Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Summary
For many Americans who live at or below the poverty threshold, ccess
a
to healthy foods at a reasonable price is a challenge that often places a
strain on already limited resources and may compel them to make food
choices that are contrary to current nutritional guidance. To help allevi-
ate this problem, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers
a number of nutrition assistance programs designed to improve access to
healthy foods for low-income individuals and households. The largest of
these programs is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
formerly called the Food Stamp Program, which today serves more than
46 million Americans with a program cost in excess of $75 billion annually.
The goals of SNAP include raising the level of nutrition among low-income
households and maintaining adequate levels of nutrition by increasing the
food purchasing power of low-income families.
Households receive the maximum SNAP benefit if the family has no net
income to contribute to food purchases; households with income combine
the SNAP allotment with other household resources. Currently there is
d
ebate about whether there are different ways to think about the adequacy
of the SNAP allotment. Factors such as time needed to purchase and pre-
pare foods from basic ingredients as described in the Thrifty Food Plan
(TFP), knowledge and skills needed to plan and prepare healthy meals,
the diversity of cultural preferences, food access constraints, and regional/
seasonal price fluctuations all may have an impact on the adequacy of SNAP
allotments for achieving the program goals. In addition to these indi idual,
v
household, and environ ental factors, program characteristics—the way
m
the allotments are calculated (including the maximum benefit guarantee,
1
OCR for page 2
2 SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
the benefit reduction rate, and the calculation of net income deductions)—
are important to consider in defining adequate allotments. The committee
reviewed the evidence for the impact of these factors and characteristics on
the purchasing power of SNAP allotments and assessed their role in con-
tributing to the feasibility of defining allotment adequacy.
STUDY TASK AND APPROACH
In response to questions about whether there are different ways to
define the adequacy of SNAP allotments consistent with the program goals
of improving food security and access to a healthy diet, USDA’s Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the
National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a study to examine the fea-
sibility of defining the adequacy of SNAP allotments, specifically:
• the feasibility of establishing an objective, evidence-based, science-
driven definition of the adequacy of SNAP allotments consistent
with the program goals of improving food security and access to a
healthy diet, as well as other relevant dimensions of adequacy; and
• data and analyses needed to support an evidence-based assessment
of the adequacy of SNAP allotments.
In addressing its task, the committee considered questions posed by the
sponsor with respect to the above two primary dimensions of the task.
These questions provided further guidance for the committee’s review of
the evidence. Appendix E outlines these additional questions and indicates
where they are addressed in the report.
The committee conducted a comprehensive review of the current
evidence, including the peer-reviewed published literature and peer-
reviewed government reports. Although not given equal weight with
peer-reviewed publications, some non-peer-reviewed publications from
nongovernmental organizations and stakeholder groups also were consid-
ered because they provided additional insight into the behavioral aspects of
participation in nutrition assistance programs. In addition to its evidence
review, the committee held a data gathering workshop that tapped a range
of expertise relevant to its task.
To examine the feasibility of defining the adequacy of SNAP allot-
ments, the committee constructed a framework (Figure S-1) showing the
constraints on a household’s ability to achieve program goals. To define
the components of the framework and establish the boundaries of its evi-
dence review, the committee focused on the two dimensions of its task—the
feasibility of objectively defining SNAP benefit adequacy consistent with
improving food security and access to a healthy diet, and data and analyses
OCR for page 3
SUMMARY 3
Factors Affecting Food Security and Access
to a Healthy Diet
Total Resources Individual/Household
Factors
Financial/In-Kind Income
SNAP benefits Dietary knowledge
Other program benefits Attitudes/preferences
Household income Cultural influences
Other resources Skills/abilities
(e.g., emergency food Space/equipment
assistance) Special needs Purchasing and Program Goals
Consumption
Time Patterns
Food Security
Amount available for
Amounts of food Access to a Healthy Diet
securing/preparing food Environmental
Factors Kinds of food
Prices
Location
Transportation
Benefit Formula, Nutrition Allowed Retail Restrictions/
Eligibility Criteria Education Outlets Incentives
SNAP Program Characteristics
FIGURE S-1 Framework for determining the feasibility of defining the adequacy
of SNAP allotments.
NOTE: Solid lines represent the food purchasing and consumption process for
households participating in SNAP, independent of the program. Dashed lines rep-
resent the influence of SNAP program characteristics on this process.
needed to support an objective, evidence-based assessment of benefit ade
quacy. The committee’s framework describes how the SNAP program fits
into a household’s overall process of acquiring and providing food for all
family members. It consists of three major parts: (1) the program goals of
food security and access to a healthy diet; (2) total resources, individual/
household factors, and environmental factors that influence the process
through which households purchase and consume foods; and (3) elements
of the SNAP program characteristics that interact with the process through
which households may achieve program goals.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
The committee’s conclusions are based on the findings derived from its
review of the available evidence. These conclusions formed the basis for the
committee’s recommendations.
OCR for page 4
4 SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Conclusion 1: The Adequacy of SNAP Allotments Can Be Defined
Based on the available evidence, it is feasible to define objectively the
adequacy of SNAP allotments. Doing so entails identifying the factors that
affect the ability of participants to attain food security and access to a
healthy diet. The committee’s review of the evidence found that it is possible
to identify those factors, and the committee has done so in its framework
and in the following two conclusions and the findings that support them.
The available evidence has some limitations, but it is possible to obtain the
evidence needed for a science-driven definition of allotment adequacy. First,
evidence must be taken into account on the degree to which specific indi-
vidual, household, and environmental factors influence SNAP participants’
purchasing power, given a dollar value of their SNAP benefits. Second,
evidence must take into account the impact of factors related to the com-
putation of the dollar value of the SNAP allotment itself, as well as other
SNAP program characteristics.
Conclusion 2: The Adequacy of SNAP Allotments Is Influenced
by Individual, Household, and Environmental Factors
Evidence obtained by the committee in its data gathering workshop and
in its review and assessment of the literature revealed that the opportunity
for SNAP participants to meet the program goals, given a dollar value of
their SNAP benefits, is influenced by a number of individual, household,
and environmental factors that impact the purchasing power of the allot-
ments. The committee found that a definition of the adequacy of SNAP
allotments must account for these factors according to the magnitude
and significance of their influence on the allotment’s purchasing power.
Although SNAP allotments might be adequate in the absence of these fac-
tors, the evidence suggests that these factors can act as barriers to obtain-
ing nutritious foods and preparing nutritious meals consistent with the
assumptions of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP). The evidence on individual,
household, and environmental factors that constrain the purchasing power
of SNAP allotments is most robust for four factors:
• The SNAP allotment, which is based on the TFP, assumes the
purchase of many basic, inexpensive, unprocessed foods and ingre
dients requiring substantial investment of participants’ time to
produce nutritious meals. The evidence shows that the time re-
quirements implicitly assumed by the TFP are inconsistent with the
time available for most households at all income levels, particularly
those with a single working head. By failing to account for the fact
that SNAP participants, like other households, need to purchase
OCR for page 5
SUMMARY 5
value-added foods that save preparation time, the current value of
the SNAP allotment substantially limits the flexibility and purchas-
ing power of SNAP benefits.
• The food prices faced by SNAP participants vary substantially
across geographic regions of the country and between rural and
urban areas. However, SNAP benefits are adjusted only for Alaska
and Hawaii. SNAP participants in locales with higher food prices
are likely to find it more difficult than those in areas with lower
prices to purchase the types and amounts of foods specified in
the TFP as adequate to meet their needs for a nutritious diet. The
evidence points further to a lack of data on the extent to which
food prices influence the ability of SNAP participants to purchase
nutritious foods.
• There is evidence that low-income households face higher transac-
tion costs in achieving food security and access to a healthy diet
relative to higher-income households. For example, low-income
and minority populations are more likely than other groups to ex-
perience limited access to supermarkets and other large retail out-
lets, such as big-box stores, that offer a broad range of nutritious
foods at reasonable cost. Individuals without access to such venues
experience greater disparity in the availability of healthy foods,
such as fresh fruits and vegetables, in their neighborhood food
outlets. In addition, a lack of transportation infrastructure com-
monly leads to limited food access in small towns and rural areas.
• Nutrition education programs for low-income participants that
include training in food purchasing and preparation skills appear
to have some effectiveness in changing behavioral outcomes. This
finding lends credence to the theory that skills are a limiting factor
in the ability of some SNAP participants to maximize the pur-
chasing power of the current SNAP allotments. However, existing
evidence on the influence of nutrition knowledge and skills on the
ability of SNAP participants to purchase and prepare nutritious
foods consistent with the assumptions of the TFP is insufficient
to support a conclusion about the relevance of these factors to an
evidence-based definition of the adequacy of SNAP allotments.
Conclusion 3: The Adequacy of SNAP Allotments
Is Influenced by Program Characteristics
The evidence suggests that a number of factors related to how the
dollar value of SNAP allotments is calculated, as well as other SNAP pro-
gram characteristics, can influence the feasibility of defining an adequate
SNAP allotment. The evidence supports the conclusion that the maximum
OCR for page 6
6 SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
monthly benefit, the benefit reduction rate, and the net income calcula-
tion have important impacts on the definition of the adequacy of SNAP
allotments.
• Maximum benefit guarantee—The maximum SNAP benefit, cur-
rently based on assumptions of the TFP plus the temporary up-
ward adjustment that occurred under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, may not always be sufficient to allow
participants to purchase the food components and prepare the
meals specified by the TFP for several reasons. As noted above,
the time available for most households at all income levels, particu-
larly those with a single working head, is insufficient to meet the
assumptions of the TFP, and thus the allotments do not sufficiently
account for the costs of purchasing foods that must be further pre-
pared. Also as noted above, the TFP does not account for many
types of geographic price variation. In addition, limited evidence
suggests that some SNAP households with no net income as defined
under the program and residing in high-cost locales with limited
access to food outlets are unable to purchase the foods included
in the market basket underlying the TFP. Although the committee
found compelling evidence on the time costs of meal preparation
and on geographic price variations, the evidence on how best to
incorporate these factors into the SNAP benefit formula is less
compelling. The committee also identified as an issue affecting the
adequacy of SNAP allotments the fact that the annual maximum
benefit update occurs following a 16-month lag. The June cost of
food is used to update the TFP in October, but then is not updated
again until the following October, 16 months later. Because of the
impact of inflation and other factors on food prices, this lag in the
benefit adjustment can significantly reduce the purchasing power
of SNAP allotments.
• Benefit reduction rate—The original assumption underlying the
benefit reduction rate is that the average U.S. household spends
30 percent of its income on food. This assumption is outdated
and inconsistent with the current average spending pattern across
income levels in the United States of about 13 percent of pretax
income spent on purchases of all food consumed, both at home
and away. Although lower-income households spend a greater por-
tion of their income on food (e.g., 16.8 percent in 2010) compared
with higher-income households (e.g., 11.7 percent in 2010), the
percentage is still substantially less than the 30 percent assumption
currently used or the lower effective benefit reduction rate that
results after other parts of the benefit formula have been applied.
OCR for page 7
SUMMARY 7
Evidence suggests that a lower benefit reduction rate more closely
aligned with current household spending patterns would likely
give households greater incentive to combine workforce partici-
pation with the receipt of SNAP benefits by reducing the penalty
for working.
• Calculation of net income deduction—The committee found evi-
dence that several program characteristics used to determine net
income and the monthly allotment may not adequately capture the
impact of additional extraordinary household costs that reduce
the allotment’s purchasing power. Regarding the shelter deduc-
tion, considerable evidence shows that a substantial proportion of
SNAP households face housing costs in excess of the current cap
on the shelter deduction, which results in overestimation of the
net income participants have available to purchase food. Deduc-
tions allowed for medical expenses for persons 60 and older and
the disabled may influence the purchasing power of the allotment
for those individuals but do not address out-of-pocket medical
costs for nonelderly, nondisabled participants, although more
evidence is needed to understand the impact of such expenses on
the adequacy of the SNAP allotment. Evidence is more limited
on whether the current 20 percent earned income deduction is
adequate to cover the additional expenses incurred by SNAP re-
cipients who work.
Recommendations
The committee offers its recommendations in three areas. First, it rec-
ommends elements that should be included by USDA-FNS in an evidence-
based, objective definition and measurement of the adequacy of SNAP
allotments. Second, it recommends monitoring and assessment of the ade
quacy of SNAP allotments, needed for evaluation and adjustment over time.
Third, it recommends additional research and data needed to support an
evidence-based definition of allotment adequacy. In addition, the committee
describes other research considerations that would further understanding of
allotment adequacy. Specific data and analytical challenges to the primary
research effort are identified at the conclusions of Chapters 3 and 4.
Defining and Measuring the Adequacy of SNAP Allotments
To define the adequacy of SNAP allotments objectively using currently
available evidence requires consideration of a range of factors identified by
the committee as likely to have an impact on the allotments’ purchasing
power. As a first step, the committee established a framework for consider-
OCR for page 8
8 SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
ing factors that can have an impact on defining allotment adequacy. With
this in mind, the committee offers the following recommendations.
Recommendation 1: In defining allotment adequacy, the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) should in-
clude consideration of the influence of specific individual, household, and
environmental factors on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) participants’ purchasing power given the dollar value of their
SNAP benefits. Specific individual, household, and environmental fac-
tors to consider in a definition of the adequacy of SNAP allotments are
• ime—USDA-FNS should recognize the cost–time trade-offs in-
T
volved in procuring and preparing a nutritious diet. The dollar
value of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), with its strong reliance on
preparation of meals from basic ingredients, does not account for
time constraints faced by most households at all income levels,
particularly those with a single working head of household, which
necessitate purchasing value-added or prepared foods with a higher
cost. USDA-FNS should examine the impact of accounting for
cost–time trade-offs, for example, by
— pplying a time adjustment multiplier to the cost of the TFP or
a
reviewing options for adjustments to the current cost of the plan,
and
— djusting the earned income deduction to reflect more accurately
a
time pressures for participants who are working.
• eographic price variation—USDA-FNS should recognize the
G
substantial variation in food prices that exists across geographic
regions of the contiguous United States and between rural and
urban areas. USDA-FNS should examine possible approaches to
accounting for this variation, such as through adjustments to the
maximum benefit that take into account
— ricing or price adjustments for food in high-cost (including
p
urban and rural areas) as well as low-cost regions;
— hether the shelter cap should be increased, particularly in high-
w
cost regions; and
— lternatives to the TFP, such as the Low-Cost Food Plan.
a
• ccess to food outlets—USDA-FNS should assess the impact of
A
limited access to certain food outlets (e.g., supermarkets) that may
affect the ability of some SNAP participants to purchase a variety
of healthy foods at reasonable cost. Evaluation and assessment of
access barriers should include the degree to which, and for whom,
they constrain the SNAP allotment that would otherwise be ad-
equate to meet the program goals.
OCR for page 9
SUMMARY 9
Recommendation 2: In defining allotment adequacy, U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) should also
consider evaluating specific program characteristics that affect the allot-
ment’s actual dollar value, as well as the extent to which the allotment
is targeted to individual Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) participants. Specific program characteristics to consider in a
definition of allotment adequacy are
• aximum benefit guarantee—USDA-FNS should evaluate the
M
need to
— djust the current timing scheme for the cost-of-living adjust-
a
ment to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) to reduce the 16-month lag
in updates;
— pdate adjustments for economies of scale to reflect current data
u
on the impact of family size on family food spending; and
—orrect for misalignment in the assumptions of the TFP that
c
serve as the basis for determining the maximum benefit guaran-
tee to account for current lifestyle and meal patterns that include
the purchase of food products that reduce the need for in-home
preparation time.
• enefit reduction rate—USDA-FNS should evaluate whether there
B
is a need to adjust downward the current benefit reduction rate,
which is currently set at 30 percent but has a lower effective rate,
to reflect the current purchasing behaviors of U.S. households.
• alculation of net income—USDA-FNS should evaluate whether
C
there is a need to adjust the design of the net income calculation
to better reflect the ability of SNAP participants to purchase food
within the boundaries of their incomes. Particular attention should
be given to the adequacy of the current earned income deduc-
tion; the cap on the excess shelter deduction; and the possibility
of expanding the out-of-pocket medical deduction to nonelderly,
nondisabled populations.
Monitoring Assessment of the Adequacy of SNAP Allotments
The committee’s findings suggest that an evidence-based definition of
the adequacy of SNAP allotments requires ongoing monitoring of the abil-
ity of SNAP participants to use the allotments to achieve the program goals.
To this end, it is important to know the proportion of SNAP participants
that are more food secure and consuming healthier diets as a result of the
program, and within what time frame. Understanding the impact of SNAP
benefits on these outcomes would contribute to the broader knowledge base
used to define the adequacy of SNAP allotments.
OCR for page 10
10 SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Recommendation 3: To assess the correspondence between the def-
inition of an adequate Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) allotment and the attainment of the program goals, and to
adjust the definition of adequacy as information on influencing factors
evolves, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) should
• D
evelop longitudinal datasets containing appropriate measures of
food insecurity, access to a healthy diet, and SNAP participation as
part of the evidence base it uses to define adequacy.
• A
ssess existing and establish new evaluation protocols that can
measure the impact of SNAP participation on food security and
access to a healthy diet, accounting for selection biases (e.g., that
SNAP participants may be more likely to be food insecure than the
general low-income population).
• E
valuate additional nutrition monitoring tools, including a stan-
dardized measurement tool with which to monitor and assess the
ability of SNAP allotments to support a dietary pattern consistent
with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The committee identi-
fied the Healthy Eating Index as one example of a measure that
could be adapted to assess whether SNAP participants are meeting
recommended dietary goals.
Meeting Additional Research Needs
The committee identified several factors related to SNAP program par-
ticipation that may affect whether some SNAP participants are able to meet
the program goals and for which evidence is currently inadequate to fully
assess their importance. These factors may affect either directly or indirectly
the definition of the adequacy of SNAP allotments. The two broad areas
in which additional research is needed to further develop the knowledge
base for the potential use of these factors in defining allotment adequacy
are educational programs that can help participants increase the purchasing
power of the SNAP allotment and access to retail outlets and foods.
Recommendation 4: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) should conduct further research in the follow-
ing areas to support the definition of allotment adequacy:
• T
o better assess how participants’ understanding of nutrition and
resource management skills affect the adequacy of Supplemen-
OCR for page 11
SUMMARY 11
tal Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) allotments, USDA-FNS
should
— ssess whether and how strengthening the quality (content and
a
delivery mechanisms) of education in nutrition and resource
management skills can support allotment adequacy, for example,
through educational outreach such as demonstration projects,
and evaluate the level of funding needed to support such pro-
grams; and
—ssess how effectively these educational programs align with
a
the needs of SNAP participants and the program’s potential to
enhance the purchasing power of SNAP allotments.
• T
o evaluate the impact of access to retail outlets on the opportunity
for SNAP participants to be food secure and to make nutritious
food choices, USDA-FNS should conduct periodic regional cross-
sectional surveys to gather information on the cost and availability
of foods that are consistent with the recommendations of the
ietary Guidelines for Americans.
D
FINAL THOUGHTS
The committee reviewed a range of evidence applicable to the feasibility
of defining the adequacy of SNAP benefits in terms of whether the SNAP
allotment enables program participants to meet program goals, given their
benefit allotment, not whether all participants will in fact reach these goals.
The committee’s recommendations are structured to assist USDA-FNS in
establishing an objective definition of the adequacy of the SNAP allotment,
taking the evidence for these factors into consideration, and to identify
specific data and analysis requirements to support an evidence-based assess
ment of allotment adequacy.
OCR for page 12
