 16.2% (14). For those who were very food insecure, they found that SNAP benefits lowers this by approximately 20.2%, which is still a substantial amount (15). The two women also state that these benefits can reduce food insufficiency by approximately 20% (18). This is important as SNAP benefits help alleviate the food insecurity faced by these people, which is exactly what the program was designed to do.

8 Maravel 8 From a health standpoint, however, SNAP benefits do not necessarily mean that the user is obtaining a proper nutrient intake. Researchers Leung, et al. write that the participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is currently at its highest since it was first implemented (2013a: 464). Low-income children tend to be at a higher risk for obesity and other metabolic related diseases, which is a cause for concern as the dietary habits formed early in life play a critical role in health later on in adulthood. After studying the dietary habits of children ranging form 4-19 years old, the researchers concluded that the children in poverty whose families received SNAP benefits were still found to be below the recommended intake levels for whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and potassium. They exceeded the recommended levels for processed meats, saturated fat, sodium, and sugary beverages. While there were higher levels of calcium, iron, and folate in children receiving SNAP, there were no substantial differences in the levels of macronutrients or total energy consumed. This group of researchers concluded that children in low income families, regardless of SNAP benefits, are not sustaining the proper dietary recommendations, and they suggested that the program be reformed to insure children meet a well, rounded diet. Additionally, research has shown that when compared to SNAP-eligible non-recipients, SNAP recipients tend to eat diets higher is refined foods and added sugar in fat. They also have a reduced intake of produce and whole grains. Researchers Sara Bleich et al. have concluded that SNAP eligible adults actually consume more sugar-sweetened beverages than ineligible adults. After analyzing data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination survey, they found that eligible adults consumed up to 6% more sugar sweetened beverages, leading to a higher caloric and sugar intake (897). This is important as the discussion on whether it is ethical and fair to allow SNAP users to purchase sugar-sweetened beverages with their benefits.

9 Maravel 9 So clearly, the SNAP program has both positive and negative aspects to it, but that doesn t mean funding should be cut from the program just because there are a few concerning negative outcomes. Instead, legislators and researchers should work together to find ways to revise and improve the program for the benefit of everyone. Perhaps possible solutions can be found in further nutrition education, the restriction of unhealthy food options, the requirement of vendors to carry healthier food options, and in possibly incentivizing purchases of fresh fruits and veggies. Nutrition education is a critical tool in helping to improve the diets of Americans. The SNAP-Education program in place works with SNAP recipients to educate them, either by a oneon-one or a group approach, to make healthy choices in selecting and purchasing foods with their benefits (Ohri-Vachaspati, et al. 22). There is evidence where people of a lower socioeconomic status tend to eat a diet that is poorer in nutritional quality, where one of the possible key factors lies in a lack of education. Researchers Jamie Dollahite, et al. wanted to see if nutrition education programs help improve dietary behaviors in low-income participants. They found that the group of participants who received education immediately was more likely to retain their newly learned behavior changes as opposed to the group that did not receive education immediately after enrollment (107). In addition, the researchers note that the education methods used in this study are similar to those used in SNAP-Ed programs, which is promising (108). Current SNAP-Ed guidelines prevent it from expressing any negative views on certain foods or food products, which means that they cannot actively deter users from increasing their intake of sugary beverages and other energy-dense, nutrient poor foods (Ohri-Vachaspati, et al. 23). By not being allowed to explicitly say that certain foods will have a negative impact on health, educators cannot give the clearest picture possible, and it is recommended that these guidelines be edited.

10 Maravel 10 Expanding social media marketing campaigns could make additional improvements to education, as this would allow access to an increased audience. While the SNAP program dictates that benefits be used to purchase food items, it does not specify the healthfulness of food can be purchased. It has been shown that SNAP users have an increased intake of calories from added sugar and fat compared to eligible, non-participants. They also have a reduced intake of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, which are the foods promoted in SNAP-Ed. If the guidelines excluded energy-dense, nutrient poor foods, then this would potentially help reduce the consumption of these food products, as the users would be less likely to spend their own limited funds on them. This concept would be similar to that employed in the WIC program, where participants are restricted to purchase foods that are regarded as the most nutritionally beneficial (Ohri-Vachaspati, et al. 19). It would be useful to try and model a pilot program after the WIC model to test whether this could be a viable option for the future of SNAP. If restrictions on food purchases are not a feasible option, then perhaps another tactic would be to increase access to food through incentivizing or requiring SNAP vendors to carry healthier food options. If the government assigns stricter criteria to become a SNAP vendor, such as the ones WIC participating stores have, then this might encourage vendors to sell more nutritious foods (Leung, et al. (2013b) 74). It might also be worth providing vendors with incentives if they choose to sell healthier foods, if vendors would place unhealthier food items at the back of the store, and included refrigerators to stock produce. Incentives for the SNAP participants is also another option, although the cost of additional benefits will have to be weighed with what the government can afford to provide based on the current budget. Another incentive could be to get recipients to use their EBT cards

11 Maravel 11 at farmers markets. There are currently pilot programs being tested throughout the country, including in New York City. The Health Bucks program gives participants $2 coupon for every $5 in SNAP benefits spent at any NYC Farmers markets. This gives Health Bucks users a 40% increase in purchasing power, and it encourages the growth of communities and local agriculture (NYC Food). Now that we have discussed how the SNAP program itself plays out on a national scale, it is time to focus in on what these benefits mean for the residents of New York City who receive them. After hours of research and combing though NYC government and non-profit websites, I have reached the conclusion that there is not enough information out there to conclude whether or not the current food stamps program is beneficial to New York City residents. There are a lot of statistics gathered from census and NHANES data, which tells you approximately how many residents utilize which nutrition assistance program and what the demographic utilizing these benefits looks like. There is nothing, however, on what kind of effect these benefits have specifically on New York City. The research studies available either look at effects on a nationwide scale or narrow in on cities other than New York, and I believe this is a critical problem that New York City legislators and health care officials should take note of. Our next step should be to research this issue more in depth, as it has major implications for the future of our city. As stated earlier, the question of whether SNAP is good or bad is not so black and white. The program lifts recipients above the poverty line, allowing them to focus less on where their next meal is going to come from and more onto other pressing issues in their lives. Yet what the benefits are used for is up to the recipient. It s said that you are what you eat, and when recipients use these benefits for processed or unhealthy foods, the effects can be seen on their

12 Maravel 12 health. Unfortunately, we cannot apply this to NYC, as the lack of research means we do not know what happens after New Yorkers receive their benefits. So what does this mean for New York City? Everything! The first step should be more research. We must understand what kind of effects SNAP benefits have on the health and accessibility of nutritious foods for New Yorkers. We pride ourselves on New York being known as a melting pot of different cultures, and it is known that culture and heritage play a role in food choices. Research should be done into how we can adjust and accommodate these values in addition to nutrition education and SNAP benefits. Additionally, further research must be done on food access. It s fantastic that the benefits allow for extra funds for recipients, but what is the use of them if that person is stranded in the middle of a food desert. In the end, if we have a better picture of what SNAP benefits do for New York, policy makers and officials can make more well informed decisions on how to improve food accessibility and assistance to residents. If we are what we eat, then we want New Yorkers to be eating the very best they can, so we can function properly, from the inside-out, as one of the most famous global cities in the world.

13 Maravel 13 Works Cited Coleman-Jensen, Alisha, Mark Nord, and Anita Singh. Household Food Security in the United States in Economic Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture, September Web. 18 May Farmers Markets. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. NYC.Gov, n.d. Web. 15 May The History of SNAP. SNAP to Health!. SNAP to Health, n.d. Web. 16 May Lang, Tim, and David Barling. Food Security and Food Sustainability: Reformulating the Debate. The Geographical Journal (2012): Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 May Leung, Cindy, et al. Associations of Food Stamp Participation with Dietary Quality and Obesity in Children. Pediatrics (2013a): Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 Apr Leung, Cindy, et al. A Qualitative Study of Diverse Experts Views about Barriers and Strategies to Improve the Diets and Health of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Beneficiaries. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (2013b): Academic Search Complete. Web. 22 Apr Nord, Mark, and Mark Prell. Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in Snap Benefits. Economic Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture, April Web. 20 May Ohri-Vachaspati, Punam, et al. Policy Considerations for Improving the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Making a Case for Decreasing the Burden of Obesity. ASU School of Nutrition & Health Promotion. Arizona State University, n.d. Web. 22 Apr 2014.

14 Maravel 14 Policy Brief: NYC on the Edge of a Hunger Cliff. Food Bank for New York City, Web. 15 May Promoting Food Security. NYC Food. NYC.Gov, n.d. Web. 15 May Ratcliffe, Caroline, and Signe- Mary McKernan. How Much Does SNAP reduce Food Insecurity? The Urban Institute, March Web. 15 May Shaw, Hillary J. Food Deserts: Towards the Development of a Classification. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 88(2006): JSTOR. Web. 17. Apr The Struggle to Afford Food Intensifies for NYC s Low- income Families. Food Bank for New York City, Web. 15 May 2014.