Food stamps are intended for food. When individuals sell their benefits for cash it violates the spirit and intent of the Food Stamp Program as well as the law. This practice, known as trafficking, diverts food stamp benefits away from their purpose. It reduces intended nutritional assistance and undermines public perceptions of the integrity and utility of the program. To combat trafficking, the Food and Nutrition Service conducts undercover investigations of authorized food stores. In addition, the agency has developed powerful new EBT-based administrative tools to identify and sanction traffickers.

This analysis explores patterns of permanent benefit removal in Texas, Arizona, and Wisconsin, three states where EBT is the primary method of benefit distribution, but where there are low percentages of elderly. The findings suggest that a relatively small number of food stamp participants do not access their benefits for extended periods.

The report assesses the existing commercial infrastructure of on-line Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) in the context of multi-state, multi-program EBT. The findings are based on interviews of respondents involved with the EFT commercial infrastructure.

The Maryland demonstration was the first statewide roll-out of an electronic benefit transfer (EBT) system involving multiple programs on a single card. The goal was to confirm that a large- scale, multi-program EBT system is technically feasible and determine whether such a system can achieve cost-neutrality government-wide while maintaining high quality service for recipients. The test involved food stamps plus five cash-benefit programs: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Bonus Child Support for AFDC Recipients, Disability Assistance Loan Program, Non-Public Assistance Child Support, and Public Assistance for Adults. All parts of Maryland, both urban and rural, were converted to EBT.

The objectives of the demonstration were to determine the technological feasibility of offline EBT; whether it would be accepted by stakeholder groups; and whether it would be cost-effective.