Food stamp benefits to rise permanently
The Biden administration has revised the nutrition standards of the food stamp program and prompted the largest permanent increase to benefits in the program’s history, a move that will give poor people more power to fill their grocery carts but add billions of dollars to the cost of a program that feeds 1 in 8 Americans.
Under rules to be announced today and put in place in October, average benefits will rise more than 25% from pre-pandemic levels. All 42 million people in the program will receive additional aid. The move does not require congressional approval, and unlike the large pandemic-era expansions, which are starting to expire, the changes are intended to last.
A spokeswoman at the U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed that average monthly benefits, which were $121 per person before the pandemic, will rise by $36 under the new rules.
For at least a decade, critics of the benefits have said they were too low to provide an adequate diet. More than three-quarters of households exhaust their benefits in the first half of the monthly cycle, and researchers have linked subsequent food shortages to problems as diverse as increased hospital admissions, more school suspensions and lower SAT scores.
Although the increase may seem modest to middle-class families, proponents say it will reduce hunger, improve nutrition and lead to better health.
In an interview last week, the agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, simultaneously described the work as a technical exercise in nutrition science and a reflection of the forces reshaping the politics of the safety net. In the middle of disease, hardship and racial disparities, he said, the $79 billion annual cost of the program helps “stabilize our democracy.”
Coinciding with a large new child tax credit — which temporarily offers families with children an income guarantee — the growth in food aid comes as part of an enormous pandemic-era expansion of government assistance. Critics say that the costs are unsustainable and that the aid erodes Americans’ willingness to work. The new plan will raise the program’s costs by about $20 billion a year from pre-pandemic levels.
In technical terms, the Agriculture Department has revised the Thrifty Food Plan, a list of two dozen food groups the government uses to estimate the cost of an economical, nutritious diet. Its value was first set in 1962 and, other than being adjusted for inflation, had not grown since then.
The changes are the result of a law passed in 2018 by a Republican Congress, which ordered a review of the program’s assumptions and gave the Agriculture Department four years to do it. In January, President Joe Biden urged the department to speed up the process so that benefits “reflect the true cost of a basic healthy diet.”
Opponents of a benefit increase say the program is meant to supply only part, not all, of a household’s diet, as suggested by its formal name: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. They also say the aid would last longer if the needy spent it better, citing research showing nearly 10% goes to sweetened drinks.
“The data on the inadequacy of the Thrifty Food Plan is pretty weak,” said Angela Rachidi of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Among those eager for more food aid is Daniel Worthey, 37, a former convict and drug user who helps run a churchbased recovery program in Little Rock, Ark., where his duties include helping clients get SNAP. Worthey, who earns about $14,000 a year, recently secured custody of his 10-yearold daughter, Avery, and decided he needed SNAP himself. His benefit is $130 a month.
“I was shocked at how little it was,” he said.
Worthey saw shared meals as part of building a relationship with Avery. “I want her to grow up in a family setting, to sit down every night at the table,” he said. They make a weekly plan — Taco Tuesday, Pasta Wednesday — “to feel like we’re a team.”
But on their first trip to the grocery store, he had to drop pricey items from their list. “She wanted watermelon, cantaloupe, strawberries,” he said. He went to a food bank the next day, self-conscious about arriving as a client rather than a caseworker.
“It’s a humbling experience,” he said. “I guess there’s nothing wrong with being humbled. But I would prefer to be able to afford this on my own.”