| Food Stamp Program |
Article Index for Food |
Website Links For Food |
Information AboutFood Stamp Program |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT FOOD STAMP PROGRAM | |
| great society programs | |
| united states department of agriculture | |
| federal assistance in the united states | |
|
The US Food Stamp Program is a Federal Assistance program that provides food to low income people living in the United States . Benefits are distributed by the individual states, but the program is administered through the U.S. Department Of Agriculture . Most food stamp benefits are now distributed using Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards but for most of its history the program has used paper vouchers of some kind. HISTORY The First Food Stamp Program (FSP) - May 16, 1939-Spring 1943 The idea for the first FSP has been credited to various people, most notably Secretary Of Agriculture Henry Wallace and the program's first administrator, Milo Perkins. Of the program, Perkins said, "We got a picture of a gorge, with farm surpluses on one cliff and under-nourished city folks with outstretched hands on the other. We set out to find a practical way to build a bridge across that chasm." The program operated by permitting people on relief to buy orange stamps equal to their normal food expenditures; for every $1 worth of orange stamps purchased, 50 cents worth of blue stamps were received. Orange stamps could be used to buy any food; blue stamps could only be used to buy food determined by the Department to be surplus. Over the course of nearly 4 years, the first FSP reached approximately 20 million people at one time or another in nearly half of the counties in the U.S. at a total cost of $262 million. At its peak, the program assisted 4 million people simultaneously. The first recipient was Mabel McFiggin of Rochester, New York ; the first retailer to redeem the stamps was Joseph Mutolo; and the first retailer caught violating program rules was Nick Salzano in October 1939. The program ended when the conditions that brought the program into being (unmarketable food surpluses and widespread unemployment) no longer existed. Pilot Food Stamp Program - May 29, 1961-1964 The 18 years between the end of the first FSP and the inception of the next were filled with studies, reports, and legislative proposals. Prominent Senators actively associated with attempts to enact a food stamp program during this period are: Aiken , La Follette, Humphrey , Kefauver , and Symington . From 1954 on, Congresswoman Leonor Sullivan strove unceasingly to pass food stamp program legislation. On September 21 , 1959 , P.L. 86-341 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to operate a food stamp system through January 31 , 1962 . The Eisenhower Administration never used the authority. However, in fulfillment of a campaign promise made in West Virginia , President Kennedy 's first Executive Order called for expanded food distribution and, on February 2 , 1961 , he announced that food stamp pilot programs would be initiated. The pilot programs would retain the requirement that the food stamps be purchased, but eliminated the concept of special stamps for surplus foods. A Department spokesman indicated the emphasis would be on increasing the consumption of perishables. Mr. and Mrs. Alderson Muncy of Paynesville, West Virginia, were the first food stamp recipients on May 29 , 1961 . They purchased US$95 in food stamps for their 15-person household. In the first food stamp transaction, they bought a can of Pork And Beans at Henderson's Supermarket. By January 1964, the pilot programs had expanded from eight areas to 43 (40 counties, Detroit , St. Louis , and Pittsburgh ) in 22 States with 380,000 participants. Of the program, Congresswoman Leonor K. Sullivan asserted, "...the Department of Agriculture seemed bent on outlining a possible food stamp plan of such scope and magnitude, involving some 25 million persons, as to make the whole idea seem ridiculous and tear food stamp plans to smithereens." Food Stamp Act of 1964 - August 31, 1964 On January 31 , 1964, President Johnson requested Congress to pass legislation making the FSP permanent. Agriculture Secretary Orville Freeman submitted proposed legislation to establish a permanent FSP on April 17 , 1964. The bill eventually passed by Congress was H.R. 10222, introduced by Congresswoman Sullivan. One of the members on the House Committee on Agriculture who voted against the FSP in Committee was then Representative Bob Dole . As a Senator, Mr. Dole became a staunch supporter of the Program. Among the official purposes of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 were strengthening the agricultural economy and providing improved levels of nutrition among low-income households; however, the practical purpose was to bring the pilot FSP under Congressional control and to enact the regulations into law. The major provisions were:
The Agriculture Department estimated that participation in a national FSP would eventually reach 4 million, at a cost of $360 million annually. Program Expansion - FSP Participation Milestones in the 1960s and Early 1970s. In April 1965 , participation topped half a million. (Actual participation was 561,261 people.) Participation topped 1 million in March 1966 , 2 million in October 1967 , 3 million in February 1969 , 4 million in February 1970 , 5 million one month later in March 1970, 6 million two months later in May 1970, 10 million in February 1971 , and 15 million in October 1974 . Rapid increases in participation during this period were primarily due to geographic expansion. Major Legislative Changes - Early 1970s The early 1970s were a period of growth in participation, concern about the cost of providing food stamp benefits, and questions about administration, primarily timely certification. It was during this time that the issue was framed that would dominate food stamp legislation ever after: How to balance program access with program accountability? Three major pieces of legislation shaped this period leading up to massive reform to follow: P.L. 91-671 ( January 11 , 1971) established uniform national standards of eligibility and work requirements; required that allotments be equivalent to the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet; limited households' purchase requirements to 30 percent of their income; instituted an outreach requirement; authorized the Agriculture Department to pay 62.5 percent of specific administrative costs incurred by States; expanded the FSP to Guam , Puerto Rico , and the Virgin Islands of the United States; and provided $1.75 billion appropriations for Fiscal Year 1971. Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-86, Aug. 10, 1973) required States to expand the program to every political jurisdiction before July 1, 1974; expanded the program to drug addicts and alcoholics in treatment and rehabilitation centers; established semi-annual allotment adjustments, SSI cash-out, and bi-monthly issuance; introduced statutory complexity in the income definition (by including in-kind payments and providing an accompanying exception); and required the Department to establish temporary eligibility standards for disasters. P.L. 93-347 ( July 12 , 1974) authorized the Department to pay 50 percent of all States' costs for administering the program and established the requirement for efficient and effective administration by the States. 1974 Nationwide Program In accordance with P.L. 93-86, the FSP began operating Nationwide on July 1 , 1974 . (The program was not fully implemented in Puerto Rico until November 1 , 1974 .) Participation for July 1974 was almost 1.4 million. The Food Stamp Act of 1977 Both the outgoing Republican Administration and the new Democratic Administration offered Congress proposed legislation to reform the FSP in 1977. The Republican bill stressed targeting benefits to the neediest, simplifying administration, and tightening controls on the program; the Democratic bill focused on increasing access to those most in need and simplifying and streamlining a complicated and cumbersome process that delayed benefit delivery as well as reducing errors, and curbing abuse. The chief force for the Democratic Administration was Robert Greenstein, Administrator of FNS; in Congress, major players were Senators McGovern , Javits , Humphrey, and Dole and Congressmen Foley and Richmond. Amidst all the themes, the one that became the rallying cry for FSP reform was "EPR" -- eliminate the purchase requirement -- because of the barrier to participation the purchase requirement represented. The bill that became the law (S. 275) did eliminate the purchase requirement. It also:
In addition to EPR, the Food Stamp Act of 1977 included several access provisions:
The integrity provisions of the new program included fraud disqualifications, enhanced Federal funding for States' anti-fraud activities, and financial incentives for low error rates. The House Report for the 1977 legislation points out that the changes in the Food Stamp Program are needed without reference to upcoming welfare reform since "the path to welfare reform is, indeed, rocky...." EPR was implemented January 1 , 1979 . Participation that month increased 1.5 million over the preceding month. Cutbacks of the Early 1980s The large and expensive FSP proved to be a favorite subject of close scrutiny from both the Executive Branch and Congress in the early 1980s. Major legislation in 1981 and 1982 enacted cutbacks including:
Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) began in Reading , Pennsylvania , in 1984 . The Mid- to Late 1980s Recognition of the severe domestic hunger problem in the latter half of the 1980s led to incremental improvements in the FSP in 1985 and 1987 , such as elimination of sales tax on food stamp purchases, reinstitution of categorical eligibility, increased resource limit for most households ($2,000), eligibility for the homeless, and expanded nutrition education. The Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 and the Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act in 1990 foretold the improvements that would be coming. The 1988 and 1990 legislation accomplished the following:
Throughout this era, significant players were principally various committee chairmen: Congressmen Leland, Hall, Foley, Panetta, and de la Garza and Senator Leahy . 1993 Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act By 1993, major changes in food stamp benefits had arrived. The final legislation provided for $2.8 billion in benefit increases over Fiscal Years 1984-1988. Leon Panetta, in his new role as OMB Director, played a major role as did Senator Leahy. Substantive changes included:
Later Participation Milestones In December 1979, participation finally surpassed 20 million. In March 1994, participation hit a new high of 28 million. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996 The mid-1990s was a period of welfare reform. Many states had waivers of the rules for the cash welfare program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) before major welfare reform legislation was enacted in 1996. The Personal Responsibility And Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) removed the entitlement of recipients to AFDC and replaced that with a new block grant to states called Temporary Assistance To Needy Families (TANF). Although the Food Stamp Program was reauthorized in the 1996 Farm Bill, major changes to the program were enacted through PRWORA. Among them were:
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) and the Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Act of 1998 (AREERA) made some changes to these provisions, most significantly:
The fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill included two significant changes to the Food Stamp Program. The legislation increased the excess shelter cap to $340 in fiscal year 2001 and then indexed the cap to changes in the Consumer Price Index for All Consumers each year beginning in fiscal year 2002. The legislation also allowed States to use the vehicle limit they use in a TANF assistance program, if it would be result in a lower attribution of resources for the household. The Farm Bill of 2002 Participation declined throughout the late 1990s, even more so than expected based on the changes in PRWORA and falling unemployment. Program access and simplification of program rules were a major focus of proposed legislation and of major regulations promulgated by the Department. In May 2002, the Food Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 was enacted, including reauthorization of the Food Stamp Program. Major changes to food stamps included:
Food stamp participation began to increase in fiscal year 2001 and has continued to rise through the beginning of fiscal year 2003 . The Department continues to work with States to implement the various provisions of the Farm Bill, through guidance and regulations. STATISTICS
An annual report released by the USDA about the composition of households participating in the Food Stamp Program is identified as the Characteristics Report. The most recent ( 2005 ) can be found on the USDA website.2 CRITICS OF THE PROGRAM Dependency Many analysts see this program as a failure in policy, as although it can be good in emergency situations, its persistence for long periods can perpetuate dependency. Some think that certain food companies who benefit do not provide a healthy diet, which creates larger issues in the long term. Effectiveness of policy It is claimed it would be more effective to tackle some Educational policies, or other policies empowering the low-income population in the long run, than a program of free food. Housing expenditure The lack of Affordable Housing in urban areas means that money that would have been spent on food is spent on housing expenses. Housing is generally considered affordable when it costs 30% or less of total household income; rising housing costs have made this ideal difficult to attain. This is especially true in New York City , where a recent survey shows that more than 28% of city renters are spending more than half their income on rent. Amongst lower income families the percentage is much higher. According to an estimate by the Community Service Society , 65% of New York City families living below the federal poverty line are paying more than half of their income toward rent. The current eligibility criteria attempt to address this, by including a deduction for "excess shelter costs." This applies only to households that spend more than half of their net income on rent. For the purpose of this calculation, a household's net income is obtained by subtracting certain deductions from their gross (before deductions) income. If the household's total expenditures on rent exceed 50% of that net income, then the net income is further reduced by the amount of rent that exceeds 50% of net income. For 2007, this deduction can be no more than $417, except in households that include an elderly or disabled person.http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_recipients/fs_Res_Ben_Elig.htm The adjusted net income, including the deduction for excess shelter costs, is used to determine whether a household is eligible for food stamps. This adjustment has been criticized as insufficient, however. Income maintenance The purpose of the Food Stamp Program as laid out in its implementation was to assist low-income households in obtaining adequate and nutritious diets. According to Rossi, “the program rests on the assumption that households with restricted incomes may skimp on food purchases and live on diets that are inadequate in quantity and quality, or, alternatively skimp on other necessities to maintain an adequate diet”(Rossi, 28). Food stamps, as many like Rossi, MacDonald and Eisinger contend, are not only used for increasing food, but as income maintenance as well. Income Maintenance basically is the money that household would have spent on food that they no longer have to; since households no longer have to spend this money on food, they can spend it on other things. The FSP is meant solely to increase food purchases, not to act as a tool of income maintenance. According to various studies shown by Rossi, because of income maintenance only about $0.17-$0.47 more is being spent on food for every food stamp dollar than was spent prior to individuals receiving food stamps (Rossi, 36). Nutritional improvement Another benefit sometimes attributed to the Food Stamp Program is that it makes nutritious food more readily available. However, according to Rossi the vitamins and minerals added to all foods ensures that food normally available to poor families is more than adequately nutritious. According to the National Food Consumption Survey individuals in food stamp households do not differ significantly from those living in non-recipient households in the nutritional quality of the food eaten. As a result, Rossi argues that this objective is not being met. Feeding the Poor PROPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM Work support The Food Stamps Program is known in public policy circles as a “work support,” meaning it is used primarily by people looking for a job, or employed but not making enough to make ends meet. Because food stamps allow this latter group to maintain their low-wage employment, most experts believe food stamps actually keep people off the welfare rolls. Peer-reviewed research on the "dependency" effect referenced above is non-existent. The available evidence, in particular a University Of Maryland study conducted in 2002, indicates that enrollment in the food stamps program keeps former welfare recipients from sliding back into poverty and re-enrolling in welfare programs. Fraud and abuse Claims of fraud and abuse of the program have likewise proved to be unfounded. In 2005, 98% of food stamp benefits went to eligible households. According to the Government Accountability Office , at last count (2004) only 4.48% of food stamps benefits were found to be overpaid, down by more than a third from six years earlier. Two thirds of all improper payments were found to be the fault of the caseworker, not the individual. Healthy foods Finally, while the evidence is mixed as to the effect of the food stamps program on weight gain, studies conducted by the USDA on the receipts of food stamps purchases have found that program participants are more likely to spend their income on fruits, vegetables and healthy foods than low-income consumers who do not participate in the program. SEE ALSO
REFERENCES
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|