This report examines patterns of SNAP benefit redemption in fiscal year 2017 and compares those patterns with findings from two similar studies conducted for fiscal years 2003 and 2009.
As required by federal law, state SNAP agencies verify financial and non-financial information by matching SNAP applicant and participant information to various national and state data sources to ensure they meet the program’s eligibility criteria. Data matching is an important tool for ensuring program integrity and benefit accuracy. However, information on states’ data matching practices and protocols is limited. This study was undertaken to address this knowledge gap.
This study was designed to assess whether the elimination of the eligibility interview at certification and recertification would have adverse effects on client and worker outcomes. FNS awarded grants to two States—Oregon and Utah—to conduct demonstrations in which the eligibility interviews at certification and recertification were completely eliminated. An analysis of the demonstrations that provide estimates of the contributions of eligibility interviews in determining SNAP eligibility and benefits was conducted.
This study examined program outcomes such as procedural denials and application timeliness when applicant interviews were conducted by community-based organizations (CBOs) staff to outcomes when SNAP staff conducted applicant interviews in 4 states - Florida, Michigan, Nevada, and Texas.
This study identifies how spending patterns, such as the rate at which households spend their benefit, changed following the ARRA benefit increase and analyzes how spending patterns differed across household characteristics, time and states.
A fundamental issue in the design of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) is the form benefits should take. Advocates of the current coupon system argue that coupons are a direct and inexpensive way to ensure that food stamp benefits are used to purchase food. Coupon advocates contend that, despite some evidence of fraud and benefit diversion under the current system, food stamps are used largely to purchase food. In addition, they contend that coupons give household food budgets some measure of protection against other demands on limited household resources. Advocates of cashing out the FSP argue that the current system limits the food-purchasing choices of recipients and places a stigma on participation. Moreover, they cite the cumbersome nature and cost of coupon issuance, transaction, and redemption.
A fundamental issue in the design of the Food Stamp Program is the form the benefits take. From the inception of pilot programs in the early 1960s to the contemporary program, the vehicle of choice has been the food stamp coupon, a voucher that can be redeemed for food at authorized retailers. For nearly that same period analyses have considered the relative merits of cash--or, in practice, checks--as an alternative. Advocates of the current coupon system argue that coupons are a direct and inexpensive way to ensure that food stamp benefits are used to purchase food, that the unauthorized use of food stamps is relatively limited despite some evidence of fraud and benefit diversion, and that coupons provide some measure of protection to food budgets from other demands on limited household resources. Advocates of cash benefits argue that the current system limits the purchasing choices of participants; places a stigma on participation; does not prevent the diversion of benefits (as evidenced by the existence of illegal trafficking); and entails excessive costs for coupon production, issuance, transaction, and redemption.