The purpose of this study is to help FNS better understand how states are implementing the SNAP E&T case management requirement, including how they assess individuals’ needs for services and supports and provide participant reimbursements and other support services. It was also intended to identify promising practices and lessons learned that can be used to support states as they work to provide case management services aligned with their participants’ needs, available resources, and program priorities.
States may establish their own standard utility allowances. The use of SUAs, including heating and cooling SUAs for households with heating and cooling expenses, simplifies the application process for both the applicant and the state agency. The primary objectives of this study were to conduct a review of available data to determine typical costs for internet access to develop a broadband standard utility allowance; and estimate new fiscal year 2022 HCSUA values for each state.
This study examines how the policies that determine benefit levels for the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program compare to current low-income spending patterns by analyzing the expenditures of low-income households across the United States in 2013 and 2014.
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.
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 authorized a pilot to operate in rural Pennsylvania during the summers of 2005 and 2006. The purpose was to test whether lowering the site eligibility threshold from 50 percent to 40 percent would increase the number of children participating in the program.
This report is the final product of a study designed to learn about state Food Stamp Program policy choices and local implementation of these policies after the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The report presents examples of policies and practices that may have affected client service in the FSP in terms of program accessibility, quality of service and availability of employment and training services, particularly for food stamp recipients that do not receive cash assistance (non-TANF food stamp households).
This report responds to PL 105-379, which mandated the USDA examine options for the design, development, implementation and operation of a national database to track participation in federal means-tested public assistance programs.
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.