In 2007, USDA introduced a new set of food packages via an Interim Rule based on recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, which were implemented by October 2009. The contents of the food packages were finalized via a Final Rule in 2014. The Final Rule clarified some provisions in the Interim Rule and allowed some additional options and substitutions.
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.
FNS developed the Access, Participation, Eligibility and Certification (APEC) study series, which collects and analyzes data from a nationally representative sample of schools and school food authorities (SFAs) about every 5 years. APEC allows FNS to develop a national estimate of erroneous payment rates and amounts in three key areas: certification error, meal claiming error and aggregation error. FNS recently completed APEC II, which collected data in School Year 2012-2013 and this report summarizes those findings.
This report includes findings from formative research undertaken to help USDA assist child care providers in following the nutrition, physical activity, and electronic media use recommendations outlined in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.
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.