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.

​This study describes the wage subsidy and work-based learning models that aid in improving employment outcomes, the extent to which these models promote strong connections between government programs and employers, and the implications of previous findings on how to best implement wage subsidy and work-based learning programs within the SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) program.

Section 4022 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 authorized and funded the SNAP employment and training pilots and the evaluation. The four issue briefs present findings drawn from the evaluation of the 10 pilots. 

SNAP state agencies must operate an employment and training (E&T) program for SNAP participants. States most commonly offer the supervised job search or job search training components. To better understand implementation of these components and their effects on participant outcomes, case studies were conducted in three states to examine processes and outcomes of supervised job search, job search training, and integrated job search within a vocational training component.

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 is the second in a series of reviews of effective employment and training (E&T) program components and practices. The study included a review of research focusing on SNAP E&T and other public workforce programs published from 2016 to 2020. Particular attention was given to recent changes to the SNAP E&T program, new referral and retention strategies, and promising work-based learning interventions, like apprenticeships.

The Study of School Food Authority (SFA) Procurement Practices is the first study from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service to comprehensively describe and assess the decision-making process regarding school food procurement practices at the SFA level. The sample for this study was a subset of the 1,679 SFAs that participated in the Child Nutrition Operations Study II (CN-OPS-II), which included a module on SFA procurement practices in school year (SY) 2016–17. Findings are based on the perceptions and experiences of the SFA and they may not reflect actual regulations and policies; this study was not an audit. 

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 — mandated by Section 4022 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 — reviews research on employment and training program components and practices that: (1) assist members of households participating in SNAP to obtain regular employment; and (2) are best integrated with state workforce development systems. 

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.