We periodically examine how SNAP households use their monthly EBT benefits, including number of purchase transactions per month, average purchase amount, types of retailers frequented, and rate at which households exhaust their benefits over the month. This study, the fourth in the series, was done to assess monthly EBT redemption patterns during FY 2022 when SNAP EBT benefits were much larger than usual due to pandemic funding. By FY 2022, SNAP households could also use SNAP EBT to purchase groceries from authorized online retailers, so we analyzed benefits redeemed through online purchasing.
We periodically examine SNAP benefit redemption patterns related to the timing, number, and dollar amount of transactions and the rate at which households spend down and exhaust their monthly benefits. These studies also report on the number of transactions made and the share of benefits redeemed at various types of stores.
This collection is for providing SNAP households advance or concurrent notice of state agency action to store unused SNAP benefits offline due to three or more months of account inactivity and for those households to seek reinstatement of benefits prior to permanent expungement. Additionally, this collection is for providing SNAP households advance or concurrent notice prior to the state agency expunging unused SNAP benefits from the household's Electronic Benefit Transfer account due to nine months of account inactivity.
The SNAP E&T pilot projects give Congress, USDA, and states the opportunity to test innovative strategies and approaches that connect low-income households to good paying jobs and thereby reduce their reliance on public assistance.
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.
Trafficking of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits occurs when SNAP recipients sell their benefits for cash to food retailers, often at a discount. Although trafficking does not increase costs to the federal government, it is a diversion of program benefits from their intended purpose of helping low-income families access a nutritious diet. This report, the latest in a series of periodic analyses, provides estimates of the extent of trafficking during the period 2012 through 2014.
As the time for reauthorization of SNAP again approaches, it is useful to take stock of its accomplishments, identify those features that have contributed to its success, and look for new opportunities to strengthen operations to achieve program goals more fully. To that end, this is a summary of past research on program operations and outcomes.
The diets of most Americans fall short of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This exploratory analysis examines dietary patterns of low-income individuals classified as healthy and less healthy eaters based on their score on the Healthy Eating Index (HEI)-2005. The HEI-2005 is a 100-point score that measures how well populations adhere to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
Interest, research, and expenditures on dietary supplements are growing very fast. Americans spent $8.2 billion in 1995 for vitamins, minerals, herbs and botanicals, and sports nutrition products. About half of all Americans reported at least some use of vitamins and minerals in response to recent surveys. The general goal of the study is to examine existing data that bear on a diverse set of pertinent issues.
In the past, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has relied on a series of large surveys to gather and compare information on food expenditures and food consumption among participants and non-participants to better understand the impacts of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) on the diet and nutritional status of program participants. Studies based on survey data, however, have a number of drawbacks, including the time and expense of collecting the survey data, sampling error, response bias, errors in respondent recall, and misinformation about what may have been purchased or consumed.