![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.5in" height="0.9791666666666666in"}

**FOOD STAMP PROGRAM**

***Background***

Over many years, the Nation has built an array of nutrition assistance
programs designed to help the most vulnerable populations avoid hunger
and make healthy food choices. Taken together, the national nutrition
safety net serves one in five Americans over the course of a year.

Several key components of the national nutrition safety net are
authorized or addressed by the Nutrition Title of the farm bill,
including the Food Stamp Program (FSP) and the Nutrition Assistance
Program (NAP) in Puerto Rico.

The FSP, first authorized in 1964 to increase the nutritional levels of
low-income households, increases the purchasing power of low-income
families and individuals by providing electronic benefits that can be
redeemed for food in authorized stores. The program also provides
nutrition education designed to help low-income individuals choose
healthy foods and active lifestyles.

The program operates in partnership with the States. The Federal
Government sets national program standards for eligibility and benefits,
funds all benefit costs and approximately half of State administrative
expenses, and monitors program implementation. State agencies interact
directly with program participants, certifying their eligibility and
issuing benefits.

To qualify for benefits, an applicant's gross income must be less than
130 percent of the poverty line (\$2,043 per month for a family of four
in 2005), and countable assets (excluding the value of a home but
including some vehicles) must be less than \$2,000, with special
provisions for households with elderly and disabled members. The statute
imposes relatively few nonfinancial eligibility restrictions, although
there are limits on the participation of some legal immigrants,
unemployed adults without children, students, and strikers.

The maximum monthly food stamp allotment (\$499 for a family of four in
2005) is based on the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan, a low-cost,
nutritious model food plan. Maximum benefits are reduced by 30 percent
of a household's net income after accounting for shelter, child care,
medical, and work-related expenses. One- and two-person eligible
households are entitled to a minimum monthly benefit of \$10.

In fiscal year 2005, the FSP served approximately 25.7 million people in
an average month, at a total annual cost of \$31 billion. The average
benefit per person was just under \$93 per month. The FSP serves
slightly over half of the people eligible for benefits (56 percent in
2003) while maintaining the highest level of payment accuracy in the
program's history (a combined payment error rate---including both
overpayments and underpayments---of 5.9 percent in 2004).

In Puerto Rico, the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) replaced the FSP
in 1981 and provides food assistance for low-income residents of the
Commonwealth. The NAP is funded as a block grant (\$1.5 billion in 2005)
and serves about 1 million people each month.

***General Opinions Expressed***

-   Many expressed the need to adequately fund USDA's nutrition
    assistance programs to ensure that all Americans can afford healthy
    food, to protect programs from changes that would harm poor children
    and families, and to further improve program effectiveness in
    reducing hunger.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many commenters noted the importance of the FSP and its role in this
    Nation's nutrition safety net. They also supported reauthorization
    of its current structure---a national entitlement program with
    (near) uniform standards.

-   Many expressed the view that there should be no cuts in the FSP,
    while many others proposed policies that would increase coverage,
    benefit amounts, and administrative funding. Several observed that
    food banks, private charities, and local communities are not
    equipped to replace any lost food stamp benefits from program cuts.

-   Many lauded the FSP's prompt and efficient response to families and
    individuals affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

-   Many participants suggested changing the name of the FSP because
    electronic benefit transfer (EBT) delivery has replaced coupons,
    and/or to emphasize the program's nutrition purpose.

-   Many want the 2007 farm bill to strengthen the image of the FSP as
    nutrition assistance and work support rather than welfare.

-   Many spoke of the need to address the stigma associated with
    receiving food stamp benefits in order to improve participation
    among eligible persons and families.

-   Many supporters of higher funding for the FSP and related programs
    also spoke against tax cuts for the wealthy. A few recommended
    reversing the tax cuts to pay for expanded coverage of nutrition
    assistance to the low-income population.

    [Improving Program Access and Targeting People in Need]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many described how much has been done to increase food stamp
    participation by eligible persons and families. These testimonials
    highlighted their successes and commitment to continue to find
    innovative ways to reach needy nonparticipants.

-   Many also commented on the large numbers of eligible persons (with
    emphasis on the elderly, disabled, and working poor) who are not
    enrolled in the FSP.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many recommended continuation and expansion of outreach efforts,
    USDA's national outreach campaign, and grant funding for local
    outreach projects.

-   Some asked for increased funding for food stamp outreach, or
    targeted outreach for selected groups such as the elderly,
    Hispanics, noncitizens, working families, and farmers.

-   Many participants suggested that the food stamp application process
    be simplified and streamlined.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many recommended eliminating the face-to-face interview for elderly,
    disabled, and others unable to travel to the nearest food stamp
    office to file an application. Some recommended eliminating the
    face-to-face interview for all households at the periodic
    recertification of their eligibility.

-   Many suggested allowing working families, elderly, and disabled
    persons to submit food stamp applications by alternative means such
    as by mail, on-line, fax, or through authorized representatives.

-   A few participants proposed expanding combined application projects
    (CAP) for SSI/food stamp applicants to additional States and other
    programs.

-   Some want to allow community organizations such as food banks to
    initiate the food stamp application process.

-   General support was expressed for electronic benefits transfer (EBT)
    delivery.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A few suggested developing the capacity to issue EBT PIN numbers by
    telephone (i.e., remote pinning), similar to the process used by
    banks for authorizing credit cards.

-   Some participants proposed prohibiting finger-imaging of applicants
    because it is seen as a barrier to participation. Some described how
    it intimidates legal aliens while others discussed its impact on
    elderly and disabled people who otherwise would not have to travel
    to the local office.

-   Many suggested that USDA restore eligibility to all or some legal
    noncitizens.

-   Participants generally expressed support to preserve categorical
    eligibility for families based on their receipt of any kind of
    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) assistance.

-   Several suggested expanding categorical eligibility to persons who
    qualify for other means-tested programs, including Medicaid and
    Low-Income Home Energy Assistance.

-   Many participants recommended increasing the gross income limit
    (from 130 to 185 percent of poverty, for example) or aligning the
    limit with other nutrition assistance programs or TANF; some
    observed this would provide more coverage of the working poor and
    reduce complexity for caseworkers.

-   Many recommended an increase or elimination of the asset limit, or
    alignment with other public assistance programs. Some proposed an
    asset limit that varies by household size.

-   Some supported allowing participants under age 22 with children to
    form separate food stamp households.

-   Some proposed restoring eligibility to former drug felons.

-   Some participants recommended the elimination of the work
    requirement for students.

-   Many suggested that USDA eliminate or lengthen the time limits for
    participation of able-bodied adults without children (ABAWDs).

    [Ensuring Adequate Benefits]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many supported raising the minimum food stamp benefit provided to
    one- and two-person households from \$10 per month to amounts
    ranging from \$25 to \$60. Some proposed an annual inflation
    adjustment; others recommend expanding the minimum to all households
    or to all categorically eligible households; several recommended an
    increase for the elderly or disabled.

-   Several participants described the food stamp benefit as inadequate.
    Many believe that the Thrifty Food Plan should be replaced as the
    basis for maximum food stamp allotments with a higher cost plan to
    ensure that benefits are adequate.

-   Some participants suggested updating the Thrifty Food Plan to allow
    it to meet the new nutrition guidelines, particularly higher cost
    foods like fruits and vegetables.

-   Many requested the increase or elimination of the shelter cap for
    all households, while several specifically targeted
    high-shelter-cost areas such as New York City.

-   Some participants recommended adjustments---including regional
    standards or allowing for adjustments based on projected increases
    in utility costs---to the standard utility allowance.

-   Some proposed an increase in the dependent care deductions.

-   Some recommended an increase or expansion of the medical deduction;
    a few suggested standardizing the deduction, while others opposed
    establishment of standards that might reduce benefits for some
    participants.

    [Supporting Work]{.underline}

-   Many participants support stronger work requirements in the FSP,
    while others support elimination of the Food Stamp Employment and
    Training Program (E&T) and work requirements on the grounds that
    expectations for work are properly associated with welfare programs
    but inappropriate for nutrition assistance programs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some suggested increased funding for a more robust E&T Program, with
    more staffing and higher stipends for support services such as
    transportation, clothing, and child care.

-   Some proposed to allow more flexibility on aspects of E&T such as
    allowable activities.

-   Some suggested an increase in the period of transitional food stamp
    assistance for employed TANF leavers (from 5 to 6 or 12 months).

-   Some would let workers keep more of their earnings before reducing
    food stamp benefits.

-   Some proposed financial incentives to encourage or require local
    offices to extend office hours to serve working recipients.

[Simplifying Complex Rules]{.underline}

-   Many would like simplification of food stamp rules and processes to
    free up resources that can be directed to improve program access and
    customer services.

-   Some would standardize the medical deduction, allowing an option to
    itemize expenses that are higher than the standard.

-   Many proposed eliminating the time limit and tracking requirements
    for ABAWDs.

-   Many suggested alignment of income and asset definitions with other
    entitlement programs.

-   Many participants suggested combining the application process for
    multiple assistance programs, specifically FSP, TANF, and Medicaid.

[Promoting Healthy Eating]{.underline}

-   There was general discussion about making improved nutritional
    status of Americans a national priority, supporting and increasing
    research and outreach, and matching agricultural policy to health
    and nutrition policy.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many participants recommended various program changes intended to
    encourage eating habits that more closely reflect the 2005 Dietary
    Guidelines for Americans and USDA's MyPyramid food guidance system.
    Many spoke of the opportunity to influence increased consumption of
    whole grains, fruits, and vegetables by persons eligible for FNS
    programs.

-   Some participants urged USDA to develop consistent nutrition and
    health standards across its programs using the 2005 Dietary
    Guidelines for Americans*.*

-   Some participants suggested developing incentives in the food stamp
    benefit to encourage the purchase of fruits, vegetables, and whole
    grains, or restricting participants' purchases to healthier choices
    consistent with 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Many others
    wanted to continue to allow recipients to make their own choices for
    food purchases and support healthy choices through nutrition
    education.

-   Some participants recommended allowing the purchase of food
    supplements and vitamins, while others in the nutrition field
    opposed the use of food stamps for buying vitamins, minerals,
    dietary supplements, and other nonfood items.

-   Many participants wanted improved access among food stamp recipients
    to farmers market produce, particularly for the elderly. Many
    suggested expanding the use of EBT services at farmers markets and
    providing increased funding for wireless technologies.

-   A few suggested allowing homeless persons and others who cannot
    prepare their meals to purchase hot foods with food stamps. Others
    would make this generally available, noting that the purchase of hot
    meals would accommodate the needs of working-poor families who
    frequently do not have the time to prepare the menus implicit in the
    Thrifty Food Plan.

-   There was general support for food stamp nutrition education (FSNE)
    as an important component of the FSP for changing the health
    behaviors of individuals with limited resources. A number of
    comments also supported the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
    Program (EFNEP) and the Community Food Project Grants.

-   Some participants requested more funding and policy flexibility in
    FSNE.

    [Improving Federal-State Partnership]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Some proposed a restoration of Federal match rates to 50 percent for
    general administration, general increases in reimbursement for
    administrative costs, and higher match rates for urgent and
    beneficial changes in automation, program simplification, and
    outreach.

-   Some proposed increased State flexibility to streamline
    administration and improve program access.

    ***Detailed Suggestions Expressed***

    [Improving Program Access and Targeting People in Need]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Eliminate performance measures based on error rates; the current
    focus has more to do with filling out paperwork correctly than
    whether fewer people are hungry or not.

-   More emphasis should be placed on increasing the access rate instead
    of decreasing the error rate.

-   The FSP should be perceived as a public health program, and high
    usage of food stamps should be viewed positively.

-   Translate outreach materials to alleviate language barriers.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allow households to apply for food stamps at WIC centers.

-   Require simpler applications that match reading ability and language
    proficiency of applicants.

-   Letters denying food stamp eligibility should provide clear guidance
    about the appeal process, including the possibility that eligibility
    may be subsequently approved.

-   The farm bill should give USDA authority to run pilots that allow
    regulated community agencies to have access to food stamp records
    with client permission so that they can perform application
    processing for foods stamps and other needed services in one place.

-   Propose more investment in technology to improve timeliness of
    application processing.

-   Do not inactivate benefits on EBT cards older than 3 months.

-   Provide one universal EBT card with one platform which saves
    retailers money.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Allow more flexibility to use benefits in non-EBT establishments.

-   To address low participation across programs, replace the current
    set of nutrition assistance programs with their different rules and
    create food entitlement accounts that provide food stamps, WIC, and
    school meals to households that meet a
    185-percent-of-the-federal-poverty-income limit.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Better inform immigrants that food stamp participation will not be
    held against them as a "public charge" when they decide to apply for
    citizenship.

-   Waive the 5-year-waiting period for immigrant children who are
    participating when they turn 18 but have less than 5 years of U.S.
    residency.

-   Eliminate the 5-year waiting period for the elderly and survivors of
    domestic violence who are legal permanent residents.

-   Eliminate attribution of a sponsor's income when determining
    eligibility and benefits for legal immigrants.

-   Provide better coordination of services and simplified procedures
    for legal immigrants; create a national ID to help immigrants get
    food assistance.

-   Expand food stamp categorical eligibility to the receipt of Earned
    Income Tax Credit (EITC), WIC, and Medicaid.

-   Adopt income eligibility thresholds that reflect State or regional
    cost of living.

-   Do not adjust food stamp benefits for small increases in earnings.

-   Disregard earned income of members age 18 and under if in school at
    least part-time.

-   Make the State options for simplified income and resource
    definitions and simplified treatment of child support payments
    mandatory.

-   Allow grandparents and other caregiver relatives to obtain food
    stamps on behalf of children in their care.

-   Exclude from countable income any subsidies that support families
    that care for foster children, adopt children, or serve as guardians
    for children.

-   Increase the net income limit from 100 percent to 130 percent of
    poverty for applicants.

-   Disregard retirement, burial, and educational savings accounts.

-   Review able-bodied adults without dependents policies for securing
    jobs, training, and education versus similar policies for
    individuals with dependent children to determine their
    effectiveness.

-   Restore eligibility to striking workers.

-   Maintain rules that provide access to the FSP for the homeless.

-   Make homeless shelter deductions mandatory.

-   Extend eligibility requirements for "emancipated" young people in
    urban areas without a permanent address.

-   Concern was expressed about the error-proneness of cases in which
    unrelated adults live as a family but receive separate food stamp
    allowances.

[Ensuring Adequate Benefits]{.underline}

-   Conduct a pilot study of a higher minimum benefit to address
    questions about its impact on the participation and food security of
    eligible nonparticipants, particularly among elderly.

-   Increase and revise the deductions used to calculate income
    available to purchase food. Add a standardized transportation
    deduction for vehicle ownership and another for those relying on
    public transportation.

-   Provide a deduction for adoption subsidies.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Do not adjust food stamp benefits for Social Security cost-of-living
    increases.

-   Give the heating/cooling standard utility allowance to anyone who
    pays unsubsidized rent.

-   Revise the standard utility allowance guidance or rules to States to
    clarify that those receiving low-income energy assistance are
    qualified for the full standard utility allowance, not just a
    limited allowance.

-   Allow the telephone deduction to include long-distance costs and
    cell phones if the household does not have a land line.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   To compensate for the absence of a summer school meal program, issue
    a special EBT card for about \$100 per child to eligible food stamp
    households. Pilot this approach in some rural and other areas to
    determine the effect on hunger.

-   Allow nonfood essentials (e.g., toilet paper, soap, diapers) to be
    purchased with food stamps.

    [Supporting Work]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Increase the earned income deduction to 25 percent.

-   Consider pension income to be countable earned income with regard to
    the earned income deduction.

-   Make the State option for transitional benefits for 5 months
    mandatory.

-   Extend transitional benefits for families in transition to
    self-sufficiency; provide a portion of their food stamp benefit (for
    example, 50 percent) for another 90 days.

-   Allow the transitional food stamp benefit option for non-TANF State
    assistance programs such as General Assistance.

-   Allow more E&T Program flexibility on matters such as allowable
    activities. Allow expanded use of job search to satisfy ABAWD work
    requirements.

-   Increase child care reimbursements for employment and training
    participants.

-   Increase the currently fixed child care deduction to reflect
    increases in these costs.

-   Lower the age of youngest child from 6 years to 1 year old for the
    work registration exemption.

-   Allow States to make food stamp E&T requirements compatible with
    those of other employment and training programs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Increase participation requirements in the E&T Program.

[Simplifying Complex Rules]{.underline}

-   Create a combined application process for USDA and HHS programs
    using multiple locations in the community.

-   Create a central administrative database for multiple assistance
    programs.

-   Eliminate all or most expense questions from the food stamp
    application to reduce caseworker workload.

-   Increase deductions for housing and vehicular expenses.

[Promoting Healthy Eating]{.underline}

-   Maintain current food purchase rules. Do not limit food choices and
    continue to distinguish between food and nonfood items.

-   USDA should address the out-of-date perception that a safe,
    affordable, and varied food supply leads to a well-nourished,
    healthy population and shift to a paradigm that is founded on people
    being able and willing to choose healthy diets.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Government must invest in the nutrition research and nutrition
    education necessary to give Americans the knowledge and ability to
    make their own nutrition decisions.

-   Congress needs to do a comprehensive review of the Nation's
    nutrition policies and programs, including the key work being
    conducted by USDA researchers.

-   Implement a comprehensive nutrition program that is fully integrated
    into all the FNS programs.

-   Increase support for advertising for foods of high nutritional value
    that are available directly from farms in all regions of the United
    States.

-   Support was expressed for FSNE social marketing campaigns.

-   Create a "Market Access Program" where Federal funds would be
    matched by State funds to promote fruit and vegetable consumption.

-   Support was expressed for Cooperative Extension as providers of
    nutrition education.

-   Develop culturally sensitive nutrition education to enhance the
    likelihood of success.

-   Focus of FSNE should be providing nutrition education rather than
    developing lists of eligible foods.

-   Modify the "5 A Day" slogan to something like "50 percent of daily
    intake." Framing the goal that way is perceived to make it more
    attainable by parents.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Assess a tax on fast food that would fund nutrition assistance
    programs.

-   A different funding model similar to EFNEP may be more efficient and
    cost-effective for FSNE.

    [Improving Federal-State Partnership]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Increase funding match for administration of the FSP for States
    based on the State's increase of participating households.

-   Authorize States to either issue benefits throughout the month or
    issue benefits twice a month, to spread out food purchases in
    neighborhoods with high concentration of food stamp participants.

-   Continue the current waiver and policy options to ensure the overall
    structure of the FSP.

-   Replace the waiver process for exempting ABAWDs living in areas with
    high unemployment with a State option.

-   Maintain bonus awards for increasing food stamp access and payment
    accuracy.

-   Require that 80 percent of bonus funds be earmarked for food stamp
    expenditures.

-   Increase funding for technological upgrades to data management
    systems.

-   Encourage effective use of technology to improve customer service,
    reduce payment errors, and lower administrative costs.

-   Consider savings in administrative costs in calculating cost
    neutrality for demonstration projects, to encourage States to design
    and develop progressive food stamp strategies. Allocate funding to
    States approved for demonstration projects designed to improve FSP
    service delivery.

-   Create a national participation database to prevent duplication
    across States.

-   Support Federal/State interagency councils in a more open and direct
    way.

-   Strike a balance between uniform national rules and State
    flexibility, eliminating the uncertainty that is inherent in the
    current waiver process.

    [Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico (NAP)]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Reauthorize NAP as a block grant.

-   Create a floor so that funding for NAP does not drop below 5.7
    percent of the total spent on the FSP, and increase the floor by 0.3
    to 0.6 percentage points each year until it reaches\
    8 percent, the Commonwealth's share of funding in the first year of
    NAP.