A Short History of SNAP
The First Food Stamp Program (FSP) - May
16, 1939-Spring 1943
The idea for the first FSP is credited to
various people, most notably Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace and
the program's first Administrator Milo Perkins. The program operated by
permitting people on relief to buy orange stamps equal to their normal
food expenditures; for every $1 worth of orange stamps purchased, 50
cents worth of blue stamps were received. Orange stamps could be used to
buy any food; blue stamps could only be used to buy food determined by
the Department to be surplus.
Over the course of nearly 4 years, the first
FSP reached approximately 20 million people at one time or another in
nearly half of the counties in the U.S.--peak participation was 4
million--at a total cost of $262 million. The first recipient was Mabel
McFiggin of Rochester, New York; the first retailer to redeem the stamps
was Joseph Mutolo; and the first retailer caught violating the program
was Nick Salzano in October 1939. The program ended "since the
conditions that brought the program into being--unmarketable food
surpluses and widespread unemployment--no longer existed."
"We got a picture of a gorge, with
farm surpluses on one cliff and under-nourished city folks with
outstretched hands on the other. We set out to find a practical
way to build a bridge across that chasm."
( Milo Perkins )
Pilot Food Stamp Program - May 29,
1961-1964
The 18 years between the end of the first FSP
and the inception of the next were filled with studies, reports, and
legislative proposals.
Prominent Senators actively associated with
attempts to enact an FSP during this period were: Aiken, La Follette, Humphrey, Kefauver, and Symington. From 1954 on, Congresswoman
Leonor K. Sullivan strove unceasingly to pass food stamp program
legislation. On Sept. 21, 1959, P.L. 86-341 authorized the Secretary of
Agriculture to operate a food stamp system through Jan. 31, 1962.
The Eisenhower Administration never used the
authority. However, in fulfillment of a campaign promise made in West
Virginia, President Kennedy's first Executive Order called for expanded
food distribution and, on Feb. 2, 1961, he announced that food stamp
pilot programs would be initiated. The pilot programs would retain the
requirement that the food stamps be purchased, but eliminated the
concept of special stamps for surplus foods. A Department spokesman
indicated the emphasis would be on increasing the consumption of
perishables.
Mr. and Mrs. Alderson Muncy of Paynesville,
West Virginia, were the first food stamp recipients on May 29, 1961.
They purchased $95 in food stamps for their 15-person household. In the
first food stamp transaction, they bought a can of pork and beans at
Henderson's Supermarket. By January 1964, the pilot programs had
expanded from eight areas to 43 (40 counties, Detroit, St. Louis, and
Pittsburgh) in 22 States with 380,000 participants.
"...the Department of Agriculture
seemed bent on outlining a possible food stamp plan of such
scope and magnitude, involving some 25 million persons, as to
make the whole idea seem ridiculous and tear food stamp plans to
smithereens."
( Congresswoman Leonor K. Sullivan )
Food Stamp Act of 1964 - August 31, 1964
On Jan. 31, 1964, President Johnson requested Congress to pass
legislation making the FSP permanent. Secretary Orville Freeman
submitted proposed legislation to establish a permanent FSP on April 17,
1964. The bill eventually passed by Congress was H.R. 10222, introduced
by Congresswoman Sullivan. Among the official purposes of the Food Stamp
Act of 1964 were strengthening the agricultural economy and providing
improved levels of nutrition among low-income households; however, the
practical purpose was to bring the pilot FSP under Congressional control
and to enact the regulations into law. The major provisions were:
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
the State Plan of Operation requirement and
development of eligibility standards by States; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
the requirement that recipients purchase
their food stamps, paying an amount commensurate with their normal
expenditures for food and receiving an amount of food stamps
representing an opportunity more nearly to obtain a low-cost
nutritionally adequate diet; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
the eligibility for purchase with food
stamps of all items intended for human consumption except alcoholic
beverages and imported foods (the House version would have
prohibited the purchase of soft drinks, luxury foods, and luxury
frozen foods); |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
prohibitions against discrimination on
bases of race, religious creed, national origin, or political
beliefs; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
the division of responsibilities between
States (certification and issuance) and the Federal Government
(funding of benefits and authorization of retailers and
wholesalers), with shared responsibility for funding costs of
administration; and |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
appropriations for the first year limited
to $75 million; for the second year, to $100 million; and, for the
third year, to $200 million. |
The Department estimated that participation in
a national FSP would eventually reach 4 million, at a cost of $360
million annually.
Program Expansion - FSP Participation
Milestones in the 1960s and Early 1970s.
In April 1965, participation topped half a million. (Actual
participation was 561,261 people.) Participation topped 1 million in
March 1966, 2 million in October 1967, 3 million in February 1969, 4
million in February 1970, 5 million one month later in March 1970, 6
million two months later in May 1970, 10 million in February 1971, and
15 million in October 1974. Rapid increases in participation during this
period were primarily due to geographic expansion.
Major Legislative Changes - Early 1970s
The early 1970s were a period of growth in
participation; concern about the cost of providing food stamp benefits;
and questions about administration, primarily timely certification. It
was during this time that the issue was framed that would dominate food
stamp legislation ever after: How to balance program access with program
accountability? Three major pieces of legislation shaped this period
leading up to massive reform to follow:
P.L. 91-671 (Jan. 11, 1971) established
uniform national standards of eligibility and work requirements;
required that allotments be equivalent to the cost of a
nutritionally adequate diet; limited households' purchase
requirements to 30 percent of their income; instituted an outreach
requirement; authorized the Department to pay 62.5 percent of
specific administrative costs incurred by States; expanded the FSP
to Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States;
and provided $1.75 billion appropriations for Fiscal Year 1971.
Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-86, Aug.
10, 1973) required States to expand the program to every political
jurisdiction before July 1, 1974; expanded the program to drug
addicts and alcoholics in treatment and rehabilitation centers;
established semi-annual allotment adjustments, SSI cash-out, and
bi-monthly issuance; introduced statutory complexity in the income
definition (by including in-kind payments and providing an
accompanying exception); and required the Department to establish
temporary eligibility standards for disasters.
P.L. 93-347 (July 12, 1974) authorized the Department to pay 50
percent of all States' costs for administering the program and
established the requirement for efficient and effective
administration by the States.
1974 Nationwide Program
In accordance with P.L. 93-86, the FSP began
operating Nationwide on July 1, 1974. (The program was not fully
implemented in Puerto Rico until Nov. 1, 1974.) Participation for July
1974 was almost 14 million.
The Food Stamp Act of 1977
Both the outgoing Republican Administration and
the new Democratic Administration offered Congress proposed legislation
to reform the FSP in 1977. The Republican bill stressed targeting
benefits to the neediest, simplifying administration, and tightening
controls on the program; the Democratic bill focused on increasing
access to those most in need and simplifying and streamlining a
complicated and cumbersome process that delayed benefit delivery as well
as reducing errors, and curbing abuse. The chief force for the
Democratic Administration was Robert Greenstein, Administrator of FNS;
on the Hill, major players were Senators McGovern, Javits, Humphrey, and
Dole and Congressmen Foley and Richmond. Amidst all the themes, the one
that became the rallying cry for FSP reform was "EPR"--eliminate the
purchase requirement--because of the barrier to participation the
purchase requirement represented. The bill that became the law--S.
275--did eliminate the purchase requirement. It also:
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
eliminated categorical eligibility;
|
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
established statutory income eligibility
guidelines at the poverty line; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
established 10 categories of excluded
income; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
reduced the number of deductions used to
calculate net income and established a standard deduction to take
the place of eliminated deductions; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
raised the general resource limit to
$1,750; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
established the fair market value (FMV)
test for evaluating vehicles as resources; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
penalized households whose heads
voluntarily quit jobs; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
restricted eligibility for students and
aliens; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
eliminated the requirement that households
must have cooking facilities; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
replaced store due bills with cash change
up to 99 cents; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
established the principle that stores must
sell a substantial amount of staple foods if they are to be
authorized; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
established the ground rules for Indian
Tribal Organization administration of the FSP on reservations; and
|
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
introduced demonstration project authority.
|
In addition to EPR, the Food Stamp Act of 1977
included several access provisions:
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
using mail, telephone, or home visits for
certification; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
requirements for outreach, bilingual
personnel and materials, and nutrition education materials; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
recipients' right to submit applications
the first day they attempt to do so; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
30-day processing standard and inception of
the concept of expedited service; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
SSI joint processing and coordination with
AFDC; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
notice, recertification, and retroactive
benefit protections; and |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
a requirement for States to develop a
disaster plan. |
The integrity provisions of the new program
included fraud disqualifications, enhanced Federal funding for States'
anti-fraud activities, and financial incentives for low error rates.
EPR was implemented Jan. 1, 1979. Participation that month increased 1.5
million over the preceding month.
Interesting fact:
The House Report for the 1977 legislation points out that the
changes in the Food Stamp Program are needed without reference
to upcoming welfare reform since "the path to welfare reform is,
indeed, rocky...."
Cutbacks of the Early 1980s
The large and expensive FSP came under close scrutiny of both the Executive Branch and
Congress in the early 1980s. Major legislation in 1981 and 1982 enacted
cutbacks including:
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
addition of a gross income eligibility test
in addition to the net income test for most households; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
temporary freeze on adjustments of the
shelter deduction cap and the standard deduction and constraints on
future adjustments; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
annual adjustments in food stamp allotments
rather than semi-annual; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
consideration of non-elderly parents who
live with their children and non-elderly siblings who live together
as one household; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
required periodic reporting and
retrospective budgeting; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
prohibition against using Federal funds for
outreach; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
replacing the FSP in Puerto Rico with a
block grant for nutrition assistance; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
counting retirement accounts as resources;
|
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
State option to require job search of
applicants as well as participants; and |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
increased disqualification periods for
voluntary quitters. |
Interesting Fact:
Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) began in Reading,
Pennsylvania, in 1984.
The Mid- to Late 1980s
Recognition of the severe domestic hunger
problem in the latter half of the 1980s led to incremental improvements
in the FSP in 1985 and 1987, such as elimination of sales tax on food
stamp purchases, reinstitution of categorical eligibility, increased
resource limit for most households ($2,000), eligibility for the
homeless, and expanded nutrition education. The Hunger Prevention Act of
1988 and the Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act in 1990
foretold the improvements that would be coming. The 1988 and 1990
legislation accomplished the following:
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
increasing benefits by applying a
multiplication factor to Thrifty Food Plan costs; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
making outreach an optional activity for
States; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
excluding advance earned income tax credits
as income; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
simplifying procedures for calculating
medical deductions; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
instituting periodic adjustments of the
minimum benefit; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
authorizing nutrition education grants;
|
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
establishing severe penalties for
violations by individuals or participating firms; and |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
establishing EBT as an issuance
alternative. |
Throughout this era, significant players
were principally various committee chairmen: Congressmen Leland,
Hall, Foley, Panetta, and de la Garza and Senator Leahy.
Development of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT): 1988-2004
Public Law 100-435, the Hunger Prevention Act
of 1988 was signed into law September 19, 1988 and permitted one or more
pilot projects to test whether the use of benefit cards or other
automated or electronic benefit delivery systems could enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of program operations for both program
administrators and recipients. Following this initiative, Public Law
101-624, the Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act of
November 28, 1990 established EBT as an issuance alternative and
permitted the Department to continue to conduct EBT demonstration
projects.
On August 10, 1993 the Conference Report on
Public Law 103-66, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,
included a managers statement strongly urging the Secretary to encourage
State agencies to develop and establish EBT systems. This was followed
by Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of August 22, 1996 which mandated that States
implement EBT systems before October 1, 2002, unless USDA waived the
requirement because a State faced unusual barriers to implementation.
A national standard of interoperability and
portability applicable to electronic food stamp benefit transactions was
established by Public Law 106-171, the Electronic Benefit Transfer
Interoperability and Portability Act of 2000 on February 11, 2000 and
Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
of May 13, 2002 required USDA to submit a report not later than October
1, 2003 to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees describing the
status of EBT systems in each State. This act also allows group homes
and institutions to redeem EBT benefits directly through banks in areas
where EBT has been implemented rather than going through authorized
wholesalers or other retailers.
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) is an
electronic system that allows a recipient to authorize transfer of their
government benefits from a Federal account to a retailer account to pay
for products received. EBT is used in all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. State food stamp agencies
work with contractors to procure their own EBT systems for delivery of
Food Stamp and other state-administered benefit programs.
In EBT systems, food stamp recipients apply for
their benefits in the usual way, by filling out a form at their local
food stamp office. Once eligibility and level of benefits have been
determined, an account is established in the participant's name, and
food stamp benefits are deposited electronically in the account each
month. A plastic card, similar to a bank card, is issued and a personal
identification number (PIN) is assigned or chosen by the recipient to
give access to the account. Recipients are offered the opportunity to
change the PIN number at any time, and are offered ongoing training if
they have any problems accessing the system.
EBT eliminates the cumbersome processes
required by the paper food stamp system. By eliminating paper coupons
which could be lost, sold or stolen, EBT may help cut back on food stamp
fraud. EBT creates an electronic record of each food stamp transaction,
making it easier to identify and document instances where food benefits
are exchanged for cash, drugs, or other illegal goods.
All States are using EBT as an alternative for
food stamp issuance and, in some cases, for other programs such as
USDA's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC); and the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
program, the Federal block-grant program operated by the Department of
Health and Human Services. As of July 2004, all 50 States, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam operated
state-wide, city-wide, and territory-wide EBT systems to issue food
stamp benefits.
1993 Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief
Act
By 1993, major changes in food stamp benefits
had arrived. The final legislation provided for $2.8 billion in benefit
increases over Fiscal Years 1984-1988. Leon Panetta, in his new role as
OMB Director, played a major role as did Senator Leahy. Substantive
changes included:
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
eliminating the shelter deduction cap
beginning Jan. 1, 1997; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
providing a deduction for legally binding
child support payments made to nonhousehold members; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
raising the cap on the dependent care
deduction from $160 to $200 for children under 2 years old and $175
for all other dependents; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
improving employment and training (E&T)
dependent care reimbursements; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
increasing the FMV test for vehicles to
$4,550 on Sept. 1, 1994 and $4,600 on Oct. 1, 1995, then annually
adjusting the value from $5,000 on Oct. 1, 1996; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
mandating asset accumulation demonstration
projects; and |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
simplifying the household definition.
|
Later Participation Milestones
In December 1979, participation finally surpassed 20 million. In March
1994, participation hit a new high of 28 million.
The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996
The mid-1990s was a period of welfare reform.
Many States had waivers of the rules for the cash welfare program, Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) before major welfare reform
legislation was enacted in 1996. The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) removed the
entitlement of recipients to AFDC and replaced that with a new block
grant to states called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).
Although the FSP was
reauthorized in the 1996 Farm Bill, major changes to the program were
enacted through PRWORA. Among them were:
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
eliminating eligibility of most legal
immigrants to food stamps; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
placing a time limit on food stamp receipt
of three out of 36 months for able-bodied adults without dependents
(ABAWDs) who are not working at least 20 hours a week or
participating in a work program; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
reduction in maximum allotments by setting
them at 100 percent of the change in the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP)
from 103 percent of the change in the TFP; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
freezing the standard deduction, the
vehicle limit, and the minimum benefit; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
setting the shelter cap at graduated
specified levels up to $300 by fiscal year 2001, and permitting
States to make use of the standard utility allowance mandatory; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
revising provisions for disqualification,
including comparable disqualification with other means-tested
programs; and |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
requiring States to implement EBT before
Oct. 1, 2002. |
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) and the
Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Act of 1998 (AREERA) made
some changes to these provisions, most significantly:
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
additional Employment and Training (E&T)
funds targeted toward providing work program opportunities for
ABAWDs; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
allowing States to exempt up to 15 percent
of the estimated number of ABAWDs who would otherwise be ineligible;
|
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
restoring eligibility for certain elderly,
disabled and child immigrants who resided in the United States when
PRWORA was enacted; and |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
cutting administrative funding for States
to account for certain administrative costs that previously had been
allocated to the AFDC program and now were required to be allocated
to the Food Stamp Program. |
The fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations
bill included two significant changes to the FSP. The
legislation increased the excess shelter cap to $340 in fiscal year 2001
and then indexed the cap to changes in the Consumer Price Index for All
Consumers each year beginning in fiscal year 2002. The legislation also
allowed States to use the vehicle limit they use in a TANF assistance
program, if it would be result in a lower attribution of resources for
the household. To date, only two States have not taken advantage of this
option.
Early 2000s - The Farm Bill of 2002
Participation declined throughout the late
1990s, even more so than expected based on the changes in PRWORA and
falling unemployment. Program access and simplification of program rules
were a major focus of proposed legislation and of major regulations
promulgated by the Department. In May 2002, the Food Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 was enacted, including reauthorization of the
Food Stamp Program. Major changes to the FSP included:
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
restoration of eligibility for food stamps to qualified
aliens who have been in the United States at least five
years; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
restoration of eligibility for immigrants receiving certain
disability payments and for children, regardless of how long
they have been in the country; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
adjusting the standard deduction to vary by household size and indexed
each year for inflation; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
reforming the quality control (QC) system by basing financial
sanctions on consecutive years of high error rate;
|
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
replacing enhanced funding for States with low error rates with a
performance bonus system based on several different measures
of performance; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
providing States with several options to simplify the program,
including aligning the definition of income and/or resources
to that used in TANF or Medicaid, adopting a simplified
reporting system, and providing transitional benefits for
clients leaving TANF; |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
cutting E&T funding while eliminating the requirements of targeting
those funds toward ABAWDs; and |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
eliminating the cost neutrality requirement for EBT systems.
|
Food stamp participation increased from about
17.2 million in fiscal year 2000 to 26 million people in July 2006. The
rate of payment accuracy in the FSP improved 34 percent between FY2000
and FY2004 and the 94.12 percent overall payment accuracy rate was the
highest achieved since the inception of the program. USDA awarded $48
million to 24 States for their exemplary administration of the program
in fiscal year (FY) 2005.
This improvement in payment accuracy is a
result of strong partnerships with States administering the program as
well as implementation of program simplifications and policy options
provided in the 2002 Farm Bill. These options which include aligning the
definition of income and/or resources to that used in TANF or Medicaid,
adopting a simplified reporting system, and providing transitional
benefits for clients leaving TANF, were well received by State
agencies. Forty-one of these have aligned income and 36 have aligned
resource exclusions to those used in TANF or Medicaid. 47 States have
adopted simplified reporting which has reduced the program error rate.
The Department continues to work with States to
implement the various provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill, through guidance
and regulations.
Late 2000s - The Farm Bill of 2008
By August 2008, participation had reached an
all-time (non-disaster) high of 29 million people per month. The
participation increases occurred at a time when eligibility for food
stamp benefits expanded as a result of the 2002 Farm Bill. Moreover,
there was a consistent focus on outreach and improved access to FSP
benefits. Some of the most recent increase in participation may be
caused by the current economic slowdown and the recent rise in
unemployment rates. During this time, payment accuracy continued to
improve and the program set a new payment error rate record for fiscal
year 2007 of 5.64.
The 2008 farm bill (H.R.
2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) was
enacted May 22, 2008 through an override of the President’s veto. The new law
increased the commitment to Federal food assistance programs by more
than $10 billion over the next 10 years. In efforts to fight stigma,
the law changed the name of the Federal program to the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP as of Oct. 1, 2008, and changed
the name of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to the Food and Nutrition Act of
2008. States maintained flexibility to name the program on their own
but were encouraged to change the name to SNAP or another alternate
name. In fact, more than ten States had already changed the names of
their programs by this time.
Significantly, the
2008 Farm Bill also institutionalized priorities that FNS had focused on
for many years including strengthening integrity; simplifying
administration; maintaining State flexibility; improving health through
nutrition education; and improving access.
Benefits were
augmented for most households on Oct. 1, 2008, due to the increase in
the minimum benefit and standard deduction and elimination of the cap on
the deduction for child care expenses. The new law also expanded
eligibility by indexing the asset limits to inflation and excluding
combat pay, and most retirement and education accounts as countable
resources. The law modernized the program by acknowledging EBT as the
standard issuance vehicle and de-obligating coupons one year from
enactment. The Farm Bill also provided $20 million in mandatory
funding for a project to test point-of-purchase incentives for healthful
foods and authorized appropriations for other similar projects.
Other important changes included:
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Extended simplified reporting to all households |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Extended of transitional benefits to those leaving a State-funded
cash assistance program |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Allowed use of E&T funds for job retention expenses |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Clarified the E&T volunteers are not subject to a participation limit |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Stipulated that State agencies must issue monthly benefit allotments to
individuals in one lump sum unless a benefit correction is
necessary |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Sets standards for expungement of benefits and for moving
benefits off line |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Clarified that interchange fees may not apply to EBT transactions |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Required USDA to set standards for major changes in program design |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Required USDA to require proper testing as a condition of Federal
financial participation in State automation systems. |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Allowed USDA to prohibit State agencies from collecting
claims from a household and to assert a claim against a
State in cases of major systems failure |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Offered States the option of implementing a telephonic
signature process |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Codified regulations regarding bilingual access, civil
rights requirements and nutrition education |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Allowed for disqualification for clients who intentionally
obtain cash by purchasing and then discarding a product to
obtain the deposit or intentionally sells food purchased
with SNAP benefits |
![](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/web/20090807175401im_/http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/images/bullet.gif) |
Gave USDA more flexibility in setting disqualification periods
and fines for certain retailer violations.
|
Last modified:
04/30/2009
|
|