This report represents the final evaluation of 26 research demonstration projects authorized under PL 101-264, entitled the "Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act" of 1990.
To explore the suitability of off-line electronic benefits transfer (EBT) as an alternative to paper issuance and on-line EBT issuance systems, USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service has supported the Ohio Department of Human Services in expanding off-line EBT issuance to all Food Stamp Program recipients in the state. A pilot project in Dayton, Ohio and a demonstration of a combined WIC-EBT off-line system in Wyoming have clearly established the technical feasibility of off-line EBT for FSP benefit issuance.
This report analyzes the findings from North Carolina’s Vehicle Exclusion Limit Demonstration, which excluded one vehicle per household, regardless of value, from the Food Stamp Program’s countable asset limit. Under current law, for most families, only the first $4,650 of the first vehicle’s value is excluded. Some have argued that because a reliable vehicle is often required to find and hold a job, the entire value of the first vehicle should be excluded.
From October 1, 1993 to September 30, 1996, the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture sponsored demonstration projects in Georgia, Hawaii, Missouri, South Dakota, and Texas to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of operating the Food Stamp Employment and Training (E&T) program under the same legislative and regulatory terms as the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients. Common objectives of the demonstrations were to increase compliance with E&T participation requirements among mandatory work registrants, target services to individuals most at risk of long-term dependency and those most likely to benefit from E&T services, improve participant outcomes, and improve the cost efficiency of welfare to work services.
This study evaluates the Retailer Compliance Management Demonstrations in EBT-ready States. In these demonstrations, the State food stamp agencies in New Mexico (NM) and South Carolina (SC) assumed responsibility for managing the participation of food retailers in the FSP, a task previously managed exclusively by the federal government.
The report is based on a telephone survey of all states with SLEB agreements and case studies of 6 states with noteworthy levels of SLEB agreement-generated activity.
This study was the first in a series of studies that estimated the extent of retailer-level SNAP benefit trafficking. The major findings included large stores having only half the store violation rate that smaller stores had. Additionally, the overall benefit trafficking rate was 13.0% as compared to 1.3% in the latest trafficking rate study.
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.
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.