Expert Report Indicates Need for Larger Food Stamp Benefits

SNAP (the food stamp program) is protected from the across-the-board cuts that will soon kick in. But benefits will be cut anyway, come November, because Congress has twice raided the funds it provided for a temporary boost.

A family of three will lose at least $20 a month, according to new estimates by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Still-eligible families would lose considerably more under the Farm Bills the House Agriculture Committee and the full Senate passed last year.

Yet we now have new, credible evidence that food stamp benefits are already too low for a great many participating families. This, at any rate, is a reasonable inference from an analysis jointly produced by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council.

The core of the problem is the assumptions built into the Thrifty Food Plan — the collection of market baskets that provide the basis for setting food stamp benefits.

Basically, the TFP assumes that families will make many of their meals from scratch, using low-cost, processed ingredients — a stew of potatoes, carrots and cut up chuck roast, for example, or chili made from slow-cooked dried beans.

In other words, someone in the family will have plenty of time to go grocery shopping, with pauses and backtracks for price comparisons, and the time to peel, chop, braise, bake, etc.

The family will live relatively near a full-service grocery store. And it will have the transportation to get there — and home with bags full of groceries.

It will also live in an area where food costs are relatively low, since we know from previous studies that the bill for a TFP-based food selection in a high-cost city far exceeds the maximum food stamp benefit.

And — something the IOM panel doesn’t mention — the family will have a good-sized refrigerator with ample freezer space. We see this assumption in the recipes and tips the U.S. Department of Agriculture has published for “healthy, thrifty meals.”

The IOM panel concludes that the from-scratch assumption is “out of synch with the practices of most households today.” Surely true for the 62% of food stamp households with children who’ve got at least one working member.

The IOM panel doesn’t come to such firm conclusions about the other assumptions. It merely identifies factors USDA should examine in determining whether food stamp allotments are adequate.

This is what USDA asked for. What it will do with the answer remains to be seen.

What our federal policymakers should do seems to me obvious enough. Beating a dead horse here, I know, but they should first and foremost give up the notion of reducing the deficit by cutting food stamp benefits.

Though the recession and lingering labor market ills have driven SNAP spending upward, it’s expected to drop to nearly the same share of GDP — a common measure of federal spending –as it represented in 2007.

The total cost of our primary nutrition safety net would then be somewhere around one-third of one percent of the value of everything our economy produces.

Beyond this, our policymakers ought finally to come to grips with the fact that the TFP doesn’t provide a suitable basis for determining food stamp benefits.

We’ve got scads of evidence that a large number of recipients can’t stretch them till the end of the month — let alone purchase the foods they’d need for a healthful diet.

A fairly recent study for USDA found that food stamp households had used, on average, 90% of their monthly benefits by the end of the third week — this despite the boost that’s due to expire.

The latest reported results of an annual survey conducted for the agency show that nearly half of households that received food stamp benefits throughout 2011 experienced food insecurity, i.e., were at risk of hunger or even sometimes didn’t have enough food for everyone because they couldn’t afford it.

No wonder that, as Feeding America has reported, 58% of the people who regularly or recurrently visited the food pantries in its network were food stamp recipients.

The Food Research and Action Center has repeatedly recommended that food stamp benefits be based on USDA’s Low-Cost Food Plan instead of the TFP — for reasons fully explained in a report it issued last December.

FRAC offers some additional recommendations in a statement triggered by the IOM report, e.g., a change in the outdated assumption that eligible households can spend 30% of their own income to supplement their benefits.

Congress will presumably again address the need for a new Farm Bill this year. So it’s got an opportunity to go back to the drawing board and create a food stamp program that will, at long last, end hunger and malnutrition in this country.

At the very least, it should do no further harm. Doesn’t seem like a lot to ask, but in this political environment, it is.

About these ads

9 Responses to Expert Report Indicates Need for Larger Food Stamp Benefits

  1. […] is already a challenge. But it will soon get harder, even without any new “heat and eat” restriction, because […]

  2. […] you’re trying to figure out where the next meal will come from, now that you’ve run through your family’s food stamp allotment — or where your family will sleep now that you’ve gotten an eviction […]

  3. DIANNE TATTA says:

    IF CONGRESS AND THE BIG WIGS**OF WASHINGTON HAD TO SURVIVE* ON A FOOD STAMP ALLOTMENT* FOR EVEN A MONTH , THEY SURE WOULD CHANGE THEIR TUNE ON FOOD STAMP ALLOTMENT BENEFITS! THE FIRST LADY ALWAYS SAYING EAT HEALTHY AND BUY*VEGETABLES**IS ABSOLUTELY CRAZY!**FOOD STAMPS BARELY* PROVIDES FOR NECESSITY**MEAT**PROTEIN* ITEMS LET ALONE**VEGETABLES THAT LEAVE YOU HUNGRY IN FIVE* MINUTES AND HAVE NO**REAL* NUTRITIONAL**VALUE TO SUSTAIN**A DAY**OF BEING HUNGRY***! ANYONE **WANT BROCOLLI**@ THE SAME COST AS A STEAK OR A**HAMBURGER**! ALSO COOKING FROM SCRATCH**IS*MORE EXPENSIVE**AS THE INGREDIENTS TO MAKE THE ITEM**COST MORE**THAN TO GO BUY A MCDONALDS* HAMBURGER! EXAMPLE–BUNS$3.00 HAMBURGER @ A POUND-$4.99 –MAYBE 3.99**ON SALE & ONLY MAKES MAYBE 5*-MAYBE**! THE CONDIMENTS*-KETCHUP-$2.00+, MUSTARD$2.00+** , CHEESE@$3.00-$4.00 A**PACKAGE—-MAYBE* 12 THIN*SLICES** AND YOU HAVE SPENT ALL THIS** M0NEY FOR A HAMBURGER** THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BOUGHT**@ MC DONALDS* –FAST FOOD** FOR $.89(89 CENTS!)–CAN’T EAT***CONDIMENTS**AT THE END OF THE MONTH**WHEN THE FOOD STAMP ALLOTMENT**IS GONE~~~~~~! I AM OVER 65**, SSI/SOCIAL SECURITY**AND GET 143.00 A MONTH*** FOOD ALLOTMENT**AND THE LAST WEEK HAVE NOTHING***TEA, SUGAR AND DO WITHOUT! TAKING FOOD**FROM THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY**/USA/ IS ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING*******! DO YOU THINK THE FIRST LADY COULD SURVIVE ON $143.00 A MONTH FOR HER* FOOD AND FEEL GRATEFUL? NEXT* COLD FOOD ONLY AT THE GROCERY STORE! ELDERLY* HAVE A DIFFICULT* TIME FIXING** SO WHY CAN’T A COOKED CHICKEN BE PURCHASED AT THE GROCERY STORE? GOOD QUESTION!

  4. […] to one of my food stamp posts, Dianne comments, “I am over 65, SSI/Social Security and get $143 a month food allotment. And […]

  5. […] Confirmation, were any needed, that SNAP benefits are, for many families, too low now. […]

  6. […] Confirmation, were any needed, that SNAP benefits are, for many families,too low now. […]

  7. […] I’ve often (too often?) said, SNAP benefits are already too low to cover the monthly costs of reasonably healthful, balanced meals — or in some cases, any […]

  8. […] other advocates, I’d have much preferred a Farm Bill that increased SNAP benefits, which were too low even before earlier decisions by Congress resulted in benefits losses last […]

  9. […] as a wrote awhile ago, a committee of National Research Council and Institute of Medicine experts conclude […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 184 other followers