The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides nutrition subsidies to nearly 48 million low-income families and individuals. It serves as the nation’s hunger safety net and is our best domestic policy weapon against food insecurity—when food is unavailable or people do not have ready access to it. Recent policy decisions have led to significant cuts to SNAP at a time when benefits were already insufficient for many individuals and families, including an estimated 22 million children, according to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The cuts, effective November 1, 2013, affect all SNAP recipients.
While the cuts to the program will be difficult for all beneficiaries, there will be a disproportionately negative impact on women and people of color due to their higher rates of poverty. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, 39% of Black women compared to 19% of White women receive SNAP benefits, while 21% of Black men compared to 11% of white men receive food assistance. The states with the highest percentage of program beneficiaries are New Mexico, Tennessee, Mississippi, as well as the District of Columbia. It is also important to note that states in the southern region tend to have higher percentages of SNAP participants than many in the northwest or northeast. Needless to say, the burden of the program cuts will not be experienced equitably.
The health implications of cuts to SNAP will likely be dangerous and widespread. According to a recent study by the Virginia Commonwealth University Center on Society and Health, there is a direct relationship between income and health. Reductions in food assistance lead to fewer overall resources for a household. The study also states that those small increases in poverty have the potential to increase premature death and affect rates of chronic diseases such as diabetes, all of which have implications for health care for individuals, families, and state Medicaid costs. Findings from the study indicate that over the long-term, healthcare cost increases as a result of SNAP cuts will be greater than the savings predicted.
The great need for SNAP indicates that the nation continues to struggle with systemic and structural issues related to poverty and inequities. Absent resolving those issues, we are at risk of Americans going hungry. In an immediate sense, the loss of SNAP benefits has real-world consequences that for some families and individuals could mean life or death. For some people the question will be, “Do I eat today, or do I buy my medication?” Those are choices that no one in America should have to make, particularly the most vulnerable among us.
Many people who support the SNAP cuts believe the nonprofit sector will “step up” to patch the gaping hole left in the hunger safety net. The stark reality, however, is that local food banks, places of worship with food pantries, and other local and national nonprofits have been experiencing significant challenges to their own budgets since the onset of the Great Recession, based on reductions in government funding, decreases in foundation support, and declining contributions from individual donors. There is simply no evidence that the nonprofit sector has the financial wherewithal to fill a $10 to $21 billion shortfall in SNAP over the next 10 years.
Another unsubstantiated claim of those supporting cuts is that there is significant and intentional SNAP fraud and abuse, which has been used to discredit the program and its recipients. The data tell an entirely different story. According to Feeding America,* trafficking of SNAP benefits actually decreased from 3.8 cents per dollar in 1993 to 1.3 cents per dollar from 2009-2011. All of this indicates that the management of SNAP continues to improve as the need for benefits increases.
While federal policy will play out in the halls of Congress, states should consider cross-sector collaboration and innovative hunger programs to fill gaps left by the cuts. It may well be time to bring some of those model programs to scale in the effort to ensure that no American goes hungry. Legislators should also advocate for the restoration of funds to address increasing public need.
Regardless of political disagreements over the efficacy or need for SNAP, we must live up to our responsibility to the 48 million people who depend on the program for their subsistence. From a public policy perspective, what are the actual costs of 22 million children arriving at school hungry every day and expecting them to achieve academically or have a real shot at growing into productive citizens? Should we not take steps to prevent the diseases and conditions that we know very often occur as complications associated with food insecurity?
Supporting SNAP is not just a matter of finances or budgeting. This is one instance in which society truly gets what it pays for.
*To learn more about hunger-focused programming visit: www.feedingamerica.org
