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.

FNS has historically estimated the participation rate of SNAP by using Census data and samples of SNAP administrative data, but modeling SNAP eligibility using survey data has a number of challenges. In response, FNS, the Economic Research Service, and the Census Bureau sought potential solutions to these issues by linking Census survey data with monthly administrative records at the person level.

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.

The information in this second year report (school year 2012-13), the first year new lunch standards were implemented, will provide data for observing the improvements resulting from the implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. Data was collected from a survey of all state child nutrition directors and a nationally representative sample of school food authorities.

To ensure program integrity, school districts must sample household applications certified for free or reduced-price meals, contact the households, and verify eligibility. This process (known as household verification) can be burdensome for both school officials and households. Direct verification uses information from certain other means-tested programs to verify eligibility without contacting applicants. Potential benefits include: less burden for households, less work for school officials, and fewer students with school meal benefits terminated because of nonresponse to verification requests.

The Child and Adult Care Food Program subsidizes nutritious meals and snacks served to participants in child care nationwide, providing different levels or “tiers” of meal reimbursement based on the income level of participating children, providers, and nearby geographic areas. Policymakers have long been concerned that programs such as CACFP are not as accessible to eligible children in rural areas as in urban areas.

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. 

The NSLP offers free and reduced-price school meals to students from eligible households. Households with incomes at or below 130 percent of poverty are eligible for free meals, and households with incomes between 131 percent and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduced-price meals. Traditionally, to receive these benefits, households had to complete and submit application forms to schools or be directly certified. Direct certification, on the other hand, is a method of eligibility determination that does not require families to complete school meal applications. Instead, school officials use documentation from the local or state welfare agency that indicates that a household participates in AFDC or food stamps as the basis for certifying students for free school meals.

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.

In this report, data from the NFSPS are used to address three important areas of interest to FNS that relate to the quality of FSP customer service: (1) the monetary and nonmonetary costs of participating, (2) client satisfaction with services provided, and (3) the accessibility of the FSP to eligible households.