Snap Pros And Cons

Resources needed to accomplish this project included permission and approval by the University of Minnesota director of public health, which included meetings and interactions with data system personnel to initiate the first roll-out of SNAP information in an email. Met with personnel at Second Harvest Food Bank and received information on the SNAP program, phone conversations with MDH to further clarify the SNAP process. The public health student that started the Nutritious U Food Pantry was contacted and interviewed. Internet services to explore grocery stores within walking distance of the campus were needed, along with investigation into public transportation availability. Spreadsheet to perform side-by-side food costs and comparisons were

SNAP is the foundation of nutrition assistance programs. This program provides over 47 million individuals in nearly 23 million low-income households. The eligibility is not restricted to certain groups of individuals, and because of this, SNAP serves a vast amount of families with children, elderly people, and individuals with disabilities. Others eligible for SNAP include families with adults who work in low-wage jobs, unemployed workers, and those with a fixed income. The SNAP Program assists about 72 percent of people who live in households with children. Nearly 25 percent of households with seniors and individuals with disabilities, are also assisted (Rosenbaum, 2013).

As of January 1, 2014, roughly 4.1% of Americans are welfare, which is not what the system was designed to do (Department of Commerce). Welfare was originally created in the 1930’s during the Great Depression in order to aid to citizens with little to no income (welfareinfo.org). It was a response to the great number of people without jobs and who desperately needed assistance with money and basic needs such as food and shelter (welfareinfo.org). For the next 61 years the United States government would hold control of the welfare system (welfareinfo.org). According to the Department of Commerce, 46,700,000 Americans are on food stamps (Department of Commerce). The Department of Commerce divided welfare recipients into categories of race finding that, 39.8% of welfare holders are African-American (Department of Commerce).

Did you know that 17% of Americans in rural areas live below the poverty line, and out of those 17%, 15 million of those individuals are children? (Hunger In America 2014). The month of September was Hunger Action month and many individuals helped raise awareness by taking the Food Stamp (SNAP) Challenge. This challenge consists of an individual living on the SNAP balance of a $6-7 per day budget for food. Many individuals came to the realization that this is a difficult budget, and does not meet the nutritional needs for a family.

While the SNAP program has been successful in reducing food insecurity, some wonder whether SNAP is as nutritionally beneficial. Here we have assembled relevant information on the role of SNAP in the nutrition of Americans, and areas where there is room for improvement.

Granted during the period of Welfare Reform there was also an overall decline in poverty there were still significant decreases in SNAP participation researchers suggest could not completely be accounted for by macroeconomic climate. While there weren’t a significant amount of changes in SNAP because of Welfare Reform, Welfare Reform did enact requirements that made legal immigrants unable for benefits unless they have 10 years of work history in the United States. Drug felons were also eliminated from eligibility and those of prime age and able-body were to receive SNAP for only 3 months in a 3 year period. Welfare Reform also produced a work requirement where able bodied individuals had to be looking for employment or keep a job if reasonably able to keep employment. The 1998 Agricultural Bill removed most of the restricted eligibility given to SNAP from Welfare Reform (Hoynes & Schanzebach, 2015; U.S. Department of Agriculture Report No. FSP-01-WEL, 2001; Zedlewski & Gruber,

The United States does not spend too much on the food stamp (SNAP program) and no one deserves to go hungry. Every year during budget talks the welfare program is a featured topic as the government explores ways to cut the budget. There appears to be a lot of unnecessary spending due to abuse of the system and program administration complexity. There are many areas in which reforms could be instituted and the program could be expanded without misappropriation of funds.

There are many national campaigns in order to raise awareness and put a stop to the food deserts including campaigns such as Supermarket Stakeout and even Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move.” The growing crisis in the United States is so dire that we are receiving help from internationals. One example is Jamie Oliver and his school menu project, which goes into local American public schools and teaches the cafeteria how to create healthy, great tasting, and affordable school menu options. My proposal is that we continue to move forward with these programs but also create more accessible supermarkets who partake in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP) and educate young adults. Generally, areas with food deserts are in towns or suburbs that are far from supermarkets and on top of that not all supermarkets and grocery stores take food stamps making it harder for impoverished families and young adults to find affordable healthy food.

Formerly known as the Food Stamp Program (FSP), The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest federal nutrition-assistance program and exists to protect low-income Americans from hunger and its associated consequences by increasing access to food. Approximately 44 million people received SNAP benefits this year as of August of 2016.1 Due to the fact that low-income Americans tend to have problems with obesity and poor diet2,3, it would make sense that there would be interest to endorse healthy choices by means of federally nutrition assistance programs.4 However, there is insufficient evidence to require SNAP participants to spend a certain percentage of their benefits on healthy foods because food stamp participation may not contribute to poor diet quality, restrictions may not be effective in changing what food stamp participants purchase, and there is no solid evidence that exists that Food Stamp Program participation directly leads to obesity.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, is a social welfare program designed to increase the nutritional value of a low-income household’s food supply. It does this through Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) cards that are loaded with a monetary allotment based on family size and income, which can then be redeemed for groceries at participating SNAP stores (Karger & Stoesz, 2014). 46.2 million Americans participated in the program in 2011 (Andrews & Smallwood, 2012). Yet the program did not always function in the way it currently does. Originally enacted in the 1960s, this program has undergone many changes over the years. There are many factors, including historical and economic elements, which

Also, according to the SNAP Take-up among Immigrant Families with Children noted, “SNAP benefits are an important component of the social safety net in the United States, not least because they are available to most households meeting program income and asset eligibility requirements, unlike other programs that are primarily intended to benefit families of specific composition, such as a single parent with minor children. Moreover, the SNAP program has proven to be a vital and effective social support in the course of the Great Recession, enrolling more than five million additional person’s; a 19 percent increase in caseloads, between the years

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a program for food and nutrition assistance in the form of food stamps to New Mexicans. Whereas the program is intended to ensure food security, it is highly flawed due to its ineffectiveness. There is a lot of mismanagement of the SNAP benefits such that the quality of their services is normally very poor. Moreover, most of the people who rightfully qualify for the benefits do not access them whereas the less qualified ones get access to the benefits through means that are not transparent. The SNAP benefits in New Mexico require to be reformed because they have so many flaws (Rector & Bradley, 2012).

“…among the food-insecure population, SNAP participation appears to buffer against poor dietary quality and obesity…” Their research highlights how SNAP can potentially play into helping at risk people obtain a healthy diet and weight status.

In the following paper, the topic of food stamps or the official name Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) which is defined on the government website as “SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of eligible, low-income individuals and families and provides economic benefits to communities. SNAP is the largest program in the domestic hunger safety net”.(2017) The argument in the paper is the fighting for or against the continuation of SNAP within the United States of America. Some main points that will be covered in this essay are if SNAP should be continued, should or should not there be an increase in the amount of money given to people on welfare and food stamps, and should the government drug test people that want food stamps.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, was introduced in 1939 to alleviate poverty and hunger in the United States. The main purpose of the program is to help people with low-income to afford nutritious diet by elevating their purchasing power (Cuunyngham et al., 2006). In 1943, when the economic situation stabilized the subsidies were stopped. However, the Senate kept on discussing the possibilities of their reintroduction. The government faced difficulties while deciding who should benefit from this help. Eventually, in 1961 FSP was launched again and soon became one of the leading social welfare programs. In 1965, the number of beneficiaries reached half a million (Cunnyngham & Castner, 2009). By 1971 this number increased to 10 million and when this figure jumped to 15 million in October 1974, SNAP became the most fast-growing nation-wide food program. In the late 90s of the XXth century, paper coupons were driven away by the debit cards that circulated in a special system EBT, and therefore in 2008 the name of the program disappeared together with coupons. Finally, in 2011 about one in seven Americans was served by SNAP.