Some student reflections on SNAP

  SNAP has always been something that’s controversial, in my mind.  Growing up I would hear and see people talking about others being poor in the grocery line, not knowing the context or implications that those words may have.  To the people it was directed it, they would get uncomfortable—which of course I understood at the time—but the real world implications of this happening everywhere is quite telling. 

Now the government provides EBT cards that look like credit or debit cards to help with some of the social stigma surrounding SNAP, allowing users to buy groceries without the judgment that they used to experience.  It’s not just the fact that these judgments happened, it’s the fact that people can look down on others for being poor or experiencing temporary hardships, which we all have in life.  I don’t understand why we need to constantly judge others for their situations; instead we should be kind and offer help where needed.

No, this doesn’t mean going up to every SNAP family and asking if they need help.  That would be silly and add to some of the social stigma; instead, gaining real world experience by volunteering at shelters or local programs that help the poor.  Understanding where these people are coming from, and recognizing that not everyone is the same.  Not everyone is abusing the system and driving Mercedes home.  There are people out there trying to get by and to be judged for that is immoral, in my mind.

Hopefully this paper isn’t controversial for those currently in Social Work or going through school to become one.  I don’t want to confuse anyone reading this, however—people can judge others for anything, but to vocalize it and put others down is wrong.  Therapists can judge clients, but they should never vocalize those judgments in a negative way.  

Emotions aside and judgment aside, I want to move towards the benefits and downfalls of SNAP in general.  The program is wonderful, but it has shortcomings as do most things that are government ran (some would argue all things).  One of those things is not accounting for specific circumstances per family.  What I mean by that is certain areas have higher costs of living than others.  So if a family lives in Washington DC, it’s probably going to be more expensive than a family that lives in Memphis, TN.  The government should focus more on cost of living areas rather than a static number based on how big a family is.

One of the great things about SNAP is how it allows families food security while letting them spend money that would have otherwise gone towards food to go to other important things, like rent or utility payments.  Having food security makes a world of difference when you’ve experience insecurity yourself.  It helps with depression; health outcomes; academic outcomes; life expectancy.  All of these things because of one single government program.

I have a friend that uses the program and she benefits tremendously because of it in her life.  She would say all the time that she wishes she didn’t have to always eat ramen noodles because she’s worried about the long term health effects of doing so.  When you get older, thinks like nutrition start to  matter a whole lot more than to a 19 year old collect student in a dorm room forced to eat the same thing for a couple of semesters.

Nutrition is very important.  Unfortunately, SNAP doesn’t necessarily accommodate the highest efficacy in nutritional returns, but some would say its good enough.  I’m in a similar mindset—as long as some nutritional goals are being met and ramen noodles aren’t being served for breakfast, lunch and dinner everyday, then clearly it’s a net benefit to be in the program.

An academic journal talking about poverty in America and how SNAP helps alleviate it had this to say: “We found an average decline of 4.4 percent in the prevalence of poverty due to SNAP benefits, while the average decline in the depth and severity of poverty was 10.3 and 13.2 percent, respectively. SNAP benefits had a particularly strong effect on child poverty, reducing its depth by an average of 15.5 percent and its severity by an average of 21.3 percent from 2000 to 2009.”

References:

Smith, J. A., & Doe, R. B. (2017). Alleviating poverty in the United States: The critical role of SNAP benefits. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/262233/files/17742_err132_1_.pdf 

You mentioned that Not everyone is abusing the system and driving Mercedes home.  That is an important observation, as it seems to me that many people quickly raise the issue of cheaters who use SNAP benefits because they falsely report low incomes, or who have low incomes, but have hidden wealth or support. I think anyone who deals with the general public soon realizes that a small fraction of people (probably fewer than 5%) are sort of dishonest, slimy, predatory, or psychopathic.  In any system involving lots of people, there are going to be a fraction of people who cheat, steal, lie, and justify this behavior to themselves. However, the sort of cheating where people with hidden wealth or unreported incomes use SNAP must be extremely low (estimates from 2018 suggested a 0.14% fraud rate where recipients were investigated and found guilty of fraud.  If that is 20% of all recipient fraud, the actual level of fraud might be as high as 0.7%.  Fraud committed by retailers trafficking SNAP benefits is estimated at about 1%). 

Your citation from the 2017 article is also encouraging, as it suggests that SNAP makes a significant reduction in experienced (post-tax / post-benefit) poverty. 
I wonder sometimes whether it might be better to just give poor people cash rather than SNAP.  SNAP benefits can only be used to purchase uncooked food (although there are grocery stores that will cook some raw foods for you as a service, for no fee), and so while SNAP benefits help make malnourishment and starvation exceedingly rare in our society, the problems of housing insecurity or other problems of poverty cannot be addressed so much with SNAP, aside from the point you make that every dollar in SNAP is a dollar less the family needs to spend on food, giving the household more money to use for other necessities.

I'm a bit concerned about refusing to allow households to spend SNAP benefits on sweetened drinks, candy, or other morally suspect foods.  A goal of a welfare safety net is to give freedom and autonomy to persons who are suffering a period of low income, either because of an economic hardship they are temporarily passing through, or some more permanent problem, often related to physical or mental health conditions or disabilities. Restricting what people purchase with SNAP benefits will be justified by health concerns, which is why a person is not allowed to purchase cigarettes or alcohol with SNAP benefits, but at some point the restrictions on SNAP use cross from nutrition and science to moral or religious reasons, and I’m wary of that.  For example, I suspect that consuming most meat or animal-derived food products available in supermarkets is immoral, since much of that meat is generated through industrial livestock systems or industrialized marine harvesting, and so if we are going to forbid the consumption of alcohol or soda pop, why not also ban the purchase of animal-protein products and restrict SNAP users to vegetarian diets?  What if some persons thinks that only organic food is moral or healthy, and we start forcing SNAP to be used only for organic products?  This seems like a Reductio ad absurdum argument, but I think the assumption that we should be strict in limiting what welfare recipients do with the aid we give them is one that we must treat with caution and concern, if we highly value individual liberty and dignity.

The earlier part of your reaction where you think about how people are eager to judge others reminds me of some psychological experiments that show humans tend to be very good at detecting cheating and unfair exchanges where someone else gets an advantage.  Helping people overcome that innate tendency toward distrust, cynicism, paranoia, and judgmental prejudices is certainly a huge task we have in advancing civilization and improving society. I wish people were better at recognizing the actual levels of threat from cheating and deceit. 

As for government programs being inherently inferior.  Of course they are.  In an ideal or perfect society, people would be so honest, charitable, fair, and open-hearted that we would not need a public welfare system, nor police, courts, nor jails.  Taxes would be very low, paying mainly for infrastructural improvements and pooling risk.  Given the scope of the problems we face, given the actual material (humans and their human natures) we are dealing with, we must settle for government and coercive charity through social welfare systems, at least for the time being. I look forward to the utopian anarchy our remote descendants may someday enjoy when people are better than they are now.  

A student speaks in favor of SNAP benefits

For this reflection paper, I would like to write about Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). From what I can recall, SNAP is a program that gives temporary money to households and individuals for food. Individuals with dependents and/or disabilities get longer periods of time for them to use SNAP. If people do not have dependents or a disability, they have to be working to be considered for SNAP benefits. This program is regulated in the Food Bill, and executed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

I think that more money should be given to this program as it is greatly essential for those trying to get out of poverty, meaning that each household/individual would get more SNAP money each month. People receiving these benefits often do not have enough money to feed themselves or their families by the end of the month, even if they try to budget the benefits.

Especially now with the inflation on food in the country. I believe that the program did increase its budget because of inflation, but that still kept the people in the program struggling for 3 meals a day.

I am glad that this program allows struggling people to receive quality foods as well, such as from farmer’s markets and whole foods markets. However, the amount of these locations that accept EBT cards are limited. I wish that more or all of these locations would be encouraged to accept SNAP. Owners of these shops would still be paid for their products, and these families would get the quality food that they required to improve their lives. Similarly, not all locally and/or family owned restaurants/markets accept SNAP either, and if the Food Bill had more easy programming for these restaurants and shops to transition into also accepting EBT, that would benefit the local economies and the people overall.

I know many individuals who are using SNAP or who have used SNAP in the past to meet their dietary needs. They often had to go through hoops to receive their EBT cards and the benefits that they needed as some of them had difficulty proving their disability. I believe that this process humiliates those that desperately need this assistance. I understand that those working behind the scenes and with the loads of paperwork are likely to be overburdened and

behind on the processes behind SNAP. So I suggest a more streamlined process for the SNAP application should be created. This way, those working behind the scenes have less loads of work to take on, and it would be easier for the people who require SNAP to obtain the assistance they need.

The numbers of households and persons benefiting from SNAP benefits had been relatively consistent (around 10 million households and 20-25 million persons between 1980 and 2008) during most of my life, but the Great Recession sent the number of households using SNAP up to over 20 million, and the number of persons benefiting from SNAP has been above 40 million. SNAP was a program that always ha da cost around $30 to $50 billion, but then during the Great Recession the SNAP program went up to about $100 billion for a few years, and it went up to nearly $120 billion during the COVID recession in 2020-21.  In FY 2022, 41.2 million persons in 21.6 million households were using SNAP each month. The most recent information I could find (for August 2024) showed 42.2 million persons in 22.5 million households receiving benefits worth $8.053 billion ($96.6 billion per year). Average benefits were $211.52 per person in 2023.  Over a third (37%) of those receiving SNAP receive the minimum benefit, 26% of all SNAP recipient households have earned income, and among SNAP-receiving households with children, 50% have earned income (Key Statistics, 2024).  Generally, most households earning less than 130% of the poverty threshold qualify for SNAP benefits. The exception are the non-disabled adults without children, who can receive only three months of SNAP benefits, but if they are in job training or working at least 20 hours per week, they can continue receiving SNAP benefits. 

For decades, people had pointed out that SNAP benefits were set at a low level that would not cover actual food expenses.  The food budget used to set maximum SNAP benefits was outdated. However, starting in 2021, benefit levels were increased to match more accurately the actual costs of eating nutritious food.  As a result, if you look at the costs of the program, they have dramatically increased in the past couple years, and will likely remain about $100 billion per year (after including the cost of administering the program).

One thing that interests me is how real (inflation-adjusted) incomes for persons at the 10th, 20th, and 30th percentile have gone up (according to the 2023 income report from the Census Bureau that came out in September of of 2024). Unemployment is low, and incomes are rising faster than inflation even for low-income earning households, and yet, the percentage of the population receiving SNAP (at 130% of poverty or lower) is remaining fairly steady, or even slightly increasing. This suggests to me that much of the improvement in this “good economy” for low-income households has meant going from terrible low-paying jobs to bad low-paying jobs, or from no jobs to bad low-paying jobs (even a bad low-paying job is an improvement over no job in terms of income).  Ideally, a booming economy would mean that persons who work full-time and still don’t earn enough to get over 130% of poverty (still qualify for SNAP) would become rare. 

Let’s think about what the family close to that 130%-of-poverty margin might experience. Imagine a family with two young children and one adult staying home to care for the children while the other adult works full-time in one job, 37.5 paid-hours per week with 9 unpaid holidays and 10 paid days off each year (sick leave and vacation), so essentially 240 work days each year and 1,800 hours worked each year.  Families with 4 persons have a poverty threshold of $31,200, and 130% of that is $40,560, which is what about what a person earns working for $22.50 for 1,800 hours per year (they would earn $40,500).  With two children and an income of $40,500, the family would have $4,000 in refundable tax credits for the children, and an EITC of $3,992. Thus, after payroll withholding for Social Security and Medicare and the benefits of EITC and Child Tax Credits, the income before state and federal income taxes would be $45,394, and the household (in Illinois) would probably qualify for about $400 extra SNAP money for help with groceries (assuming about $1,200 for rent and no significant assets over $5,000 in value).  For Federal income taxes, there would be something like a $32K standard deduction, leaving $4,500 of taxable income to pay 10% (so, total tax bill is about $450, and the EITC would actually only get a payback of $3544, approximately). If they lived in Illinois, they would have about $360 in state income tax, but the state of Illinois earned income tax credit would erase most of that, leaving them with possibly $160 in state income taxes to pay.  

So, after taxes and EITC and Child Tax Credits and Social Security and Medicare withholding, we’re looking at $3,732 earned income and $400 per month in SNAP benefits, and if the children were in school, they would qualify for free lunches (also, like SNAP, a 130% of poverty threshold).  I’ve already said their rent is $1,200, so they have $2532 each month for other expenses, and as their income is under 133% of poverty, they would be covered by Medicaid (if they lived in Illinois or any of the other states that has expanded Medicaid up to 133% of poverty). Insurance on two cars: $120, maintenance and repairs and gas for two cars over a year would average about $160 per month. Utilities in their apartment might average $200 per month (more in winter and summer, less in late spring and early autumn), and their internet service, cell phone service, and cost of their phones might run about $130 per month. Let’s guess one car is paid for, and the other car has a loan that they are paying off with $400 per month payments.  Let’s say also that one of them is paying off college student loans, about $400 per month.  That covers basics of transportation and utilities and such, and leaves them $1,522 per month.  Typically, adults might spend about $450 per month on food, I’ll suggest a monthly food budget for this family of about $1,300.  SNAP benefits cover $400, and $900 comes from their income, leaving them about $622 for all other expenditures. Other expenditures would include durable goods like computers and appliances and clothing and shoes and furniture, nondurable goods like toilet paper and soap, entertainment other than the internet, services like child care, out-of-pocket medical care, and putting aside money for savings.  The $1,200 monthly rent I estimated is about right for a two-bedroom apartment in Sangamon County (fair market rent for a two-bedroom, which is the 40th percentile, is $1,132). In Chicago, the two-bedroom apartment cost is going to be closer to $1,800, which is $600 more than what they would pay in Springfield, and leave them with about $22 for everything else after covering food, housing, utilities, transportation, and debt serving on college loans and car loans. The higher rent would increase their SNAP benefit, but still, they would be in a tight squeeze.

The result of this examination of a hypothetical family is to determine that at just under 130% of poverty, a household with one full-time adult earning $22.50 per hour and a stay-at-home partner and two children can just about make ends meet, but only because they are helped by about $400 per month in SNAP, plus the benefits of the child tax credits, Earned Income Tax Credits, and Medicaid, as well as free school lunches.  But them in a place like Chicago where they would pay $600 more each month for rent, and they can’t make it.  They seriously must cut down on food (very rarely eat out, or only eat the least expensive sort of food you can get when eating out), get by with just one car, and have a very small budget for clothing, appliances, and probably but nothing in savings each month. For such a family, the $400 per month in SNAP benefits and the free school lunches (if their children are in school) make a huge difference, because their income is close to the minimum they need to live a dignified and autonomous life. If the stay-at-home parent takes a job, child care expenses will go up substantially, as will the costs of transportation, and the increased income will diminish the EITC and get the family off Medicaid and on to the subsidized health care exchanges to find a subsidized health care plan for their family. If the second adult income is over about $800 per month, the family would lose the $400 in SNAP benefits.

Actually, for the adult earning “a little bit” by working very part time, bringing in another $1000 per month, is going to be paying about $226 of that $1,000 in payroll and income taxes, another $500 in lost SNAP and Medicaid benefits and decreasing EITC benefits, and end up with only about $274 more in spending money, which might be lost if they need to pay more for day care or child care and mass transit or use of a second car while off at their job earning that $1,000.  This shows that for a family with one income-earner at about 130% of poverty (one adult earning $22.50 working full-time year-round), it’s probably not economically viable for the second adult in the household to work part-time, as the loss of benefits and increased taxes cancel out most of the higher gross pre-tax household income. 

Daniel Blake and Getting Benefits

 After watching I, Daniel Blake in this class earlier in the semester I felt moved to take a deeper look into the welfare system. I became curious about some of the most typical reasons why people are unable to secure benefits when they need them. Some reasons that I found and will explain in this essay are that welfare services are too difficult to enroll for, some programs have biases against married couples, and will give them less aid than singles, or people who genuinely need aid but do not qualify for it. 

The social welfare system is meant to help those with financial instability, get them back on track and self-sufficient again. Still, it isn’t easy to receive aid if the person in need cannot figure out how to apply for benefits. Many who report struggling with their applications cite applying for food stamps, or SNAP benefits, as one of the most stressful because of the expensive fines and jail time associated with reporting false information on the form. Some Latina or Hispanic people also report difficulties with applying for aid, possibly due to language barrier issues or because they have to deal with different eligibility requirements as non-citizens. In the film I, Daniel Blake we see Daniel struggle to apply for his aid because he does not have easy access to a computer nor does he know how to use one very well. I am sure that there are many senior citizens like Daniel who also struggle to apply for their benefits because they cannot use a computer well either. 

People who are elderly, non-English speaking, and technologically inept are not the only ones who feel excluded from the welfare system. One complaint that I saw repeated throughout my research is that many couples would like to get married but chose not to because they want to maintain the benefits provided to them by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF. The specific policy that keeps most couples from tying the knot is the marriage promotion policy, which was created to promote marriage and strong families. If someone is receiving welfare benefits and then decides they want to marry someone who has a higher income than them, even if that “higher income” is still incredibly low, the person receiving aid will lose some—if not all—assistance they previously received. This leads to many couples living at or around the poverty line choosing to cohabitate unmarried instead of making it official. The policy is meant to encourage a lack of dependence on welfare for families, but it ultimately backfired. 

Like married couples, some people need benefits but do not receive them because they are not eligible. In the case of SNAP benefits, whether or not someone is eligible is typically based on their gross monthly income, net income, and assets being worth under a certain threshold. Some groups are never eligible for SNAP benefits regardless of their income or assets. Some of these people would include people who are currently on strike, undocumented immigrants, some college students who are taking slightly too many hours to be considered part-time, and in certain states people with drug-related felony convictions. While this is not always the case, many of these people are groups that are prone to poverty or financial struggles and would benefit greatly from the aid provided by SNAP. 

This was just a very brief overview of some of the obstacles that stand in the way of people receiving what could be life-saving services ultimately. I think it is important to note that while researching for this paper it was much easier to find information about reasons why it is more difficult to get off welfare than it is to get on. The system is inaccessible to some and hard to get approved for initially but it seems that it is not designed to be easy to quit either. The system typically gives people enough to get by but not enough to flourish. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/01/25/welfare-benefits-low-income-struggle-for-access/11069891002/Links to an external site. 

https://www.cato.org/publications/welfare-reformLinks to an external site. 

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/50591/311349-Getting-On-Staying-On-and-Getting-Off-Welfare.PDFLinks to an external site. 

https://digitalcommons.law.udc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=udclrLinks to an external site. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559763/Links to an external site. 

https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits#:~:text=Some%20categories%20of%20people%20are,certain%20people%20with%20drug%2DrelatedLinks to an external site. 

That's a good collection of sources.  Because people at low incomes must have consumption levels that are significantly higher than their earned incomes, but persons with middle and high incomes must pay taxes so that their net consumption is significantly below their earned income (I’ll check my taxes, but last year our estimated total contributions to local, state, and federal governments was about 30% of our income), there is an income range (probably from about $30,000 to $50,000 where loss of benefits more-or-less matches increases in earned income so that there are very slight increases in consumption for increases in earned incomes. This is somewhat a mathematical necessity, but the ways income increases create benefit decreases ought to be structured so that you never have loss of benefits that exceed 66¢ for every $1 earned.

I think it's pretty easy to get off Medicaid.  Doesn't Medicaid send recipients a letter asking for proof that someone still qualifies, and if you don't respond with evidence of your low income within a certain time, you lose your Medicaid benefits?  That is how it used to work.  Other benefits may be more difficult to get off. 

Student opposes drug testing of SNAP beneficiaries

SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), also called food stamps, is for low income people and families who cannot afford their food. Without this program, millions of people in the United States would go hungry. The United States Department of Agriculture provides SNAP, and it works by giving people a certain amount of money each month that can only use on food. It is put onto a card similar to a debit card. People get a certain amount depending on how many people are in their household, how much money they make, and how much their rent and utilities are. It is a great program for helping end hunger in the United States. 

One problem we face with SNAP is that Republicans and the Trump Administration are trying to make it so certain states are allowed to drug test food stamp recipients. The wrong-headed ideal of this policy proposal is that people receiving food stamps must be forced to go through drug testing, and without drug testing they will not be able to receive food stamp benefits. This is wrong in many ways. At the surface level, it may seem like a good idea that drug addicts cannot get food stamps, but what about their children? Should children of parents who have used drugs starve and suffer because of their parents’ illicit drug use? It really is not fair at all. I don’t, and I hope most people do not want children going hungry because their parents struggle with addiction, and even if someone does not have any children and they are addicts, do they deserve to starve? I have a very strong opinion that no one should starve, no matter what. Murderers and rapists in prison don’t starve, but they are trying to make someone with a drug addiction starve when they are not harming others, just themselves. 

Another reason why it is a bad idea to drug test food stamp recipients is because of how costly it is. Seven states have already tried this, but on TANF instead of food stamps (TANF is a different welfare program that gives cash grants to some poor families) and they have already spent one million dollars on these drug tests, and they will have to spend millions more as the years go by, but it has been shown that applicants who have been drug tested have tested positive at a lower rate than the general population. Drug testing does not work to help people get treatment for their addictions. Instead of spending this much money on drug testing applicants of welfare programs, we ought to be implementing better programs to help the poor move out of poverty, and help persons with substance use issues move toward sobriety. 

Hunger in the United States is a real problem, and forcing applicants to be drug tested will not help solve the problem. More people will starve. More people will steal, so they will be able to survive. Instead of spending millions of dollars to drug test food stamp recipients, we could increase the amount of benefits hungry persons receive because a majority of people who get food stamps do not get enough to last them the whole month. They do okay for the first couple weeks, but then they end up having to go to the food pantry because they run out of food. 

The SNAP program does need to be changed, but forcing people to be drug tested has more negative consequences than positive ones. People will also be losing a sense of self determination and autonomy over their own lives, because they already have to jump through many hoops just to get help from the government, but adding drug tests as something they have to do will just make them more dependent and less self-sufficient. 

I think the most important thing is that everyone gets to have the food that they need. Family members should not hurt because they have a parent or sibling who cannot stay clean. It is not fair to either of them, and there are other programs that we should have to help people who struggle with addiction. Not giving people food is not going to magically make them stay off drugs. 

I'd like to mention a few facts here to help support your editorial. 

In the first part of 2018, the maximum SNAP benefits for families in Illinois who live with no income are as follows:
single individuals: $192 per month;
single parents with one child or two-adult households: $352;
household with three persons: $504;
household with four persons: $640;
household with five persons: $760.

According to the USDA’s March 2018 food plans:
For a thrifty food budget, a family of two adults aged 19-50 years old need $382 per month; and for a family of four with two adults and two children aged 6-8 and 9-11 years old, the monthly food budget needed is $639.  

For the low cost plan, the amount needed for the two-adult household is $490, and for the family of four with two children and two adults, the amount needed for a month is $841.

For the moderate-cost plan, the amount for the two-adult household: $583.  For the four-person household: $1048.

In 2014, when there were about 120 million American households, total spending per month on food in and outside of home was about $1.15 billion, or approximately $960 per month per household (and the average American household has about 2.5 persons).  

Clearly, the SNAP benefits are not allowing poor persons to receive such lavish benefits that they can live with food consumption that matches typical American diets.  In fact, the SNAP benefits provide less than 40% of the resources that would allow a poor household without income to consume food at a level that matches the American average.  

SNAP benefits aren’t generous.  SNAP benefits do, however, combat hunger.  SNAP benefits reduce the number of Americans living in extreme poverty (looking at consumption levels to define poverty) by about half. 

SNAP and College Students

I began by reviewing the article entitled “Rethinking College Students and SNAP” by Tom Allison, found on the list of current events for this class.  This title really drew me in because people do not understand how difficult college can be when dealing with your own adult life outside of school.  Most young adults are trying to get away from parents and learn to become their own responsible self, but college can be both a learning experience and, also a stress in lives of students everywhere.  You have no time for a steady routine like in high school.  You are trying to work when not at school, sucking up all your hours of daylight, leaving your homework time to interfere with your sleep schedule.  Depending on the major and the coursework, you may spend more time at school than others, leaving you to only be able to work a part time minimum wage job.  To help pay for groceries, many college students turn to SNAP.

This article focuses on the financial deficits in many college students’ lives and the problems they have affording enough food for themselves.  At Spelman College and Morehouse College, students held a hunger strike to change the school policy banning the sharing of any unused meal swipes with another student.  This lasted two weeks before the schools announced a plan to help students who cannot afford proper nutrition for themselves.  The article discusses that nearly 20% of college students are eligible for SNAP, but only 3% of students actually use it.  Students do not seek help for food often because of embarrassment and humiliation, and so many students go hungry because of this.  The article mentioned that these factors can lead to bad grades and even dropping out of school entirely.   The author goes over the two problems with SNAP and college students, which are the application process and the eligibility standards. In my opinion, I believe the largest barrier of college students gaining SNAP benefits is that they must work at least 20 hours a week.  College students sometimes have coursework that will take up nearly every hour of their free time outside of class; taking 20 hours of that week is a large chuck of time for completing necessary assignments.  

I find a great deal of understanding from this article, because I think I was in this position my first two years of college.  Trying to go to school five days a week, do the assigned coursework, study for quizzes and exams, and work part time, was extremely stressful and hard on me.  I was living on my own and scared to ask my parents for help.  I wanted to be able to prove to them that I was able to do this on my own without any help, which I think a lot of college students can relate to.  There were periods where I was eating ramen noodles and peanut butter sandwiches for lunch and dinner almost every day.  I would always hear the typical college stereotype that “college students are broke” and I just thought this was a normal part of the college experience.  

I am glad that UIS Volunteer Services (I think) hands out free food to students in need, but campuses everywhere need to have groups like this.  We need nationwide knowledge of the nutritional deficits that college students face and find a way to fix this gap.  Changing eligibility requirements as mentioned in the article is a major obstacle that would be crossed by waiving the hours worked each week for students and supplement their class hours instead.  

Providing SNAP benefits on more generous terms with more accessible eligibility standards would be an easy way to help pay for college education. One of the many nice things about SNAP (speaking a a food producer—I am sometimes a farmer in the summer when not on my 9-month contract as a professor with the university) is the fact that it stimulates the economy by increasing demand for good food products (I can sell more peaches and apples and berries if poor people and college students get SNAP benefits allowing them to purchase my produce).  SNAP and other food benefits are really just another way to subsidize grocery stores, farmers, and industrial food corporations.  We get all the money eventually.  Since just handing money to food producers violates some people’s sense of fairness (we tend to not be poor, and yet there are many very large subsidies for some very wealthy agribusiness corporations), why not give us the money indirectly by giving it to college students, impoverished families with children, and persons who would otherwise be embarrassing us with their gauche tendency of getting sick with malnutrition or starvation in this rich civilization we have built? 

College students are a special population to consider.  Persons who succeed in college tend, on average, to make tens of thousands of dollars more than they would if thy merely took some college, finished an associate degree only, or completed their education with a GED or high school degree.

The 2017 report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics tells us:
Median usual weekly earnings of a college graduate: $1,173
Median usual weekly etc. of a person with an associate degree: $836
Median usual etc. of a person with some college and no degree: $774
Median etc. of a person with a high school degree or GED: $712.

So, if we have a policy that costs us, say, $5,000 per college student, and 10% of those students who receive this $5,000 in SNAP benefits complete college because of the SNAP benefits, because with those benefits, they would have given up and settled for “some college” you can see that we're raising the incomes of 10% of the recipients by about $400 per week, or approximately $20,000 per year after they graduate. The government may only directly recover $5,000 of that $20,000 through income taxes and payroll deductions, but there are multiplier effects as well, as the increased earnings of a higher educated population contribute to overall economic prosperity, and if colleges and universities are doing their work right, we should also have many benefits in terms of happier people, better citizens, more creativity, and wiser voters from the increase in educated persons. 

The next question is, does the increase in tax revenue and economic flourishing from that 10% that made it through college because they received $5000 in SNAP benefits pay for 100% of the cost of providing those SNAP benefits to all the poor college students, including the 90% who would have somehow found a way to graduate without the SNAP support?

It depends upon how long people work, I guess.  Let us do a thought experiment.  Assume the SNAP benefits are given to 100 poor college students, at a cost of $1,250 per year for four years, each student is getting $5000 in benefits over four years.  So, over the course of four years while those 100 students are in college, the program costs $500,000.  We imagine that 90 of those students would have graduated anyway, even without SNAP, so the benefit for society is that those students were able to study on full stomachs and not work so many long hours, and perhaps they learned more as a result, or had less emotional stresses, but let us assume we did not increase their earnings.  Only for 10 of those 100 students did the SNAP benefits make the difference, allowing them to graduate and earn $70,000 per year on average over a 30-year post-college-degree working life rather than the $50,000 per year they would have earned on average over a 30-year post-college-drop-out working life.

Let us say that those students earning an extra $20,000 each year pay 14% of that in payroll taxes and 11% of it in federal income taxes, so that we get back 25% of the $20,000 each year, on average.  That's $5,000 per year.  Let us also say that without a college degree, each of those students would have needed about $10,000 in benefits for four years of poverty or near-poverty in their lives when they would have qualified for Medicaid or SNAP or the EITC or something like that, but by getting them a college education, we prevented that.   So, we saved $400,000 in benefits we didn't have to pay out, and we gained $1,500,000 in increased tax revenue (ignoring entirely the multiplier effect).  So, based on those assumptions, we get back $1.9 million in reduced benefits paid out and increased tax revenues.  But, we gave $5,000 to 100 students, so the program cost us $0.5 million.  So, was it worth it?

Wow, it looks like a SNAP benefit to college students that costs us $1,250 per year in SNAP benefits for the students and induces 10% of beneficiaries to graduate from college when they would otherwise drop out with “some college” as their highest attainment is going to reap big returns, approximately $3 to $4 long-term dollars for ever $1 spent on the program.   I wonder if the 10% figure is accurate as an estimate of the facilitation of college degree completion we might get by just offering about $100 per month in SNAP benefits to all poor college students. Anyway, it looks like a good policy in terms of cost effectiveness if the assumption of producing about a 10% increase in graduation rates among poor students holds true.  

Programs don't have to be cost-effective.  Even if the program lost money in the long run, we could justify it on moral grounds in terms of giving people a chance to finish college even if they are poor, so that we can have a society based on meritocracy where talented and hard working persons from poor families have a chance to complete college and compete against the many middle-class and wealthy college students for whom food at college is not an issue.

Student believes policy to change SNAP to food delivery program is wrong-headed.

Trump has recently suggested that instead of giving SNAP recipients more cash benefits we should instead cut the amount of food stamps they receive in half and give them a box of food each month. This would provide food for the poor and hungry people along with making it cheaper for the government, but it is not a good idea.

First off, as it stands right now SNAP only provides the equivalent of about $1.45 per meal per person, that means that each person receives only $4.32 to eat each day. For many Americans that is not enough to be able to eat three meals a day, let alone three healthy meals. Buying a full meal for $1.45 that is not fast food is nearly impossible in America. This means that those who receive SNAP are more times than not skipping meals every single day, or are having to skip full days because of this problem. This will cause a lot of health problems as well as other problems such as being able to function properly during the day. If a person does not eat much they will not be able to focus in school or work as well as they would with a full stomach. This loss of productivity may cost the adult their job if they have one, and if they don’t, it may make their motivation to look for one go down. If anything, the government should provide these people with more money so they can sustain healthier, more enjoyable lives. Providing them with more money for food could possible keep their medical bills lower later on, which would save the government more money on Medicaid. It is cheaper to prevent a problem than to treat one later on. Also with more food security they are more likely to become better members of community, because they would be happier, healthier, and more motivated since they are more stable in life. 

The food box would take away family’s rights to self-determination, their rights to choose what food they want. They may feel more like animals being fed than humans since they would not be allowed to choose their own food which is likely to make them more depressed. Along with that the food they would provide in these boxes would not be healthy food at all. The boxes would contain mostly starches because they last the longest which could make these poor people also become obese and have more medical problems in the future along with lowering their self-worth. 

Other problems may be in how they would receive the box. Many poor individuals do not have reliable transportation to go pick up the box every month. If the boxes were delivered what would happen when the poor person moves because they are often moving to stay with different friends and family members of theirs often. If they have their own living space they are at high risk of being evicted since they do not have much money. How would the homeless receive their boxes every month and where would they store all of that food if they are living on the side of the street somewhere?

In conclusion we should be proving poor people with more food security, not less. This can save the government expenses in other areas later on such as through Medicaid. The miserly benefits targeted for cuts are only $1.45 per meal, and that is not enough money for a meal in America, so I believe this amount should be re-determined and the government should provide them with more money for food. With the money they receive now they cannot eat healthy foods, and cutting that money in half and forcing them to eat mostly starchy food will only make matters of health for these people worse. Lastly, the problem of how would the people receive and store their food each month is also something that would need examined.

As this is only a reaction paper, I would not expect you to make a fair and impartial analysis of this policy suggestion.  Your strong negative to the proposal gets some sympathy for me.  You have criticized the idea of reducing spending on food security by reducing benefit levels and transferring some of those reduced benefits to a program where the government selects and provides food rather than allowing recipients to shop for their food in the normal way.  You criticize it on the following grounds:

1) Benefit levels now are insufficient, and ought to be increased, rather than decreased.  The cut in spending on food security cannot be entirely gained by new efficiencies, and must result in fewer benefits and corresponding poorer nutrition and health for poor persons.

2) Benefit programs are already stigmatizing, when in fact the right to adequate food and nutrition is a human right, and securing it for everyone is a way to enhance freedom and health in our society; but changes in the program of food and nutrition benefits that remove autonomy and freedom of choice from the beneficiaries will increase stigmatization and remove human dignity.  Welfare safety net programs such as SNAP ought to encourage autonomy and human dignity, rather than further alienating and infantilizing persons who are experiencing poverty. 

3) The government could not possibly provide the right foods to everyone, and the government-selected non-perishable foods provided in the proposed policy would likely contain foods that were less nutritious or perhaps even harmful to recipients.

There are also many other objections to the policy proposal, but in a reaction essay like this, you are supposed to only allow yourself an hour to write yor paper, so you did not have time to question many other troubling flaws in this policy suggestion.

There are also several reasons to support the policy, or look at aspects of it with sympathy, or fairly present the arguments and then raise doubts about those arguments.  Again, given the limitations of this reaction paper, you didn't have time to do that, and perhaps you weren't inclined to do so.  But, it's worth thinking through why anyone would suggest such a revolutionary policy change with SNAP. For  example, while non-perishable foods might be starchy and unhealthy, current practice by most SNAP recipients may not be very wise or healthy (on average) anyway, and possibly pastas would be better than what people buy now.  Certainly canned or dried beans and rice might be staples distributed in food boxes, and at least with beans you might be helping people change to healthier diets compared to what they eat now. Do the meat industries and wheat farmer interests, as well as the grocery interests prefer the current SNAP arrangement, and might bean farmers, rice farmers, and nut growers benefit from the proposed change in SNAP policies?  

Student reacts to SNAP reform proposal

What caught my attention and I have a strong view on this policy is the SNAP proposal that President Trump has recommended for the 2019 budget.  I have read multiple articles on this policy and I will go through each of them with pros and cons.  

While doing homework over this past week I was looking at one of the UIS sites you have created for this class.  I found a policies website and was looking around at the articles that they had the one that caught my attention was the one about SNAP.  The website is the center on budget and policy priorities and the article I read was “President’s Budget Would Cut Food Assistance for Millions and Radically Restructure SNAP”.  In this article it talks about how the president proposed to alter the SNAP program to save billions of dollars over a ten-year period.  The budget proposes to cut the SNAP program by more than $213 billion over the next ten years   This would cut eligibility to four million people and reduce benefits for others.  The president also wants to reduce SNAP by doing a food delivery program like the Blue Apron program.  Here are some of the cons that I see based on this budget proposal.

1. This proposal does not have dietary restrictions in mind when doing the food box delivery.
2. The next con I see is that he is raising the maximum benefit amount from 49 to 62 which will cause food insecurity to many elderly and disabled persons. The Trump proposal was to raise the age of exemption from time limits from 49 to 62.  Currently, able-bodied persons of sound mind who have no minor children aged 18 to 49 are only allowed to participate in SNAP for at most three months in any 3-year (36 month) period.  Trump thinks that persons aged 39 to 62 should also be subject to this time limitation (when they are able-bodied, of sound mind, and have no minor children). 
3. Third con is that they leave the delivery and costs to each state.  The state is supposed to cover the cost of distribution and delivery of these food boxes.
4. Fourth con is that people who do receive SNAP will not have access to fresh fruits and vegetables. The box of food that the state would ship to the beneficiaries would not have fresh fruit and vegetables, but my understanding is that families would still have a (small) portion of their benefit provided in traditional credits on a sort of "debit" card like our Illinois Link card. 
5. Another con is that the boxes will contain a pre-portioned number of items of all processed food and does not include meat other than canned meat.
6. I feel that this would cause a social stigma for the people who receive these boxes.  It will also cause the delivery of thousands of heavy boxes and what happens if the boxes don’t get delivered or get stolen where does that leave the recipient?
7. This proposal would get rid of SNAP nutrition education.

The next thing I'll list are the pros of this budget

1. This budget could create additional jobs for the packing of boxes.
2. A nutritionist would manage the food going into the boxes and it could mean more healthy and nutrient dense foods.
3. These boxes would be delivered to people’s homes which would help those who are disabled and those that do not have transportation.
4. It could be cheaper with buying the food wholesale instead of each person going to the grocery store themselves.

I see more cons than pros with this budget.  Whether you’re from the left side or the right side there are a lot of issues that are not met with this proposal.  The other thing with this proposal is that the president is trying to make cuts and strict regulations on all safety net programs that help low income people.  

This proposal will be very hard to pass through Congress, and the money that is cut would be used for military.  Maybe the government can come up with a better replacement for the SNAP food box proposal.  

According to an article I read, Maine's governor Paul LePage threated to remove his state from SNAP if the USDA did not allow him to restrict the purchases of sugary food and drinks.  Wisconsin governor Scott Walker wants to drug test any adult who receives food aid.  There is a big social stigma against people who receive SNAP and a lot of people make judgements and stereotype everyone in the same category.  That they are all drug addicts, and lazy people who don’t want to work.  

I am very opinionated when it comes to speaking about things or talking about subjects that are important to me.  These cuts would affect my family with SNAP.  While I’m in school and raising two kids, money is very tight and without SNAP my family would not be able to eat.  I already must choose between which bill is going to get paid first; if I had to choose between bills and food that would be even more stressful.  I am glad for all the safety net programs in the country.  They help a lot of families who otherwise would struggle immensely.