Detailed Information on the
Food Stamp Program Assessment

Beginning in 2004, the Department will develop studies to demonstrate the impact of program participation on hunger and dietary status.

Implement a reporting system for State Food Stamp Program nutrition education activities and results.

Work with States to encourage and support development of FNS-approved outreach plans.

By March 2004, the Department will develop a plan for the use of Federal and state program funds to improve nutrition among program participants. The plan will include clear goals, quantifiable outcomes, and specific actions to be undertaken that directly tie to the achievement of the specified outcomes. The plan will provide for review, assessment and recommendations to improve the effectiveness of current Federal and state activities.

Measure: Combined food stamp payment error rate (overissuance plus underissuance)

Explanation:Data on Food Stamp payment errors is collected through annual Quality Control statistical reports based on a sample of 50,000 actual State FSP cases. USDA conducts sub-sampling and review, and regression analysis to develop final error rates. Both overissuance and underissuance errors represent erroneous payments under the terms of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002. Improvement in underissuance represents an increase in dollars paid appropriately to participants. Reductions in overissuance errors reflect savings to the Federal government. A .1 percent reduction in overissuance in 2007 would represent over $30 million in savings. (Data on 2007 will be available in late 2008.)

Measure: Percent of eligible individuals who participate in food stamps

Explanation:The Food Stamp Program is the largest of 15 Federal nutrition assistance programs that are designed to work together to reduce hunger and improve diet quality for the children and low-income people that they serve. For this reason, USDA uses food stamp participation rates as an indicator of FSP performance with respect to meeting need. USDA has also established cross-program measures of the prevalence of very low food security, and dietary quality as reflected by USDA's Healthy Eating Index, for children and low-income people. However, the precise relationship between FSP participation and the societal outcomes of population-wide prevalence of very low food security and high dietary quality cannot be quantified. Reliable data for FSP participants on these measures is not regularly available. However, the provision of benefits that can be redeemed for nutritious food at retail stores logically contributes to reducing the risk of hunger and promoting good diet quality among those served, and thus tends to reduce the overall prevalence of very low food security and improve diet quality among program eligibles over the long-term.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: To alleviate hunger and improve nutrition by increasing food purchasing power of eligible low-income households, enabling them to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade. The Food Stamp Act also refers to the goals of strengthening the agricultural economy, and achieving a fuller and more effective use of food abundances. While these goals help shape program design, they are secondary to the program's primary goals of reducing hunger and improving nutrition.

Evidence: Declaration of policy, Food Stamp Act of 1977 (as amended), Section 2.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Poverty-related hunger remains an on-going problem. USDA classified 1.8 million low-income households as food insecure with hunger in 2001, based on national survey data collected by the Census Bureau. Until the early 1970's, serious nutritional deficiencies resulting from inadequate food consumption were documented among low-income people. Since then, the diets of low-income people have improved substantially. However, USDA's Healthy Eating Index indicates that only 7percent of low income people have a "good" diet, 20percent have a "poor" diet, and the remainder "need improvement." About 30 percent of low-income women and 20 percent of low income men are obese.

Evidence: Nord, M., M. Andrews, and S. Carlson (2002) Household Food Security in the United States, 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; Basiotis, P., A. Carlson, S.A. Gerrior, W.Y. Juan, and M. Lino (2002) The Healthy Eating Index: 1999-2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. (The Healthy Eating Index consists of 10 components, representing different aspects of a healthy diet, with a maximum score of 100); U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics (1974). Preliminary Findings of the First Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, United States 1971-1972: Dietary Intake and Biochemical Findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1972). Ten-State Nutrition Survey 1968-1970. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Food Stamp Program is available to nearly anyone with little income and few resources. Other Federal nutrition assistance programs target supplemental benefits to specific populations in specific settings to meet particular needs. While families may participate in more than one nutrition assistance program, most do not: among all households that participate in food stamps, WIC, school lunch, or school breakfast, less than 5 percent participate in all of them, and more than half participate in only one. The amount of food stamp benefits provided to a household is adjusted for cash assistance received from other government programs, family earnings, and other income. There is no State, local or private nutrition assistance effort on a comparable scale: food pantries and emergency kitchens support only one-fifth the number of meals supported by the Food Stamp Program.

Evidence: Food and Nutrition Service (2000). Strategic Plan 2000 to 2005; Multiple Benefit Receipt Among Food Assistance Households (unpublished tabulations of Wave 12 of the 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation and March 2002 Current Population Survey prepared by Mathematica Policy Research for the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA); Ohls. J., F. Saleem-Ismail, R. Cohen, and B. Cox (2002) The Emergency Food Assistance System - 'Findings From the Provider Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program is better designed to reduce hunger and malnutrition related to inadequate income, than to achieve further incremental improvements in the dietary status of low-income people. While the program supports state nutrition education activities, these efforts lack a clear national strategy with an emphasis on interventions with proven effectiveness. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 increased program effectiveness by granting states new flexibility to streamline program rules, authorizing state options to better support working families, and restoring eligibility for many legal immigrants. Experimental demonstrations show that the most frequently cited structural alternative--providing benefits in cash--could reduce administrative costs. However, "cash-out" was also shown to reduce household expenditures on food.

Evidence: USDA Strategic Plan for FY 2002-2007; Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Title IV (P.L. 107-171); Fraker, T., A. Martini, and J. Ohls. (1995) 'The Effect of Food Stamp Cash-Out on Food Expenditures: An Assessment of the Findings from Four Demonstrations,' The Journal of Human Resources. Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 633-649; Ponza, M., and J. Ohls (1993) Effects of Food Stamp Cash-Out on Administrative Costs, Participation, and Food Retailers in San Diego. U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service.

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Virtually all benefits (96 percent) reach households with gross income less than the poverty guidelines, well below the program's maximum income eligibility level of 130 percent of poverty. In 2002, 6.16 percent of benefits were overissued and 2.1 percent were underissued. Of amounts overpaid, about 80 percent were overpayments to eligible households. Virtually every participating household (98 percent) is eligible for some benefit. Virtually all food stamp benefits are used for their intended purpose: studies show that on average only 2.5 cents of each dollar issued is illegally exchanged for cash. The program served 62 percent of eligible individuals in 2001, a reduction from an all time high participation rate of 75 percent in 1994. Studies of eligible nonparticipants suggest that lack of information about potential eligibility is more important than program design in determining participation. Less than 10 percent of nonparticipants cited concerns with paperwork, small benefits, intrusive questions, or related factors as the most important reasons in one recent study.

Evidence: Rosso, R. (2003) Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Fiscal Year 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; Trippe, C. and M. Bloom (2002) Food Stamp Payment Errors Based on 2001 Preliminary QC Data (memorandum to the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA); Macaluso, T. (2003) The Extent of Trafficking in the Food Stamp Program: 1999-2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; Ponza, M. et al (1999). Customer Service in the Food Stamp Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Food Stamp Program has two long-term performance measures: the participation rate among people eligible for benefits and the payment error rate. The program also contributes to two crosscutting measures: the prevalence of hunger among low-income households and the Healthy Eating Index (a measure of dietary quality) for low-income individuals and children. FNS has not set outcome goals specific to the Food Stamp Program because of the complexity of measuring program impacts on participants. Since households at greater risk of hunger are more likely to seek assistance, assessment of program effectiveness requires more complex analytical methods to account for differences between participants and non-participants.

Evidence: USDA Strategic Plan for FY 2002-2007; Nord, M., M. Andrews, and S. Carlson (2002) Household Food Security in the United States, 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: USDA seeks to increase the participation rate among food stamp eligible individuals from 59 percent in 1999 to 68 percent in 2007. USDA seeks to reduce the program's payment error rate from 8.7 percent in 2001 to 7.8 percent in 2004. USDA has committed to set long-term targets for improvement in payment accuracy based on results achieved through 2004. The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 included program reforms which are likely to impact the measurement of payment accuracy. Cross-Cutting Measures: USDA seeks to reduce the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger among low-income households to 7.4percent by 2007 (from 10.9percent in 2000) and to increase the HEI for children and low-income people from 61 (out of a possible 100) in 1996 to 66 in 2007.

Evidence: USDA Strategic Plan for FY 2002-2007

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: The program's annual performance measures are the same as the long-term measures: participation rates among people eligible for food stamp benefits and payment accuracy rates. Cross-Cutting Measures: USDA prepares annual estimates of the prevalence of hunger in the United States, but only periodic estimates of overall dietary quality among low-income people and children.

Evidence: USDA FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has baselines and ambitious targets for each annual measure. The baselines are noted in 2.4. USDA seeks to increase the participation rate among eligible individuals to 65.3 percent in 2005 (from 61.6 percent in 2001, the most recent year for which data is available). The food stamp payment error rate was 8.26 percent in 2002. USDA seeks to reduce this to 7.8 percent in 2004, and will set a 2005 target as part of the development of the 2005 President's Budget. Cross-Cutting Measures: USDA seeks to reduce the percentage of low-income households classified as food insecure with hunger to 7.9 percent in 2005. USDA seeks to increase the HEI of Americans with income under 130 percent of poverty to 64 in 2005.

Evidence: USDA FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan and Revised Plan for FY 2003; Department Estimates for FY 2005 Budget Request.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Not all states commit to and work towards the goal of increasing the participation rate. Just under half of states have formal FNS-approved outreach plans to improve program access. By law, all states with payment error rates above 6 percent are required to develop and implement corrective action plans.

Evidence: 7 CFR 275: Performance Reporting System

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: While the program has made effective use of the resources available to it to document and improve program performance, a wide range of information needs are not currently being met. Among these are needs for evaluations to provide current information on the relationship between program participation and impacts on hunger and dietary status, and to assess the impacts of recent program changes on program effectiveness.

Evidence: Rossi, P. (1998) Feeding the Poor: Assessing Federal Food Aid. Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute Press; Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation (2003) Food Stamp Research: 1988-2003. Results of FNS-sponsored research and evaluations are posted at www.fns.usda.gov/aone and ERS-sponsored research at www.ers.usda.gov.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Program budget requests routinely estimate the effect of legislative and policy changes on participation and costs. However, requests for additional Federal funding for payment accuracy and nutrition education have failed to tie the level of resources requested with measurable improvements in program performance.

Evidence: FNS FY 2003 and 2004 budget submissions to OMB.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The agency has identified as an FY 2004 agency priority the need to improve and expand nutrition education, and is seeking to obtain adequate resources to conduct studies to fill information gaps. FNS has an internal planning system that translates the goals and objectives in the USDA strategic plan into annual operational priorities, work plans, and resource commitments.

Evidence: Food and Nutrition Service (2000). Strategic Plan 2000 to 2005; Food and Nutrition Service (2003). FY 2003 Corporate Priorities: A Brief Description and Guide.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: FNS collects key program data from States on a regular basis. These data are used, in part, to assess program performance, initiate corrective action when necessary, and award high performance bonuses (beginning with 2003). The Food Stamp Program has a Quality Control (QC) system to determine the accuracy of State agency determinations of eligibility and benefits. Liabilities for high error rates are routinely assessed based on these reviews. FNS has paid particular attention to States with the highest error rates to identify their causes and develop corrective actions. FNS also uses information from periodic management reviews of State activities to assess operations and improve performance. Results from program access reviews have led to signficant corrective actions in jurisdictions where problems have been identified.

Evidence: Food Stamp Quality Control Annual Report; Food Stamp Program State Activity Report; Program Information Report (Keydata)

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: A quality control system requires corrective action plans from States with payment error rates above 6 percent, and imposes sanctions on States above a national threshold for two or more consecutive years. Beginning with 2003, States will share $48 million in bonuses for the best and most improved performances in payment accuracy, negative error rates, program access, and application timeliness. Program regulations allow FNS to recover costs due to State agency negligence or fraud. Regulations also authorize FNS to suspend or disallow State administrative funds if FNS determines their administration of the program is inefficient or ineffective. FNS has invoked the process of warnings, suspensions, and disallowance to bring operations into compliance with program rules. The agency's work planning process identifies senior managers responsible for achieving key program results. Performance standards for senior executives include elements to ensure accountability for cost, schedule, and results.

Evidence: Implementing Information and Instructions: Food Stamp High Performance Bonuses/Questions and Answers on the Performance Measures for the High Performance Bonuses; 7 CFR 275--Performance Reporting System; 7 CFR 276--State Agency Liabilities and Federal Sanctions

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Food Stamp Program funds are obligated in a timely manner. The overwhelming majority of obligations are food stamp benefits made available to qualified participants each month. Allotments for state administrative expenses and Employment and Training (E&T) funds are based on the quarterly Projected Funds Document and, for E&T funds, on State plans of operations and budgets. With improved payment accuracy and reduced trafficking of benefits, obligated funds are being spent for their intended purpose as well. In fiscal year 2002, 8.26 percent of benefits were issued in error, the lowest error rate achieved in the program's history. Food stamp trafficking (the selling of food stamp benefits for cash) has been reduced by approximately two-thirds since FNS started measuring it in 1993, to 2.5 cents of every benefit dollar issued.

Evidence: Financial Status Report (SF-269); Report on Budget Execution (SF-133); Food Stamp Quality Control Annual Report; Macaluso, T. (2003) The Extent of Trafficking in the Food Stamp Program: 1999-2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: FNS works with States with the highest payment error rates to identify the sources of error and develop corrective actions. FNS uses contract staff to conduct pre-authorization store visits to ensure that authorized retailers are qualifed to accept food stamps since 1997. A May-June 2003 review of store eligibility indicates that 99.2 percent of the stores authorized to redeem food stamps meet the program's eligibility criteria. FNS has encouraged State use of the EBT platform to deliver multiple program benefits to minimize costs; 36 states include TANF and 22 include other benefits (including GA, child care, child support, Medicaid, and WIC). FNS works closely with DHHS on oversight of State IT procurements for certification systems that include food stamps, TANF, and Medicaid. Program regulations require States to document a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed system design and alternatives.

Evidence: Food and Nutrition Service (2003) Store Eligibility Accuracy Rate (SEAR): 2003 Final Report; 7 CFR 277.14 ' Procurement Standards; 7 CFR 277.18 - Establishment of an Automated Data Processing (ADP) and Information Retrieval System

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: FNS effectively collaborates and coordinates with ACF, CMS, and SSA to improve delivery of food stamp benefits. In 2002, FNS, ACF, and HCFA issued joint guidance to align policies on citizenship and immigration. Joint development of EBT systems led to shared platforms for multiple benefit delivery in many States. Collaboration with SSA led to demonstrations of a streamlined approach to enroll SSI participants in food stamps in 5 States, with potential expansion to 8 more in 2004. There is also collaboration across nutrition assistance programs. FNS is working with and encouraging States to develop cross-program nutrition education plans that, at a minimum, involve all providers of FNS-programs within a State. FNS will provide training, technical assistance, and web-based resources in 2004.

Evidence: U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000) Policy Guidance Regarding Inquiries Into Citizenship, Immigration Status And Social Security Numbers In State Applications For Medicaid, State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF), And Food Stamp Benefits; Boussy, C., R. Jackson, and N. Wemmerus (2000) Evaluation of SSI/FSP Joint Processing Alternatives Demonstration: Final Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Agency has had no reportable conditions in the Department's consolidated financial statements audit in 2001 and 2002. The program relies on a set of established financial policies that are clearly articulated in program directives, Departmental Regulations and OMB Circulars. FNS is working with States to increase the share of issuances in State systems for recipient claims that meet Federal debt management standards; States constituting 72 percent of benefits issued had clean reports from FNS in this area, ahead of the target set for FY 2003. The program has a highly recognized quality control (QC) system that measures the accuracy of benefit delivery and the incidence of improper payments, based on statistical sampling.

Evidence: USDA OIG audit of Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2002; Food and Nutrition Service (2003). Federal Managers' Financial Management Integrity Act (FMFMIA) Report: Fiscal Year 2003.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: FNS has made significant progress in addressing identified material weaknesses. The 2001 FMFIA report identified three program-related deficiencies. FNS is making significant progress working with States to strengthen procedures to establish, record, adjust and report on claims, with completion expected in 2005. FNS expects to complete its commitments to address erroneous payments in 2003, with payment accuracy at the highest levels in program history. FNS will continue to monitor levels of payment accuracy and work with States to achieve further improvements. FNS fully implemented proper controls to deter and detect illegal diversion of program benefits by retailers, and trafficking was eliminated as a material weakness in 2002.

Evidence: Food and Nutrition Service (2003). Federal Managers' Financial Management Integrity Act (FMFMIA) Report: Fiscal Year 2003; Food and Nutrition Service (2002). Federal Managers' Financial Management Integrity Act (FMFMIA) Report: Fiscal Year 2002; Food and Nutrition Service (2001). Federal Managers' Financial Management Integrity Act (FMFMIA) Report: Fiscal Year 2001.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Every State agency submits a quarterly report documenting administrative expenditures by category (including, for example, certification, issuance, quality control, ADP, and nutrition education). FNS conducts financial management reviews in all States on a 3 to 5 year cycle to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial information reported by State agencies is correct and complete; that it represents proper expenditures of Federal funds; and that States have complied with applicable financial requirements. Program expenditures may also be reviewed by independent auditors conducting annual Single Audits and periodically by USDA's OIG. States are required to correct identified deficiencies. A priority area for State management reviews in 2003 and 2004 is nutrition education. These reviews examine consistency with the approved plan, the scope of evaluations, allowability of matching funds, and proper documentation and allocation of administrative funds.

Evidence: Food and Nutrition Service Financial Management Review (FMR) Guide; 7 C.F.R. 275 ' Performance Reporting System

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: FNS collects and publishes a wide range of performance data from States on an annual or more frequent basis. Performance reports made available on the FNS web site include monthly State data on participants, households, and benefits issued; annual reports on participants' characteristics and on participation rates among those eligible for benefits; and special studies and evaluations. An annual Food Stamp Program State Activity Report, containing data on the certificaton process, program integrity and claims activity, is distributed widely to governmental and non-governmental parties. Quality Control data are collected throughout the year, published annually, and made available to the public upon request.

Evidence: Food Stamp Quality Control Annual Report; Food Stamp Program State Activity Report; Program Information Report (Keydata); www/fns.usda/gov/fns

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: The Agency is making steady progress in achieving its long-term goals. Participation rates have increased 3 percentage points in 2 years after falling for 5 consecutive years. Long-term targets for payment accuracy will be set based on 2004 data, to reflect the impacts of the 2002 Farm Bill. However, payment error rates have already fallen for 4 consecutive years, from 10.7 percent in 1998 to 8.26 percent in 2002. Cross-Cutting Measures: Reductions in the rate of food insecurity with hunger were somewhat ahead of target through 2000. Rising unemployment and increased poverty have contributed to a subsequent increase in the rate of food insecurity with hunger in 2001. There was no change in the HEI between 1996 and 1999-2000.

Evidence: Cunnyngham, K. (2003) Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: 1999 to 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; Food Stamp Program Quality Control Annual Report; Nord, M., and M. Andrews (2002). Reducing Food Insecurity in the United States: Assessing Progress Toward a National Objective. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; Basiotis, P., A. Carlson, S.A. Gerrior, W.Y. Juan, and M. Lino (2002) The Healthy Eating Index: 1999-2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program exceeded its target for payment accuracy in 2002: the combined error rate was 8.26 percent compared to a target of 8.7 percent. 27 States improved payment accuracy rates between 2001 and 2002. Preliminary estimates suggest that the program will also exceed its target for payment accuracy in 2003. Data are not yet available to assess achievement of annual goals for participation rates among eligible individuals. Participation rates did increase from 58.8 percent in September 1999 to 61.6 percent in September 2001. (State data are not yet available for 2001; 29 States showed nominal increases in participation rates between 1999 and 2000, though the margin of error associated with estimates of change are substantial). Average caseloads have grown by an additional 5 million participants since September 2001, but information on growth in the number of people eligible for benefits is not yet available.

Evidence: U.S. Department of Agriculture (2003) Performance and Accountability Report for FY 2002; Program Information Report (KEYDATA); Cunnyngham, K. (2003). Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: 1999 to 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; Schirm, A., and L. Castner (2002). Reaching Those in Need: State Food Stamp Participation Rates in 2000. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: The program has demonstrated improvements in the areas of payment accuracy and reduced trafficking. Claims collections have plateaued in recent years, and declined slightly in the Treasury Offset Program.

Evidence: Food Stamp Program Quality Control Annual Report; Cunnyngham, K. (2003) Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: 1999 to 2001. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; Macaluso, T. (2003) The Extent of Trafficking in the Food Stamp Program: 1999-2002. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The Food Stamp Program is more effective than the Emergency Food Assistance System in reaching the low-income population with targeted assistance that meets basic food needs. Food stamps ensure a basic level of assistance to all those eligible, target benefits more effectively to lower-income recipients, and enable a more equitable distribution of resources. The evidence demonstrating the effect of program participation on individual nutrtient intakes is stronger for WIC and NSLP than food stamps, consistent with the greater control those programs exert over the nutrient content of the benefit they provide. Policy proposals to impose more restrictions on allowable food stamp purchases have been rejected in the past as impractical and ineffective.

Evidence: Fox, M. (ed) (forthcoming) Evaluating the Impact of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs: Volume IV - 'Summary of the Literature Review. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; Briefel, R., J. Jacobson, N. Clusen, T. Zavitsky, M. Satake, B. Dawson, and R. Cohen (2003) The Emergency Food Assistance System - Findings From the Client Survey: Final Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; Ohls, J., F. Saleem-Ismail, R. Cohen, B. Cox (2002) The Emergency Food Assistance System - Findings From the Provider Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Participation has been shown to increase food expenditures and the availability of key nutrients in the household food supply (and provision of an in-kind benefit has been shown to have a greater effect than an equivalent amount of cash). The program has also been shown to reduce the depth of child poverty, and to provide an automatic countercyclical response to changing economic conditions. Participation may contribute to increased nutrient intake, but the evidence is not conclusive, partly the result of limitations in measurement techniques and nutrition standards. Studies of the impact of program participation on hunger have a short history and inconclusive results, although qualitative assessments during the program's early history reported substantial reductions in hunger and clinical malnutrition. Further studies and analysis are required to demonstrate the relationship between program participation and impacts on hunger and dietary status.

Evidence: Fox, M. (ed) (forthcoming) Evaluating the Impact of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs: Volume IV - 'Summary of the Literature Review. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; Rossi, P. (1998) Feeding the Poor: Assessing Federal Food Aid. Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute Press; Fraker, T. (1990) The Effects of Food Stamps on Food Consumption: A Review of the Literature. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service; Hanson, K. and E. Golan (2002) Effects of Changes in Food Stamp Expenditures Across the U.S. Economy. Issues in Food Assistance (Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report Number 26-6). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; Jolliffe, D., C. Gundersen, L. Tiehen, and J. Winicki. (2003) Food Stamp Benefits and Child Poverty in the United States: An Examination of Food Stamp Efficacy in Alleviating Child Poverty. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.