Making Food and Nutrition Security a SNAP: Recommendations for the 2023 Farm Bill January 2023 FOOD AND Rochelle Davis Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, DBA NUTRITION President and CEO, Healthy Schools Campaign Advisor and Board Member, Mission Readiness SECURITY Rev. Douglas Greenaway Navina Khanna TA S K F O R C E President and CEO (retired), Executive Director, HEAL MEMBERS National WIC Association Food Alliance Ihuoma U. Eneli, M.D. Dariush Mozaffarian, Director, Center for Healthy M.D., DrPH José Andrés Weight and Nutrition, Nationwide Dean for Policy and Jean Mayer CO-CHAIR Children's Hospital Professor of Nutrition, Friedman Founder, World Central Kitchen School of Nutrition Science & Policy, Claire Babineaux-Fontenot Dan R. Glickman Tufts University; CEO, Feeding America Professor of Medicine, Tufts CO-CHAIR J. Nadine Gracia, School of Medicine and Division of Former USDA Secretary; M.D., M.S.C.E. Cardiology, Tufts Medical Center Senior Fellow, BPC President and CEO, Trust Robert Paarlberg, Ph.D. Leslie Sarasin for America's Health Professor Emeritus, Wellesley College; CO-CHAIR Associate, Sustainability Science President and CEO, FMI – Kristina Herrmann (through August 2022) Program, Harvard Kennedy School The Food Industry Association and Harvard Weatherhead Center Director of Underserved Ann M. Veneman Populations, Amazon Pam Schwartz, M.P.H. CO-CHAIR Molly Pfaffenroth Executive Director, Community Former USDA Secretary; (beginning August 2022) Health, Kaiser Permanente Senior Fellow, BPC Public Policy Manager, Federal Tom Stenzel Food Safety & Nutrition, Amazon Principal, The Stenzel Group LLC Former President and CEO, International Fresh Produce Association S TA F F A N D Michael Lovegrove Emma Sheffert, M.P.H. C O N S U LTA N T S Former Project Assistant Project Coordinator Melissa Maitin- Hanna Vohra, J.D., M.P.H. Shepard, M.P.P. Policy Analyst Shana Christup, M.P.H. Founder and Principal, MMS Health Public Health Director Strategies, LLC; BPC Consultant G. William Hoagland, M.S. Senior Vice President Anand Parekh, M.D., M.P.H. Chief Medical Advisor Stephanie Simms Hodges, M.S., M.P.H., R.D.N. Molly Shea Founder and CEO, The Nourished Former Intern Principles; BPC Consultant ACK NOWLE DG M E NT S The Bipartisan Policy Center would like to thank the World Central Kitchen for their support of this project. The Bipartisan Policy Center would also like to thank the staff members of the Task Force member organizations who provided assistance during the development of this policy brief. DISCLAIMER This brief is a product of BPC's Food and Nutrition Security Task Force. The findings expressed herein are those solely of the Task Force, though no member may be satisfied with every recommendation in the report. The report does not necessarily reflect the official views or opinions of any Task Force member's employer, institution, or organization, or of BPC, its founders, or its board of directors. 2 Table of Contents 4 G LOS SARY OF TE RM S 5 E XECUTIVE SUM MARY 9INTRODUCTION 9 Food and Nutrition Security in the United States 11 The Farm Bill 13 Nutrition Programs in the Farm Bill 14 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 16 Food Distribution Programs 17 Other Food and Nutrition Programs Authorized Through the Farm Bill 19 Costs and Cost Savings of Task Force Recommendations 21 A B O U T T H I S P O L I CY B R I E F 24 P O L I CY R E C O M M E N DAT I O N S 24 SNAP Eligibility, Benefit Levels, and Program Administration 39 Nutrition and Eligible Foods in SNAP 48 SNAP Integrity, Technology, and Retailer Considerations 52 Food Distribution Programs 57 Other Food and Nutrition Programs Authorized Through the Farm Bill 62CONCLUSION 6 3 A P P E N D I X 1 : D E S C R I P T I O N , E L I G I B I L I T Y, PA R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D C O S T O F FA R M B I L L N U T R I T I O N P R O G R A M S , F Y 2 0 1 9 - F Y 2 0 2 2 67 APPENDIX 2: FINDINGS FROM BPC SNAP POLL 78 APPENDIX 3: FULL LIST OF TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS 78 SNAP Eligibility, Benefit Levels, and Program Administration 79 Nutrition and Eligible Foods in SNAP 81 SNAP Integrity, Technology, and Retailer Considerations 82 Food Distribution Programs 84 Other Food and Nutrition Programs Authorized Through the Farm Bill 85REFERENCES 3 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ABAWDAble-Bodied Adults Without GusNIPGus Schumacher Food Insecurity Dependents Nutrition Incentive Program ACP Affordable Connectivity Program HEI Healthy Eating Index ACS American Community Survey HFFI Healthy Food Financing Initiative AE Adjunctive Eligibility HHSU.S. Department of Health and Human Services BAH Basic Allowance for Housing ITO Indian Tribal Organization BBCE Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility LFPALocal Food Purchase Assistance CACFP Child and Adult Care Food Program Cooperative Agreement Program CBO Congressional Budget Office MOE Maintenance of Effort CDCCenters for Disease Control and NAC National Accuracy Clearinghouse Prevention NAP Nutrition Assistance Program CEP Community Eligibility Provision NASEMNational Academies of Sciences, CNR Child Nutrition Reauthorization Engineering, and Medicine CORDChildhood Obesity Research NHANESNational Health and Nutrition Demonstration Examination Survey CMSCenters for Medicare and Medicaid NSLP National School Lunch Program Services OIG USDA Office of Inspector General CSACommunity Supported Agriculture Program OMB Office of Management and Budget CSFPCommodity Supplemental Food PARISPublic Assistance Reporting Program Information System CVB Cash Value Benefit PHE Public Health Emergency DGA Dietary Guidelines for Americans SFA School Food Authorities D-SNAPDisaster Supplemental Nutrition SFMNPSeniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Assistance Program Program EBT Electronic Benefit Transfer SNAPSupplemental Nutrition Assistance Program EFC Expected Family Contribution SNAP-EdSupplemental Nutrition Assistance EFNEPExpanded Food and Nutrition Program Education (Nutrition Education Program Education and Obesity Prevention FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration Grant Program) FDPIRFood Distribution Program on Indian SNAP E&TSNAP Employment and Training Reservations Programs FFCRAFamilies First Coronavirus SSI Social Security Income Response Act TANFTemporary Assistance for Needy FFFBFarmers to Families Food Box Families Program TEFAPThe Emergency Food Assistance FFVP Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Program FINIFood Insecurity Nutrition Incentive TFP Thrifty Food Plan Program USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture FNSTFFood and Nutrition Security Task USDA ERSU.S. Department of Agriculture, Force Economic Research Service FPL Federal Poverty Level USDA FNSU.S. Department of Agriculture, GAO Government Accountability Office Food and Nutrition Service GOALSGenerating Opportunities to Attain WICSpecial Supplemental Nutrition Lifelong Success Program Program for Women, Infants and Children 4 Executive Summary The 2023 Farm Bill gives Congress an opportunity to improve food and nutrition security through federal nutrition assistance programs by expanding access, reducing costs through improved efficiencies and program integrity, and promoting workforce participation. The legislation also is an opportunity to increase the intake of foods recommended by the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) and to enhance benefits to ensure eligible households can access, afford, and have sufficient knowledge to purchase and prepare a nutritious, balanced diet. The major federal nutrition assistance programs authorized in the farm bill are: • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the food stamp program • The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) • Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) • Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) • Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) • Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) • Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) • Community Food Projects The farm bill is an omnibus, multiyear law that governs an array of food and agricultural programs. Although farm bills originally focused on farm commodity revenue supports, the legislation's programs have become increasingly expansive in nature, particularly when the nutrition title was first included in 1973. Typically reauthorized about every five years, the most recent farm bill, the $428 billion Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334), was signed into law in December 2018 and expires on September 30, 2023. The 2018 Farm Bill consisted of 12 titles, including the nutrition title, which reauthorized the programs listed above. The nutrition title composed 76% of total 2018 Farm Bill spending, making it the costliest title by far, with most of the funds going to SNAP.1 According to the Congressional Budget Office's May 2022 baseline for the legislation's major programs, the 2023 Farm Bill is estimated to cost $1.295 trillion over 10 years, making it the first ever farm bill to exceed $1 trillion. 2 The nutrition title is projected to make up 84% of total 2023 Farm Bill spending. 3 This increase reflects COVID-19 pandemic assistance, growth in participation, and adjustments to SNAP benefit calculations.4 In fiscal year 2021, more than 41 million Americans participated in SNAP and the total cost of the program was more than $113 billion. 5 In FY2022, SNAP 5 costs were projected to increase by 18%, largely due to the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) update, which was authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill.6 Federal nutrition assistance programs, including SNAP, serve 1 in 4 Americans.7 Given the broad reach of the federal nutrition assistance programs, it is imperative that they serve families in need, operate efficiently, and provide families with the foods they need to achieve both food and nutrition security. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (USDA ERS), 33.8 million American households experienced food insecurity in 2021, or 1 in 10 households. Black (19.8%) and Hispanic (16.2%) households were disproportionately affected, with food insecurity rates more than double the rate of white households (7%). 8 In addition to food insecurity, Americans are also experiencing alarming rates of chronic conditions, many of which are nutrition-related. More than 40% of U.S. adults and almost 20% of children and adolescents ages 2-19 have obesity, according to the CDC.9, 10 Currently, 6 in 10 U.S. adults have a chronic condition, many of which are nutrition-related, and 4 in 10 have more than one, including heart disease, some cancers, stroke, or diabetes.11 These conditions are also costly, as evidenced by a 2019 study finding that unhealthy diets accounted for almost 20% ($50 billion) of annual U.S. health care costs from heart disease, diabetes, and stroke.12 At a time when families are still experiencing food and nutrition security challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, food price inflation, and other issues, Congress should consider the health and economic costs of hunger, food insecurity, obesity, and other diet-related diseases as it reauthorizes the farm bill or considers other policy changes to federal nutrition programs. The Bipartisan Policy Center's Food and Nutrition Security Task Force (FNSTF) makes five key policy recommendations and more than 25 subrecommendations for strengthening SNAP and other federal nutrition assistance programs authorized in the farm bill. In addition to the diverse expertise of the FNSTF, the recommendations were informed by a stakeholder roundtable, focus groups with former and current SNAP participants, and a nationally representative poll on perspectives on SNAP and potential policy changes. The September 2022 poll, which surveyed 2,210 U.S. adults, including 483 SNAP participants, found support for increased SNAP benefit levels; access to the program for additional population groups such as college students; opportunities for online grocery purchasing; and pilot programs aimed at incentivizing the purchase of healthful foods. a A bipartisan majority of U.S. adults (67%) and a majority of SNAP participants (58%) said that states should be able to operate pilot programs to improve the nutrition of SNAP participants, either freely or with USDA approval. Additionally, more than two-thirds of adults across political parties and more than three-quarters of SNAP participants supported providing additional benefits to SNAP participants for the purchase of fruits and vegetables or a a Poll findings can be found in Appendix 2. 6 range of healthful foods such as fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, legumes, and whole grains. A majority of U.S. adults and SNAP participants also favored providing these additional benefits even when conditioned on not purchasing or with reduced benefits for purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages. P O L I C Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S b SNAP Eligibility, Benefit Levels, and Program Administration: • Ensure that SNAP benefit levels are adequate to achieve a nutritious diet; that eligibility requirements and employment and training programs promote workforce participation and increased earnings without presenting undue barriers to SNAP participation; and that access to SNAP is expanded to all U.S. territories. Nutrition and Eligible Foods in SNAP: • Strengthen nutrition in SNAP by encouraging the consumption of nutritious foods through establishment of a fruit and vegetable cash value benefit (CVB), further expansion of and investment in the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), stronger retailer stocking standards, improvements to the SNAP-Ed program, better data collection, and demonstration projects. SNAP Integrity, Technology, and Retailer Considerations: • Use data matching, online purchasing, and other technology enhancements to improve SNAP access, integrity, efficiency, and operations for participants and retailers. Food Distribution Programs: • Modernize the food distribution programs, including The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), to improve nutrition, program access, and program operations. b The full list of policy recommendations, including subrecommendations, can be found in Appendix 3. 7 Other Food and Nutrition Programs Authorized Through the Farm Bill: • Improve food and nutrition security for priority populations through other food and nutrition assistance programs, including the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP), Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI), Public-Private Partnerships Program, and Micro-Grants for Food Security Program. The Task Force acknowledges that fully implementing its recommendations, which are discussed in more detail below, will increase federal spending. Current estimates from the Congressional Budget Office project a significant decline in SNAP expenditures over the next decade as the economy recovers, the pandemic recedes, and public health emergency (PHE) flexibilities are lifted.13 Thus, the Task Force's recommendations related to SNAP's expansion should be considered in the overall context of enhanced economic security, which extends beyond the participants themselves to their local economies, as well as the projected decrease in actual expenditures with improved economic conditions. Long-term improvements in diet quality and nutrition security could also help offset higher spending by reducing costs to the private and public health care sectors. Improving diet quality for all Americans could significantly reduce economic costs related to diet-related chronic conditions. Not taking action to improve SNAP and other federal nutrition programs, as well as the diets of all people in the United States, will lead to premature deaths and disability, and to continued increases in health care costs. Such outcomes will disrupt the U.S. economy and reduce quality of life for millions. By strengthening SNAP and other federal nutrition programs authorized in the farm bill, the recommendations in this report can reverse these harmful trends and lead to a future of healthful living for all. 8 Introduction FOOD AND NUTRITION SECURITY I N T H E U N I T E D S TAT E S Ensuring that all Americans have equitable access to affordable, nutritious foods is foundational to our nation's health, education, national security, and economic priorities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines food security as "access by all people at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life," and food insecurity as "the limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways."14 Food insecurity is associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including poor diet quality and chronic disease management, underuse of prescribed medications, increased hospitalizations, prolonged periods of stress, developmental delays, and higher costs of care.15 USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) found that 89.8% of U.S. households were food secure throughout 2021.16 However, the remaining 10.2% (13.5 million households) experienced food insecurity at some point that year.17 About 6.4% (8.4 million households) had low food insecurity, and 3.8% (5.1 million households) had very low food security.18 "Low food security" is defined as households reducing the quality, variety, and desirability of their diets, but the quantity of food intake and normal eating patterns are not substantially disrupted.19 This category is distinct from "very low food security," which is defined as, at any time in a year, the eating patterns of at least one household member are disrupted and the quantity of food intake reduced, because the household lacks the resources for food. 20 In other words, in close to 4% of U.S. households, one or more household members do not eat enough food at some time in a year because of lack of money or resources. This is the most severe type of food insecurity measured by USDA. See Figure 1. 21 9 Figure 1. U.S. Households by Food Security Status, 2021 Food-insecure households 10.2% Food-secure households 89.8% Households with low food security - 6.4% Households with very low food security - 3.8% Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 2021 Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement. Although the overall prevalence of food insecurity remained unchanged from 2019 to 2021, food security across demographic and geographic subgroups varied considerably. 22 For example, in 2021, the prevalence of food insecurity for Black (19.8%) and Hispanic (16.2%) households was significantly higher than the national average (10.2%), and more than double the rates of white households (7%). 23 Additionally, households with children (12.5%), single-parent households headed by women (24.3%), single-parent households headed by men (16.2%), households with incomes below 185% of the federal poverty level (FPL) (26.5%), and households in the country's southern region (1­1 .4%) had higher rates of food insecurity than the national average. 24 Although strengthening purchasing power to buy food can achieve food security, ensuring access to nutritious food is foundational to achieving nutrition security and promoting better health outcomes. In March 2022, USDA defined nutrition security as "consistent and equitable access to healthy, safe and affordable foods that promote optimal health and well-being." 25 Nutrition security builds on food security by reaffirming the strong association between food insecurity, poor nutrition, and diet-related diseases, particularly among historically underserved communities. 26 The Food and Nutrition Security Task Force recommended that USDA develop a standard federal definition for nutrition security in its first report, Improving Food and Nutrition Security During COVID-19, the Economic Recovery, and Beyond, released in September 2021. Ensuring nutrition security is crucial to improving both short- and long-term health outcomes. Notably, Americans of all demographic groups have poor dietary quality. 27 The overall diet quality score for Americans on the Healthy Eating Index (HEI) is 58 out of 100, indicating that the average American diet does not align with the DGA. 28 Poor diet quality, including the intake 10 of processed foods, increases the risk of diet-related chronic diseases, such as obesity and heart disease. 29 According to the CDC, poor nutrition is the leading cause of illness in the United States, and diet-related diseases result in more than 600,000 deaths per year. 30 More than 4 in 10 U.S. adults have obesity, nearly 1 in 2 has diabetes or prediabetes, and nearly 1 in 5 children and adolescents ages 2-19 has obesity. 31, 32, 33 Currently, 6 in 10 U.S. adults have at least one chronic condition and 4 in 10 have more than one, many of which are nutrition-related, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and some cancers. 34 Beyond the effects on health, poor diet and diet-related diseases are a major contributor to rising U.S. health care expenditures. Approximately 85% of health care spending is related to the management of diet-related chronic disease. 35 A 2019 study found that unhealthy diets account for almost 20%, or $50 billion, of annual U.S. health care costs from heart disease, diabetes, and stroke. 36 Further, a recent Bipartisan Policy Center report estimated that in 2020, annual medical expenditures due to obesity totaled $248 billion, equating to 6.2% of total health care costs. 37 Research has shed light on the many barriers to food and nutrition security at the individual and population levels. One barrier is the food environment in a community. Research in three Los Angeles neighborhoods found that food security varied by neighborhood, with the percentage of census tracts that are food secure being associated with the types and locations of food retailers, such as supermarkets, corner stores, and restaurants, located in the neighborhood. 38 Another study conducted in California found that low-income neighborhoods had more unhealthy food and beverage advertisements than higher-income neighborhoods. 39 The affordability of nutritious foods, such as fruits and vegetables, can also vary depending on where an individual lives. In some parts of the United States, food prices are as low as 85% of the national average, while in others, they are nearly 30% above the national average.40 Given the enormous impact of poor nutrition on Americans' health, health care costs, and society, both the public and private sectors should maximize opportunities to strengthen food and nutrition security. Recommendations in this report help to achieve this goal. T H E FA R M B I L L The farm bill, which is typically reauthorized every five years, provides an opportunity to improve food and nutrition security through the federal nutrition assistance programs. The farm bill is an omnibus, multiyear law that governs an array of food and agricultural programs. Although farm bills have historically focused on farm commodity revenue supports, they have become increasingly expansive in nature particularly when the nutrition title was first included in 1973. The most recent farm bill, the $428 billion 11 Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334), was signed into law in December 2018, and the programs authorized under the bill are set to expire on September 30, 2023. The 2018 Farm Bill consists of 12 titles, including commodity revenue supports, farm credit, trade, nutrition, rural development, research, forestry, energy, horticulture, and crop insurance. At the time of the 2018 law's passage, the legislation was projected to cost $428 billion over five years and $867 billion over 10 years, and the nutrition title, which reauthorizes several domestic food and nutrition assistance programs, was projected to constitute 76% of the total farm bill spending. 41,42 See Figure 2. Figure 2. Projected Outlays Under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, by Title (Five-year projected mandatory outlays at enactment, billions of dollars, FY2019–FY2023) Crop Insurance $38B Commodities $31B Conservation $29B Trade $2.0B Misc. $1.9B Hort. $1.0B Research $0.7B Energy $0.5B Forestry $0.01B Nutrition $326B Source: Congressional Research Service, The 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334): Summary and Side-by- Side Comparison , February 22, 2019. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/ R45525/10. Extending the 2018 Farm Bill policies with no changes (baseline), the 2023 Farm Bill would total an estimated $1.295 trillion, making it the first farm bill to cost more than $1 trillion. However, farm bill spending has shifted since passage of the 2018 bill.43 According to the May 2022 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline for the major farm bill programs, the nutrition title is projected to be 84% of total farm bill spending, compared with 76% of the 2018 Farm Bill and 67% of the 2008 Farm Bill.44 This increase reflects COVID-19 pandemic assistance and adjustments to SNAP benefit calculations.45 See Figure 3.46 12 Figure 3. May 2022 CBO Baseline for 2023 Farm Bill Programs, by Title (billions of dollars, 10-year mandatory outlays, FY2023–2032) Crop Insurance $80B Conservation $59B Commodities $56B $10B including: Trade, Hort., Research, Misc. and Energy Trade $4.8B Hort. $2.1B Research $1.3B Misc. $0.8B Nutrition Energy $0.5B $1,090B Source: Congressional Research Service, Farm Bill Primer: What Is the Farm Bill? June 28, 2022. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12047. NUTRITION PROGRAMS I N T H E FA R M B I L L The 2018 Farm Bill's nutrition title amended aspects of SNAP and related federal nutrition assistance programs. The major programs reauthorized in the 2018 bill are: • Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the food stamp program • The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) • Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) • Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) • Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) • Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) • Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) • Community Food Projects See Appendix 1 for information on these and other farm bill programs. Notably, much of the debate over the 2018 Farm Bill focused on stricter work-related requirements and other eligibility rules in SNAP, which ultimately did not end up in the final farm bill, issues that are likely to arise again during the 2023 deliberations. 13 S U P P L E M E N TA L N U T R I T I O N A S S I S TA N C E P R O G R A M ( S N A P ) Among USDA's domestic food assistance programs, SNAP is the largest in both participation and federal spending. Federal spending for SNAP is driven largely by program participation. See Table 1. Approximately 95% of SNAP expenditures are for the benefits themselves, which are 100% federally funded.47 However, the program's administrative costs for eligibility determination are shared between the states and the federal government. Table 1. SNAP Program Participation and Costs, FY2018–FY2022 Average Fiscal Average Benefit per Total Benefits Total Costs Year Participation Person per Month 2018 40,776,000 $124.50 $60,916,850,000 $65,448,840,000 2019 35,702,000 $129.83 $55,622,280,000 $60,385,540,000 2020 39,875,000 $155.21 $74,099,050,000 $79,119,030,000 2021 41,555,000 $217.33 $108,515,730,000 $113,740,260,000 2022* 41,200,000 $238.42 $143,887,000,000 $159,369,000,000 *FY2022 data are CBO estimates (May 2022) Sources: FY2018–2021 Data: USDA Food and Nutrition Service, "Program Data Overview: Summary of Annual Data, FY2018–2022." Updated November 2022. Available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/ overview. FY2022 estimates: Congressional Budget Office. Baseline Projections: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2022-05/51312-2022-05- snap.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2022. In response to the COVID-19 PHE, the federal government, in the form of waivers, flexibilities, and relief legislation, strengthened SNAP's reach by temporarily suspending work-related requirements for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD), extending SNAP participants' use of mobile technology to redeem SNAP benefits in 49 states, expanding access to college students and others, and increasing benefit levels.48, 49 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328), enacted in December 2022, rescinded the temporary boost to SNAP benefits, known as emergency allotments, established through COVID-19 relief legislation. 50 Prior to this law, state SNAP agencies had the option to provide monthly emergency allotments to all SNAP households as long as both the federal PHE and their state-level emergency declarations were in place. 51 Beginning in March 2023, all SNAP households' benefits will return to normal amounts. 52 In August 2021, as required by the 2018 Farm Bill, USDA released a re- evaluation of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which is used to calculate SNAP benefit levels. 53 The TFP is one of four food plans developed by USDA, which provide an estimate of a healthy eating pattern at varying price points. The least expensive of the four plans, the TFP, supports an active, healthy lifestyle, aligns 14 with dietary guidance, represents a limited food budget, and reflects what Americans purchase and consume. 54 In conducting its data-driven review of the TFP, USDA relied on four key factors identified in the 2018 Farm Bill: current food prices, what Americans typically eat, dietary guidance, and the nutrients in food items. As a result of the first-ever cost adjustment to TFP since it was first introduced in 1975, the average benefit amount was permanently increased for FY2022 by $36.24 per person, per month, or $1.19 per day. This amounts to an average benefit increase of 21% over pre-pandemic levels. 55 However, given that some COVID-19 emergency SNAP allotments expired at the time the TFP update took effect, actual increases were smaller. CBO projected that SNAP program costs would increase by 18% in 2022, from $135 billion to $159 billion, largely due to the TFP update. 56 Monthly participation is expected to average 41.2 million, with average monthly benefit levels of $238.42 per person. 57 Although total benefits are projected to remain relatively high through 2023, program costs are expected to decline in 2024 and 2025 and program participation to gradually decline through 2032 to 33.1 million persons annually. 58, 59 SNAP participation typically declines after the unemployment rate falls and the economy improves, although this change does not take place as quickly as it expands during times of increased need.60 SNAP-Ed To promote healthy eating among SNAP-eligible populations, the Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program, commonly referred to as SNAP Education or SNAP-Ed, provides nutrition education to low- income households on a variety of topics, including the importance of good nutrition and how to achieve it, how to stretch food dollars by budgeting, and the importance of physical activity.61 SNAP-Ed works to build healthier communities through partnerships and collaboration, and it focuses on policy, systems, and environmental changes to improve health and nutrition. In FY2022, $464 million was allocated to states to implement SNAP‑Ed activities.62 GusNIP The Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) was established in the 2018 Farm Bill.63 Formerly known as the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) program, GusNIP provides competitive grants to programs that encourage good nutrition through incentives and prescriptions for produce. The nutrition incentive programs provide income-eligible consumers with incentives to purchase fruits and vegetables. These types of programs are commonly referred to as "Double Up Bucks" or "Vouchers for Veggies," and they allow SNAP participants to purchase additional fruits and vegetables by providing them with Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) benefits. Produce prescription programs are operated through health care systems and health 15 care providers, who provide prescriptions to their patients to increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables to prevent or reduce the impact of nutrition-related chronic conditions. In addition to the two programs, a training, technical assistance, evaluation, and information center was established as part of the 2018 Farm Bill to oversee evaluation of GusNIP. In FY2019, 22 GusNIP projects were funded; 30 projects received funding in FY2020, 63 in FY2021, and 81 in FY2022.64 In 2022, USDA announced additional funding support for GusNIP projects as part of the American Rescue Plan Act (P.L. 117-2), including $40 million announced in June 2022 and $59.4 million in November 2022.65, 66 GusNIP contains three types of grant programs: 1. Nutrition incentive grants that encourage increased purchases of fruits and vegetables among SNAP participants by providing incentives at the point of sale; 2. Produce prescription grants that provide prescriptions for fresh fruits and vegetables, coupled with nutrition education, to increase purchasing and consumption of fruits and vegetables, reduce health care usage and costs, and reduce food insecurity; and 3. Cooperative agreement grants that offer training, technical assistance and support, and evaluation to the grantees operating nutrition incentive or produce prescription programs.67 FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS Congress established The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) through the Emergency Food Assistance Act of in 1983. Initially called the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP supports agricultural producers and low-income households by connecting people in need with USDA- purchased foods.68, 69 USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers TEFAP, which provides emergency food assistance, at no cost, to low-income Americans. USDA purchases a variety of nutritious, high quality USDA foods and makes them available for distribution through state agencies. Each state receives food based on the number of individuals with incomes below the poverty level, as well as the number of individuals who are unemployed. States distribute the foods through local agencies, such as food banks and other community organizations. In FY2021, TEFAP was authorized at $1.25 billion and distributed 940 million pounds of food.70 In FY2022, TEFAP funding for food purchases authorized by Congress and provided by USDA totaled about $800 million, including almost $400 million for entitlement food purchases and $400 million in additional food purchase funds allocated by USDA for COVID-19 recovery. The department also provided $180 million in TEFAP administrative grants for food storage and distribution. Additionally, USDA purchased $516 million in food to support U.S.‑grown commodities through 16 Section 32 funding and authority, and distributed these bonus commodities through TEFAP to emergency feeding organizations, such as food banks.71, 72 Feeding America network food banks, which distribute approximately 85% of TEFAP foods provided nationwide, reported distributing 1.29 billion pounds of food through TEFAP in FY2022.73 The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) was first authorized in 1977 to connect low-income Native American households with nutritious foods.74 Today, many eligible low-income households, including those on Indian reservations and American Indian individuals residing in approved areas near reservations and in Oklahoma, participate in the program as an alternative to SNAP. Through FDPIR, USDA Foods are provided to Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) or state agencies, which distribute the goods in the form of food packages to households. In FY2020, approximately 276 tribes received FDPIR foods. In FY2021, FDPIR received $122 million in funding, and the program served 48,000 individuals.75 The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) was established in 1969 to address hunger in pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children.76 In 1974, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) was established, shifting CSFP's focus to other populations.c Pilot programs that provided access to CSFP for people 60 years and older were established in 1982. Currently, CSFP serves low-income Americans ages 60 years or older by providing them with nutritious foods acquired through USDA Foods. State agencies and ITOs receive the USDA foods as well as administrative funds to operate the programs. They then work with food banks and other community organizations to distribute the food packages to eligible individuals. In FY2022, CSFP received $332 million in funding, which allowed the program to serve 760,547 individuals during calendar year 2022.77 OTHER FOOD AND NUTRITION PROGR AMS AUTHORIZED T H R O U G H T H E FA R M B I L L Additional food and nutrition programs authorized in the Farm Bill include: • Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) • Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) • Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) • Public-Private Partnerships • Micro-Grants for Food Security Program c The WIC program is reauthorized through the Child Nutrition Reauthorization rather than the farm bill. 17 The SFMNP increases access to locally grown foods for low-income seniors. USDA FNS provides grants to states, U.S. territories, and Indian Tribal Organizations, which then provide vouchers, or coupons, to eligible individuals. In FY2020, SFMNP received $21 million in funding and served 725,686 individuals.78 In FY2021, SFMNP grant amounts totaled $23.7 million.79 FFVP provides fresh fruits and vegetables at no cost to children attending eligible elementary schools. 80 USDA awards funding to state agencies, which work with local school food authorities (SFA) to operate the program. FFVP prioritizes schools with the highest percentage of children who qualify for free or reduced-price meals. The program's intent is to introduce children to new and different fresh fruits and vegetables, and SFAs have flexibility in determining the frequency and types of fruits and vegetables served. In FY2022, USDA FNS distributed $233.1 million to state agencies for FFVP. 81 In comparison, in FY2019 the most recent year for which full data on program reach are available, FFVP received $172 million in funding, which allowed 7,600 schools to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to 4 million students. 82 Authorized by the 2014 and 2018 farm bills, the Healthy Food Financing Initiative aims to improve access to healthy foods in underserved areas, to create and preserve quality jobs, and to revitalize low-income communities while building a more equitable food system. 83 In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress authorized USDA to approve a community development financial institution to administer funds supporting "projects that attract fresh, healthy food retailers" and that "expand or preserve access to staple foods" and accept SNAP benefits. 84 Under HFFI, grants are available to support projects designed to improve access to fresh, healthy foods through food retailers. 85 In FY2022, $183 million in funding for HFFI was provided through USDA ($160 million) and the Department of the Treasury ($23 million), a major increase in funding from FY2021 when $28 million was provided for the initiative. The funding increase was provided through the American Rescue Plan Act (P.L. 117-2, Title I), which authorized funding to address disruptions in the food supply chain and agricultural production systems due to the pandemic. 86 The Micro-Grants for Food Security Program, aimed at increasing the quality and quantity of locally grown foods in food insecure communities in the noncontiguous U.S. states and territories, was established in the 2018 Farm Bill. 87 USDA distributed funds to agricultural departments or agencies in eligible states and territories to competitively issue subgrants of up to $5,000 or $10,000 to eligible entities (e.g., individuals, Indian tribes, nonprofits engaged in food insecurity, federally funded educational facilities, and local or tribal governments). The funds must be used for specified activities to increase the quantity and quality of local foods. In FY2022, $4.4 million in funding was awarded to five agricultural agencies or departments in Alaska, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and Hawaii. 88 18 The 2018 Farm Bill also authorized $5 million in discretionary funding for up to 10 pilot projects that support public-private partnerships addressing food insecurity and poverty. They were to last no more than two years and were to address specified objectives. However, this program never received funding. 89 The 2018 Farm Bill required school food authorities in the contiguous U.S. states to purchase domestic commodities or products to the maximum extent practicable for the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program.90 A domestic commodity or product is defined as an agricultural commodity that is produced in the United States or a food product that is substantially processed in the United States using agricultural commodities that are produced in the United States. However, the federal child nutrition programs, including the school meal programs, Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), summer meal programs, and WIC are otherwise authorized through Child Nutrition Reauthorization, typically a separate piece of legislation from the farm bill. C O S T S A N D C O S T S AV I N G S O F TA S K F O R C E R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S As stated earlier, the Task Force acknowledges that fully implementing its recommendations, which are described in more detail in the Policy Recommendations section of this brief, will increase federal spending. Policy recommendations that would increase spending, relative to current law, include but are not limited to the following: the expansion of SNAP and SNAP-Ed to Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories; increased SNAP participation as a result of expanded access to TANF families who lose their cash assistance along with expanded benefits to military families and other populations; a new SNAP Cash Value Benefit for the purchase of healthy foods or expansion of GusNIP; increased SNAP-Ed funding; increased funding for TEFAP entitlement funding; additional funding for nutrition research; and expanded resources for FFVP and SFMNP. Estimating the direct impact of these and other Task Force recommendations is a challenge. Where reliable cost estimates are available, they are included in the text discussion of the specific recommendation. Although some Task Force members wanted an overall cost estimate, it was decided that due to the interaction of various recommendations, summing up cost estimates for individual recommendations could be misleading. The Task Force recommendations acknowledge a variety of policy goals for SNAP, including improving economic security, food security, and nutrition security for all Americans. With respect to economic stabilization, preliminary estimates indicate that federal expenditures for SNAP will reach a historic high, topping nearly $160 billion in FY2022, while providing benefits to more than 19 41 million people.91 The program, which expanded in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, provided valuable food purchasing power in times of economic stress. High unemployment coupled with broadened eligibility and reduced workforce requirements combined to significantly increase SNAP expenditures in recent years. Current CBO estimates project a significant decline in SNAP expenditures over the next decade as the economy recovers, the pandemic recedes, and PHE flexibilities are lifted: SNAP participation will decline steadily to 33 million people by the end of the decade, according to the CBO, and annual expenditures will fall to $110 billion.92 SNAP's economic benefits extend beyond the participants to local economies. SNAP participants typically spend their benefits soon after receiving them, boosting revenue for local communities. A 2019 study from USDA ERS found that during a slowing economy, a $1 billion increase in SNAP benefits would produce a $1.54 billion increase in the GDP, a more than 150% return on investment.93 This benefit increase would generate an additional $32 million in income for the U.S. agriculture industries and support an additional 480 full-time agriculture jobs, the study said.94 According to the National Grocers' Association, SNAP is responsible for nearly 200,000 grocery industry jobs and nearly 45,000 jobs in supporting industries including agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and municipal services. Grocery and other industry jobs that administer SNAP generate more than $9.4 billion in earnings.95 Thus, the Task Force's recommendations related to expansion of the program should be considered in the overall context of enhanced economic security for both SNAP participants and benefits to local economies, as well as the projected decrease in actual expenditures as economic conditions improve. This brief includes several recommendations to enhance nutrition security in addition to food security. The Task Force believes that long-term improvements in diet quality would offset the potential costs of these recommendations by reducing health care costs. The average American adult currently shows about 60% adherence to the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), a measure of diet quality.96 But recent research finds that if this were increased to 72% adherence (a relative increase of 20%), the United States could save an estimated $31.5 billion in health-related costs annually.97 Under a more ambitious scenario, if the average adult increased adherence to 80% of the HEI, researchers project an annual savings of $55.1 billion.98 Improving diet quality for all Americans has the potential to significantly reduce economic costs related to diet-related chronic conditions. The Task Force believes that failing to take action to improve the quality of SNAP participants' diets, as well as the diets of all Americans, will lead to unnecessary premature deaths and disability and to continued increases in health care costs, which would disrupt the U.S. economy and reduce quality of life for millions. Actions outlined in this report could reverse these harmful trends and lead to a future of healthful living for all. 20 About This Policy Brief This policy brief provides bipartisan, evidence-based, consensus-based recommendations to improve food security and nutrition security by strengthening SNAP and other food assistance programs reauthorized through the 2023 Farm Bill. The brief should serve as a useful resource for policymakers and other stakeholders considering priorities for the 2023 Farm Bill and other federal and state legislation, regulations, and private-sector actions. Policy recommendations address the following topics: • SNAP Eligibility, Benefit Levels, and Program Administration • Nutrition and Eligible Foods in SNAP • SNAP Integrity, Technology, and Retailer Considerations • Food Distribution Programs • Other Food and Nutrition Programs Authorized Through the Farm Bill BPC has a history of engaging on issues related to food and nutrition security, including providing recommendations related to policy initiatives in the farm bill. Before enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill, BPC's SNAP Task Force, led by former Agriculture Secretaries Dan Glickman and Ann Veneman and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, released a report, Leading with Nutrition: Leveraging Federal Programs for Better Health, with the goal of identifying strategies to promote nutrition through public programs, such as SNAP, and policies related to food and health. In May 2021, BPC launched the bipartisan Food and Nutrition Security Task Force, comprising 18 distinguished public- and private-sector leaders. This report is the third in a series of three from this Task Force. In addition to the experience and expertise of the Task Force members, the recommendations were informed by: (1) a stakeholder roundtable; (2) two focus groups of individuals with lived experience with SNAP and other federal nutrition assistance programs; and (3) a nationally representative poll of U.S. adults and SNAP participants. On May 3, 2022, BPC hosted a virtual stakeholder roundtable discussion on behalf of the Task Force. During the roundtable, the 32 participants were asked to share their perspectives on how food and nutrition security can be improved through the 2023 Farm Bill. Questions focused on all five topics areas on which the Task Force makes recommendations in this brief. Stakeholders represented anti-hunger and nutrition advocates; racial equity and health equity advocates; organizations addressing social determinants of food and nutrition insecurity; nutrition researchers and educators; public health and health care providers; the private 21 sector; and philanthropic organizations. Participating stakeholders were also invited to share written comments and resources. On June 28, 2022, BPC hosted two virtual focus groups with a total of nine individuals with lived experience. The focus groups provided insight into the experiences and perspectives of current and former SNAP participants. Discussion topics included: • Experience using SNAP • Nutrition and eligible foods in SNAP • Nutrition incentives and produce prescriptions • Impact of the COVID-19 flexibilities and waivers on SNAP eligibility and benefit levels • SNAP employment and training programs and work requirements • Overall opinions of and improvements needed to SNAP During the virtual focus groups, participants emphasized the importance of adequate benefits and recommended that benefit levels be increased, especially given rising food prices. Participants also voiced support for incentive programs, including GusNIP, and additional benefits to allow them to shop more at farmers' markets, purchase fresh produce, and support local farmers. Participants described burdensome application and recertification processes and a lack of communication between state SNAP agencies and participants, particularly regarding the availability of SNAP employment and training (E&T) programs and incentive programs, such as GusNIP. Participants also emphasized the importance of incorporating the experiences of individuals who have participated in SNAP and other federal nutrition assistance programs into program design, implemention, and policy decision-making processes. In addition, BPC commissioned a poll through Morning Consult to better understand the perspectives of the general public and of SNAP participants about SNAP. The poll was conducted September 12-14, 2022, and surveyed 2,210 adults, 483 of whom were current SNAP participants. Interviews were conducted online, and demographic data was weighted to match an approximate makeup of the U.S. population.d The pollsters asked 10 questions relating to SNAP benefits, SNAP eligibility criteria, and SNAP operations. Key findings from the poll are included in Box 1, and the full list of questions and poll results can be found in Appendix 2. Through the stakeholder roundtable, focus groups, and poll, the Task Force gained useful insights into areas of focus that informed the policy recommendations in this brief. d The margin of error for the SNAP poll was +/-2% for the general population and +/-4% for SNAP participants. 22 Box 1: Key Findings from SNAP Poll SNAP participants express the need for a benefits increase. • More than half (59%) of current SNAP participants say their SNAP benefit levels are too low. Additionally, three out of four (74%) current SNAP participants say benefit levels should increase; the figure includes more than half (58%) who say benefit levels should increase by 20% or more. SNAP participants support broadening the variety of items benefits should enable them to purchase. • A majority of current SNAP participants agree benefits should be allowed to be used for hot, prepared foods (80%) and the purchase of groceries online (91%). SNAP participants generally support lessening eligibility criteria. • A majority of current SNAP participants agree college students (79%) and legal immigrants (70%) should be eligible to participate in SNAP if they meet other eligibility criteria. There is bipartisan support for SNAP to incentivize the purchase of healthful foods. • A large majority of current SNAP participants and adults, regardless of partisanship, support providing additional benefits to participants who purchase healthful foods and fruits and vegetables. A majority of U.S. adults and SNAP participants also support providing these additional benefits when conditioned on not purchasing or with reduced benefits for purchase of sugar- sweetened beverages. • More than half (58%) of current SNAP participants say states should be able to operate pilot programs to improve the nutrition of SNAP participants, as does a bipartisan majority of adults. 23 Policy Recommendations S N A P E L I G I B I L I T Y, B E N E F I T L E V E L S , A N D P R O G R A M A D M I N I S T R AT I O N P O L I C Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N Ensure that SNAP benefit levels are adequate to achieve a nutritious diet; that eligibility requirements and employment and training programs promote workforce participation and increased earnings without presenting undue barriers to SNAP participation; and that access to SNAP is expanded to all U.S. territories. SNAP is the largest USDA food and nutrition assistance program and is the cornerstone of the nation's federal nutrition safety net.99 As an "entitlement program," SNAP provides food and nutrition assistance to all individuals and households who apply and meet the eligibility criteria, including income and asset limits.100 SNAP's benefit structure allows the program to expand as households' incomes fall and to contract when households recover and poverty declines.101 For example, before the COVID-19 pandemic, 36 million income- eligible individuals participated in SNAP each month.102 However, during the pandemic, when many families experienced job insecurity and lost income, SNAP enrollment increased rapidly to more than 41.5 million participants each month, reaffirming the program's ability to respond quickly, reduce household food insecurity and overall health care expenditures, and assist families facing economic or health crises.103, 104 The sharp increase in SNAP costs from 2019– 2021 is largely due to COVID-19-related policy changes that increased SNAP participation and benefit levels.105 See Figure 4. 24 Figure 4: Total SNAP Costs, 2000-2021 (in billions of dollars) 120 100 Billions of Dollars 80 60 40 20 $0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Available at https://www.fns. usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap. Benefit Levels As required by the 2018 Farm Bill, USDA should continue to reevaluate the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) every five years and annually update benefit levels for inflation to ensure benefit adequacy. The most recent update to benefit levels, based on an evaluation using the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), was released in 2021. As noted previously, USDA's 2021 TFP reevaluation was the first comprehensive update to the benefit package in more than 45 years.106 In addition, research on benefit levels is critical to determining whether existing benefits are sufficient to address food and nutrition insecurity. Research should consider such factors as the cost of living or food costs and should heavily incorporate input from SNAP participants. In a 2021 USDA report on barriers to healthy eating among SNAP participants, 3 in 5 of the 88% of participants who noted one or more barrier cited "affordability of healthy food" as the largest environmental barrier to achieving a healthy diet. Barriers were similar across household composition, income sources, education level, urbanicity, and geographic region.107 To support healthy eating among SNAP participants, USDA should continue to conduct research on benefit adequacy and barriers to program participation to inform timely updates to SNAP benefit levels and policies. Income and Asset Limits SNAP eligibility rules and benefit levels are largely set at the federal level. To qualify for SNAP under the federal rules, a household must meet three criteria: 25 gross monthly income,e net monthly income,f and asset limits.108 See Table 2. A household's gross monthly income must be at or below 130% of the FPL, or $28,550 annually for a three-person household in FY2022. Households with a member who is elderly (age 60 or older) or has a disability are not subject to the gross income limit. Net monthly income must be at or below the FPL, or $21,960 annually for a three-person household in FY2022.109 Asset limits must fall below $2,500, or $3,750 if the household has a member who is elderly or has a disability. Notably, certain assets, including applicants' homes and retirement plans, are not counted for eligibility determinations. In addition, for individuals receiving assistance from the Social Security Income (SSI) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs, certain assets are not counted in SNAP eligibility determinations. Vehicles do count toward the asset limit, unless certain exclusion criteria are met. Specifically, up to $4,650 of the fair market value of a household's vehicles are subject to an asset test.110 However, states have the option to exclude the value of vehicles from the asset limit.111 States can also align their vehicle asset limit with that of other assistance programs such as TANF, SSI, and Medicaid, so long as their limits are not more restrictive than federal SNAP eligibility rules.112 Vehicle values, and used vehicle values in particular, have skyrocketed in the past few years. Between July 2019 and July 2022, the price of used vehicles increased nearly 50%.113 This rise alone could result in a loss of SNAP eligibility without any change in income or other assets. At the same time, food prices rose 11% between August 2021 and August 2022, increasing the resources needed to purchase an adequate supply of healthy food.114 Federal requirements or limits are a baseline, giving states the flexibility to tailor certain eligibility components, such as asset limits, categorical eligibility, or work-related requirements, to expand access to SNAP. For example, in Idaho, the state asset limit is $5,000 for all households and $4,250 for households with an elderly member or someone with a disability who did not meet the gross income test (compared with the $2,500/$3,750 federal limits); Virginia has no state asset limit.115 e Gross income means a household's total, nonexcluded income before any deductions have been made. f Net monthly income is gross income minus allowable deductions. 26 Table 2: SNAP Income Eligibility Limits Oct. 1, 2021, through Sept. 30, 2022 Gross monthly income Net monthly income Household size (130% of poverty) (100% of poverty) 1 $1,396 $1,074 2 $1,888 $1,452 3 $2,379 $1,830 4 $2,871 $2,209 5 $3,363 $2,587 6 $3,855 $2,965 7 $4,347 $3,344 8 $4,839 $3,722 Each additional member +$492 +$379 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, SNAP Eligibility Frequently Asked Questions: What are the SNAP Income limits? Available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility. Congress should support the utilization of categorical eligibility to simplify program administration, provide program flexibility, and expand eligibility to families in need. Broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) allows noncash TANF or State Maintenance of Effort (MOE) qualifying families to become automatically eligible for SNAP, which simplifies overall program administration and increases flexibilities for benefit qualification. Five states with BBCE maintain asset limits for the TANF/MOE qualifying programs, while the remaining states do not. BBCE has yet to be implemented in Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming.116 Although categorical households bypass regular SNAP asset limits, households must still meet net income limits to qualify for SNAP benefits.117 In implementing BBCE, states give individuals and families greater flexibility to continue receiving SNAP while maintaining modest savings, and this prevents them from falling off the "benefit cliff" by slowing the pace at which benefits phase out as wages increase.118 Research shows that BBCE increases SNAP eligibility and participation among certain vulnerable groups, such as households with elderly members and children, while also reducing federal administrative costs associated with the program.119 States have utilized BBCE to align asset tests or limits with other federal programs, raise asset limits, or bypass asset limits altogether to improve families' financial security.120 SNAP Participation Among Eligible Populations Each month, approximately 41 million individuals participate in SNAP.121 Nearly half (44%) of participants are children, two-thirds are in households with children and more than one-third are in households with older adults (age 60 or older), or nonelderly adults with disabilities.122 SNAP is effective in reaching more than 80% of those who are eligible.123 However, according to new data released by USDA, of the 41 million individuals eligible for SNAP in FY2019, 7 27 million were not participating and went unserved, this is often referred to as the "SNAP gap."124 In other words, 18% of eligible individuals are not accessing critical food and nutrition assistance for which they qualify.125 SNAP participation rates vary by demographic, economic and geographic subgroups.126 See Figure 5.127 SNAP gaps disproportionately affect underserved communities, including older adults, TANF and SSI-eligible households, households with mixed-immigration status, college students, and working families who are still experiencing poverty.128 For example, immigrant communities and mixed-status families might be worried about the impact of accessing SNAP benefits on their immigration status and citizenship process.129 Figure 5: Individual SNAP Participation Rate Estimates by Subgroup, FY2019 Individuals in households with SSI 85 Individuals in all households 82 Individuals in households with TANF 76 Individuals in households with earned income 72 Individuals in households with Social Security 67 Citizen children living with noncitizen adults 64 Elderly individuals living alone 63 Noncitizens 55 Elderly individuals (60 or older) 48 Individuals in households with incomes above poverty 42 Elderly individuals not living alone 28 Individuals eligible for the minimum benefit or less 28 0 20 40 60 80 100 Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Trends in USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2016 to Fiscal Year 2019. Available at https:/fns-prod.azureedge.us/ sites/default/files/resource-files/Trends2016-2019.pdf. Barriers to SNAP participation might include eligibility rules that are complicated or confusing; concerns regarding stigma or immigration status; lack of awareness of the program; past negative personal experiences with the program (themselves or a loved one); challenging application processes; or low benefit amounts that lead some eligible individuals to decide that the potential benefit does not outweigh the cumbersome application process.130 To remove unnecessary barriers to SNAP participation, Congress should make permanent certain public health emergency-related procedural flexibilities, such as providing applicants the option to interview and 28 provide their signature remotely. USDA should also encourage states to utilize existing SNAP demonstration authority to test alternative approaches to program administration to improve program access, efficiency, and delivery of SNAP benefits. Congress should consider evidence from state demonstration projects and input from state SNAP administrators, community partners, and participants to better inform and modify SNAP administration rules. To participate in SNAP, households must apply through their local SNAP agency, as each state has its own application process.131 Generally, households must undergo an interview when they first apply and when they recertify eligibility.132 Depending on the length of the certification period, households must also periodically report any changes that could affect their eligibility and benefit levels, including changes to income and employment status.133 However, during the public health emergency, USDA authorized certain procedural flexibilities on the state level to ensure efficient, equitable, and safe access to SNAP benefits.134 These flexibilities included waivers to initial, recertification, and face-to-face interview requirements; adjustments to periodic reporting requirements; allowing audio-only telephonic signatures; and extending participants' certification periods.135 States frequently used these and other flexibilities, and SNAP enrollment increased by about 6 million participants during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic between February and May 2020.136, 137 USDA and states should consider lessons learned from the pandemic on the impact of the procedural flexibilities.138 Making these temporary flexibilities permanent should facilitate enrollment among applicants who face barriers to in-person enrollment, including challenges with transportation, child care, or employment. Consideration should be given to ensuring that these procedural flexibilities do not adversely affect program integrity. To increase access to SNAP and participation among eligible households, Congress should streamline and simplify program requirements, program administration, and data sharing. Streamlining and simplifying eligibility requirements, enrollment, and data sharing across federal food, nutrition, and social service programs, such as SNAP and Medicaid, will make it easier for eligible households to participate in SNAP. Adjunctive eligibility (AE), which was established to simplify program administration, is one of the best ways to increase SNAP participation among those who are eligible. Through AE, an applicant who participates in one program, such as SNAP, is automatically considered income-eligible for other programs without having to apply separately. This is often used with WIC and SNAP.139 AE could be expanded to SSI, TANF, Medicaid, and other programs to make it easier for households to participate in SNAP and for agencies to administer the programs. In addition to utilizing AE, state agencies should be encouraged to collaborate with other agencies to identify and provide outreach to individuals who are 29 eligible but not participating in nutrition, health, and social service programs. State agencies could enter into data-sharing agreements with one another to identify these eligible individuals, and then create an outreach strategy. State agencies could conduct culturally and linguistically tailored outreach and education about SNAP and other assistance programs to communities at higher risk of food and nutrition insecurity. Additionally, USDA could require that state agencies provide accessible and mobile-friendly SNAP applications that are translated into multiple languages. Also, local organizations and agencies that process applications could better train their staff on how to treat applicants with dignity and respect throughout the process. In addition, USDA should collect data on SNAP participation by key demographic categories and conduct research on barriers to participation among those who are eligible, particularly among populations and in states with lower SNAP enrollment rates. Expansion of SNAP Benefits to U.S. Territories Congress should expand SNAP and SNAP-Ed to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, in place of the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) block grants. In addition to all 50 states, SNAP is available in some U.S. territories, including Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands.140 Other territories, such as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, instead provide food assistance to low-income families through the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP). Unlike SNAP, which can expand to meet rising and falling demand for food assistance, NAP has its funding set by Congress at a fixed amount, with benefit levels and eligibility determined by each territory where the program is implemented.141 Block grants to Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands were authorized in Section 19 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (P.L. 88-525).142 In FY2023, the block grants for the U.S. territories totaled nearly $2.9 billion, including $2.8 billion for Puerto Rico, $10 million for American Samoa, and $30 million for the Northern Mariana Islands.143, 144, 145 In 2021, 40.5% of all Puerto Ricans lived in poverty.146 Approximately one-third of adult residents in Puerto Rico experience food insecurity, and more than half of all NAP participants are children, seniors, or those receiving disability benefits.147 In comparison, the U.S. Virgin Islands, a territory in close proximity to Puerto Rico, has 22% of its population living below the poverty level, and qualifying residents are permitted to enroll in SNAP.148 Although NAP plays an important role in reducing food insecurity for households across multiple territories, its funding structure limits its flexibility and coverage during times of increased need or natural disaster. 30 A 2022 update to a USDA Feasibility Study on Implementing SNAP in Puerto Rico documented widespread support among the island's stakeholders and estimated that SNAP could be successfully implemented over a 10-year period, with an initial start-up cost of $341 million to $426 million, with about 84% of those costs required for data-systems development.149 Furthermore, Puerto Rico has existing infrastructure with community partners to support implementation of SNAP-Ed, D-SNAP, and SNAP E&T.150 In transitioning to SNAP, the feasibility study noted Puerto Rico will require significant technical assistance from USDA during the program design period, additional staffing to handle the increased caseload and program requirements, and strengthened local office infrastructure to administer the program.151 The estimated cost of SNAP administration in Puerto Rico is $249 million to $414 million per year, and the cost of benefits is $4.5 billion annually.152 If cost, political, or other considerations prevent transition from NAP to SNAP for some U.S. territories in the 2023 Farm Bill, Congress could take additional interim steps to further explore and address barriers to transition. Expansion of SNAP Benefits to Additional Populations To reduce barriers to SNAP participation, support underserved communities, and advance racial equity, Congress should expand SNAP benefits to college students, immigrant communities subject to a waiting period, and people in the military; Congress should also eliminate military members' basic allowance for housing (BAH) from SNAP eligibility determinations. Before the pandemic, SNAP eligibility rules excluded all college students enrolled at least half time unless they had a qualifying exemption, such as caring for a child or working at least 20 hours per week in paid employment.153 Even if a student meets a qualifying exemption, they are still subject to the general SNAP eligibility rules and could be excluded if they live on campus or have a school meal plan.154 Students enrolled less than half time are not excluded from receiving SNAP benefits and are subject to the work-related requirements for Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD).155 These rules reflect outdated assumptions about the typical college student and do not meet the needs of today's students.g, 156 According to a 2018 Government Accountability Office report, most college students (71%) are "nontraditional," meaning they do not enter college directly after high school and remain financially dependent on their parents.157 Instead, they might be financially independent, be enrolled part time, work full time while in school, care for dependents, or not have a traditional high school diploma. To address food insecurity among college students, more than 650 colleges and universities have a food pantry on campus.158 Studies demonstrate that pre- g The College Student Eligibility Rules were added in the 1980 amendments to the Food Stamp Act due to concerns that students from higher-income households were qualifying for SNAP as separate households. 31 pandemic, 30% of college students experienced food insecurity at some point during their college careers.159 As expected, the PHE worsened rates of food insecurity among college students and college-aged individuals in part because of university closures, reduction or closure of food assistance services, or lack of employment opportunities.160 A study on the pandemic's impact on college students' basic needs found that 39% of students in two-year colleges and 29% of students at four-year colleges reported experiencing food insecurity in the 30 days prior to the survey.161 The study also highlighted significant disparities by race and ethnicity, LGBTQIA+ status, and gender identity.162 Across two- and four-year colleges, 75% of Indigenous, 70% of Black, and 70% of American Indian or Alaska Native students experienced food and/or housing insecurity compared with 54% of white students.163 Additionally, 65% of students identifying as LGBTQIA+ experienced food and/or housing insecurity.164 In a September 2022 Morning Consult poll commissioned by the Bipartisan Policy Center, two-thirds of U.S. adults supported expanding SNAP access to college students who would otherwise qualify. In response to the PHE, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (P.L. 116-260) temporarily expanded SNAP eligibility for certain college students.165 This temporary expansion includes students who are eligible to participate in state or federally financed work-study programs, as well as students who have an Expected Family Contribution (EFC) of $0 in the current academic school year.166 Although temporary and set to expire 30 days after the federal PHE is lifted, this expansion makes approximately 6 million more college students eligible for SNAP who would otherwise not qualify.167 Approaches to amending existing law include expanding the exemptions to include certain categories of college students, such as those exempted during the PHE, or removing the student disqualification provision entirely.168 The House-passed version of the 2018 Farm Bill included a proposal to exempt caregivers, but this provision was not included in the final version.169 To increase participation, Congress and USDA should also encourage higher education institutions and others to conduct outreach to eligible students. Strategies could include making SNAP application information available to students and encouraging food stores on or near campus to become SNAP-authorized retailers. Congress should repeal the five-year restriction that bars immigrants who are lawful permanent residents from accessing public assistance programs, including SNAP. Currently, only U.S. citizens and certain noncitizens can receive SNAP benefits. For those specific groups, eligibility requirements such as income and resource limits still apply.170 Although there are exceptions, non-U.S. citizens are generally prohibited from receiving SNAP benefits for five years after entering the United States.171 Lawful permanent residents in the United States number nearly 13 million, and of those eligible to naturalize, the most common countries of origin are Mexico, China, the Philippines, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and India.172 Some states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, and Washington, maintain policies 32 that increase SNAP accessibility for immigrant populations, but federal policies still pose barriers to access for many throughout the country.173 As a result of the federal waiting period, many lawful permanent residents are prohibited from accessing SNAP, regardless of poverty status, for a multiyear waiting period. In 2019, more than 25% of naturalized citizens had incomes at or below 200% of the federal poverty level, similar to the 29% of the overall U.S. population at this income level.174, 175 Additionally, a recent Morning Consult poll commissioned by the Bipartisan Policy Center found that a majority of U.S. adults agree that immigrants who are lawfully present should be able to participate in SNAP if other eligibility criteria are met. Removing the five- year waiting period for SNAP eligibility would increase access to nutrition assistance for non-U.S. citizen households, including those with children. In 2019, 22,000 active-duty service members, 213,000 members of the National Guard or reservists, and 1.1 million veterans participated in SNAP.176 Additionally, according to a 2021 survey conducted by Blue Star Families, 29% of junior enlisted service members reported experiencing food insecurity in the last year.177 Military members who receive a Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) in lieu of on-base or other in-kind housing are often ineligible for SNAP benefits because eligibility determinations count the BAH stipend as income.178 As a result, many people in the military and their families continue to experience food insecurity and have to rely on the charitable food sector.179 The House- passed version of the 2018 Farm Bill included a provision to exclude up to $500 of the BAH in SNAP eligibility determinations, but it was not included in the enacted version.180 Eliminating military members' BAH from SNAP eligibility determinations will improve food and nutrition security among military members and their families. Transitional Benefits USDA should require states to provide five months of SNAP benefits to households that have had their cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program terminated. The benefit amount for these months should be equal to the amount received before TANF was terminated. TANF is a $16.5 billion annual federal block grant program that provides cash assistance to low-income families with children.181 Although the federal government funds TANF, states are given the authority to determine program structure and eligibility requirements for participants. Unlike SNAP, TANF funding is not restricted to food purchases, and the program offers greater purchasing flexibility to help families establish economic stability within a limited time frame.182 When eligibility criteria are met, applicants can receive both SNAP and TANF concurrently. However, if income levels or other eligibility criteria are no longer being met, the sudden removal of TANF cash benefits could push many families off a "benefit cliff" and upend their economic 33 stability.183 To help ease the transition off of TANF and allow families to continue building economic stability, or to better protect their savings, USDA should require states to provide families with five months of transitional SNAP benefits equal to their pre-termination TANF benefit levels. Twenty-three states currently offer transitional SNAP benefits with a five-month time limit that is activated by a loss of TANF.184 Employment and Training Programs Congress should enhance SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) programs through continued evaluation of existing E&T programs, such as E&T pilot programs and "SNAP to Skills," to improve their effectiveness in increasing workforce participation and earnings and their cost-effectiveness. Background on Employment and Training (E&T) Programs The requirement for all states to implement SNAP employment and training (E&T) programs dates to the Food Stamp Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198).185 It defined an E&T program as containing one or more of the following: workfare, job search training, job search, work training or experience, or other programs as approved by USDA. This legislation, which required states to implement an E&T program by April 1, 1987, provided funding through annual federal grants for state E&T operations, as well as 50% federal reimbursement for state agency E&T expenses above the grant levels, including the cost of reimbursing participants.186 State E&T programs have evolved since 1987. The 1993 Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act (P.L. 103-66) removed caps on E&T dependent care reimbursements and instead had state agencies reimburse the actual costs of dependent care expenses up to a certain limit set by the state agency.187 The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) and the Agricultural Research, Education, and Extension Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-185) more than doubled E&T funding and required states to use at least 80% of the money to provide Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) with work program opportunities.188 The Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79), known as the 2014 Farm Bill, revised the E&T programs. To evaluate new approaches to encourage work or increase earnings among SNAP participants, the legislation provided $200 million in new funding for up to 10 three-year pilot projects.189 It also required the Food and Nutrition Service to develop E&T reporting for states; create new FNS monitoring and oversight of the state programs; allow states to adjust E&T programs if they had inadequate employment and training outcomes; and adjust E&T funding requirements. The 2018 Farm Bill expanded the kinds of E&T activities a state could provide and the elements that could be included and authorized workforce partnerships.190 34 Current Employment and Training Programs All state agencies are required to operate SNAP E&T programs, and they receive federal funding to administer and operate the programs. In FY2021, $319 million was utilized for E&T program administrative costs.191 State agencies can tailor their E&T programs to support SNAP participants, and they are encouraged to partner with state and federal workforce programs.192 Many states include work readiness training, education opportunities and vocational training, as well as workfare and job retention services, in their E&T programs. E&T programs vary by state and are multifaceted, with the goal of giving SNAP participants the tools they need to seek and retain employment and increase earnings. Nine years later, many states are still implementing the 2014 Farm Bill SNAP E&T pilots. As one example, the Generating Opportunities to Attain Lifelong Success (GOALS) program was launched through the Kansas Department of Children and Families (DCF) in 35 counties.193 The program enrolled more than 4,000 SNAP participants and offered a comprehensive and intensive set of services, including job readiness and job search training and assistance, case management, job development, occupational skills training, and more. The program tailored services to individual participants, and participants could access multiple program services. An evaluation of the program showed it increased the number of individuals receiving case management and support services and participating in employment or training-related activities. However, the program produced no impact on earnings.194 FNS provided $3.6 million in FY2021 and $3.5 million in FY2022 for SNAP E&T data and technical assistance grants, as well as $3 million in FY2022 for SNAP E&T national partnership grants.195, 196, 197 The SNAP E&T data and technical assistance grants supported training and capacity building. The grants also went to efforts to improve E&T data quality and develop information technology (IT) systems that would support the collection, reporting, and analysis of SNAP E&T data, and/or continuous program improvement of SNAP E&T programs, including the provision of effective and efficient services. Five states received funding in FY2021 (Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Virginia), and three states (California, Virginia, and Kentucky) and the District of Columbia received funding in FY2022.198, 199 The national partnership grants were aimed at nonprofit organizations with large networks of community colleges or consortia of community colleges that provide workforce development services to SNAP participants and other low-income individuals. Grant funds were to be used to expand the nonprofits' capacity to provide training and other technical assistance to network or consortia members seeking to become SNAP E&T providers. In May 2022, FNS published a report that included outcomes and findings from the pilot programs authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill as well as a cost-benefit analysis. 200 Among the key findings, SNAP participation did not decrease, earnings rose in three pilot states, and employment increased in five of the 35 pilots, compared with control groups. Unfortunately, increases in employment did not correlate with increases in earnings, the cost of the pilots outweighed the benefits in most states, and food security did not improve. 201 Issue briefs that accompanied the May 2022 FNS report emphasized that administrative oversight by SNAP agencies is important to ensure proper implementation of policies and programs by providers and partners. The briefs also noted that community colleges are an integral E&T provide, and further partnerships should be explored.202 Furthermore, the findings highlighted the opportunities for community college partnerships to provide a wide range of workforce development services and to reach diverse populations and rural communities, where E&T services or programs might be less available.203 As a result of these preliminary findings, FNS is strengthening partnerships with community colleges through grants to expand SNAP E&T programs and increase program data collection.204 In addition to the pilots established in the 2014 Farm Bill, FNS is administering the "SNAP to Skills Project," which provides technical assistance to states to build more effective and job-driven E&T programs.205 In December 2022, FNS published a report highlighting lessons from the pilots that included recommendations on how to improve experiences in SNAP E&T programs. 206 Among the key findings, "individuals were less likely to engage with the program or begin E&T activities if there were multiple participant handoff points and referrals between enrollment and accessing E&T services." The report also said that challenges with service delivery models reduced participant engagement, which often led to noncompliance and sanctions; most of the work-based learning opportunities provided did not lead to permanent jobs; and sanctioned individuals had lower employment and earnings, compared with those who were not sanctioned. About 1 in 5 individuals in Georgia, Illinois, and Mississippi were sanctioned in their first year in the pilot. 207 In the 2023 Farm Bill, Congress should draw on the evaluation findings from the E&T pilot programs and "SNAP to Skills" to enhance SNAP E&T programs. Policymakers should also consider making program changes that would increase workforce participation and earnings. And they should consider ways to increase the cost-effectiveness of SNAP E&T programs. Work Requirements Changes to the work requirements to simplify administration, streamline application processes, and ensure compliance with the law should be considered during the reauthorization of the 2023 Farm Bill. The Task Force recognizes the administrative complexities and challenges for beneficiaries of the current work requirements but makes no specific recommendations in this brief. 36 Work Requirements in Current Law SNAP has two sets of work requirements: (1) a general work requirement that applies to all SNAP applicants ages 16-59 who can work, and (2) a work requirement for Able-Bodied Adult Without Dependents (ABAWD), which applies to SNAP applicants ages 18-49 who are able to work and do not have any dependents. 208 The two types of work requirements are summarized in Table 3. Notably, applicants who are ages 18-49 and without dependents will likely have to meet both sets of work requirements to be eligible to receive SNAP benefits for more than three months in a three-year period. Table 3: Comparison of SNAP Work Requirements Able-Bodied Adult Without Dependents General Work Requirement (ABAWD) Work Requirement Applicable SNAP applicants ages 16–59 who can work SNAP applicants ages 18–49 who can work Population and do not have dependents Ways for • Register for work • Work at least 80 hours a month (work can Individuals to be for pay, for goods or services, unpaid, • Participate in SNAP E&T or workfare if Meet Work or volunteer) assigned by state SNAP agency Requirement • Participate in a work program for at least • Take a suitable job if offered 80 hours a month (could be SNAP E&T • Not voluntarily quit a job or reduce work or another federal, state, or local work hours below 30 hours per week without a program) good reason • Participate in a combination of work and work program hours for a total of at least 80 hours a month • Participate in workfare for the number of hours assigned to the individual each month (number of hours will depend on amount of SNAP benefit) Criteria for • Already work at least 30 hours per week • Be unable to work due to physical or Being Excused (or earn wages at least equal to the federal mental limitation from Work minimum wage multiplied by 30 hours) • Be pregnant Requirement • Meet work requirements for another • Have someone under 18 in your program (TANF or unemployment SNAP household compensation) • Be excused from general work requirement • Care for a child under 6 or an incapacitated person • Be unable to work due to a physical or mental limitation • Participate regularly in an alcohol or drug treatment program • Study in school or a training program at least half-time (but college students are subject to other eligibility rules Consequences For Disqualification from receiving SNAP Loss of benefits after three months and must Not Meeting Work benefits for at least one month and must meet ABAWD work requirements for a 30-day Requirement start meeting the requirements to get period or become excused to get SNAP again. SNAP again. Otherwise, the applicant must wait until the end of the three-year period, when they will get another three months of benefits. 37 Federal Waiver of Work Requirements The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) (P.L. 116-127), enacted in March 2020, suspends the time limit for SNAP participants subject to the ABAWD work requirement due to the PHE. 209 Effectively, this means states cannot limit ABAWD eligibility for not working, unless participants are not meeting qualifying work opportunities offered by their state agency (i.e., a work or workfare program). Like other PHE-related waivers, this suspension is in effect through the end of the subsequent month after the HHS secretary lifts the COVID-19 PHE declaration. The secretary has extended the PHE through at least April 11, 2023 State Waivers of Work Requirements States can request to temporarily waive the ABAWD time limit if an area's unemployment rate tops 10% or it has an insufficient number of available jobs. 210 An ABAWD time limit waiver does not waive the general SNAP work requirement. As of October 1, 2022, 22 states and territories have been approved for statewide ABAWD time limit waivers. 211 As of September 2022, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had an unemployment rate below 5%, well below the 10% trigger. Of the states and territories with ABAWD time limit waivers, the highest unemployment rate was 4.7% in the District of Columbia, and the lowest was 2.0% in Minnesota. Minnesota also had the lowest unemployment rate in the nation. 212 The Evidence on Work Requirements Research has shown mixed results on the impact of work requirements on employment rates. A three-state study in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Missouri found that reinstating the time limit for ABAWD after the Great Recession in 2008 had a small adverse impact on employment, and sensitivity analysis found no statistically significant effect on the ABAWD time limit on employment among older participants (ages 47–49) in Colorado and Pennsylvania and a small positive effect in Missouri. 213 Taken together, the results from the main analysis and sensitivity analysis provide no evidence of improved employment because of time limit reinstatement in Colorado or Pennsylvania, while the employment effects for Missouri were inconclusive. These findings reflect the experiences of three states in the aftermath of the Great Recession and might not be generalizable to other states or time periods. Additionally, 2018 census data from the American Community Survey (ACS) indicates that nearly three-quarters of SNAP households had at least one worker and one-third had two or more workers, indicating that many households relying on federal food assistance participate in the workforce. 214 A June 2022 CBO report suggests that SNAP work requirements have "probably" boosted employment for some adults without dependents, but might have 38 reduced incomes, on average, across all participants. 215 The report found that earnings increased among participants who worked more, but a greater number of adults stopped receiving SNAP benefits as a result of the work requirement. 216 NUTRITION AND ELIGIBLE FOODS IN SNAP P O L I C Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N Strengthen nutrition in SNAP by encouraging the consumption of nutritious foods through establishment of a fruit and vegetable cash value benefit (CVB), further expansion of and investment in the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), stronger retailer stocking standards, improvements to the SNAP-Ed program, better data collection, and demonstration projects. With 41.5 million people participating in SNAP in 2021, the program presents immense opportunities to increase access to and intake of healthy foods. 217 A 2018 study found that as overall diet quality improved between 1999 and 2014, SNAP participants' diet quality stayed the same or worsened. 218 Additional studies have also found that SNAP lessens food insecurity but does not significantly improve diet quality. 219 Although research indicates that Americans from all income levels have poor diets, SNAP participants have lower total Healthy Eating Index (HEI) scores than nonparticipants with both the same and higher income levels. 220, 221 More specifically, data from 2011-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) found that SNAP participants scored worse for total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, and added sugars, and better on sodium than nonparticipants of either similar or higher income levels. 222 However, among older adults, SNAP participants and nonparticipants of similar income levels had comparable diet quality. 223 SNAP participants also have higher rates of obesity than nonparticipants. 224 Policy changes should continue to move toward making diet quality a key SNAP objective. Programs to Increase Fruit and Vegetable Intake To overcome the barriers that SNAP participants face in accessing healthy food options, including fruits and vegetables, Congress should support an increase in accessibility, availability, affordability, and intake of nutritious foods, including fruits and vegetables. Options to achieve this goal include: 39 1. A pilot program providing a new monthly cash value benefit (CVB) for SNAP participants for fruits and vegetables in all forms (e.g., fresh, frozen, canned, dried) similar to the WIC CVB; or 2. Scaling and expanding the existing GusNIP nutrition incentive and produce prescription programs to reach additional SNAP participants by making the GusNIP program permanent and increasing funding to at least $1 billion, or 1% of SNAP expenditures. Congress should also make GusNIP program enhancements to increase equitable access to the program, including decreasing or eliminating the nonfederal matching requirement for grantees in lower-resourced communities, and ensure that GusNIP incentive and produce prescription programs include fruits and vegetables in all forms (e.g., fresh, frozen, canned, dried). USDA research has shown that SNAP participants would have to allocate 40% of their SNAP benefits to purchase fruits and vegetables to meet the DGA recommendations. 225 However, U.S. households allocate, on average, only 26% of their food budget to fruits and vegetables. 226 An additional benefit dedicated specifically to fruits and vegetables in all forms (fresh, frozen, canned, dried) with no added sodium, sugar, or fat could help to make fruits and vegetables more affordable and close this gap. Research from the WIC program has shown that a benefit dedicated solely to fruits and vegetables can increase the consumption of these nutritious foods. One study conducted with 11 state WIC agencies and one Indian Tribal Organization examined the 2021 increases in the CVB amount from $9–11 per participant to $24–35 per participant. It found that total daily fruit and vegetable intake rose by one-third cup from 2.01 cups before the increase to 2.31 cups after the increase. These findings showcase not only the benefit's importance but also the benefit amount. 227 The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) recommends that WIC CVB benefit levels be set at 50% of the DGA recommended fruit and vegetable intake, resulting in recommended amounts of $24 per month for children, $43 per month for pregnant and postpartum women, and $47 per month for partially or fully breastfeeding women. 228 These amounts align closely with current benefit levels, although they are three to four times higher than the current regulatory amounts of $9 per month for children and $11 per month for pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding participants. The proposed WIC rule released in November 2022 seeks to make the NASEM-recommended amounts permanent. 229 A similar target could be set for a SNAP CVB, with benefit amounts adjusted regularly for inflation. Such a program could first be established as a pilot project and later expanded, depending on funding availability and evidence of positive impact. The Gus Schumacher Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), which was previously called the The Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) Program, "presents the opportunity to bring together stakeholders from various parts of the food and healthcare systems to foster understanding of how they 40 might improve the health and nutrition status of participating households," according to USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 230 An evaluation of GusNIP found that both nutrition incentive and produce prescription programs had positive effects on fruit and vegetable consumption in the second year of the program (September 1, 2020, to August 31, 2021). 231 For nutrition incentive programs, purchasing and consumption of fruits and vegetables rose, produce sales increased, and the economic impact was positive. 232 Longer participation in nutrition incentive programs was associated with higher fruit and vegetable intake: 2.54 cups per day for participants enrolled less than six months, compared with 2.82 cups per day for participants enrolled for longer than six months. 233 Participants who used their nutrition incentive benefits at farm direct stores averaged 0.21 more cups per day of fruits and vegetables, and participants who used their nutrition incentive benefits at brick-and-mortar stores averaged 0.43 more cups per day of fruits and vegetables, than people who did not participate in the program. These findings are clinically significant. 234 For produce prescriptions, fruit and vegetable consumption increased by approximately one-fourth cup compared with the baseline from 2.2 cups to 2.49 cups per day. 235 In addition, participants reported reduced food insecurity compared with the baseline, and very low food insecurity decreased by almost half. 236 Research has shown that the outlay is cost effective: For every $1 invested in a healthy food incentive program, up to $3 in economic activity can be generated in return. 237 The 2018 Farm Bill authorized $250 million in mandatory funding for GusNIP, with a maximum of 10% of funding for produce prescription programs. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (P.L. 116-260) provided an additional $75 million in emergency funding for GusNIP, and in FY2022, USDA announced additional funding for GusNIP projects as part of the American Rescue Plan Act, including $40 million announced in June 2022 and $59.4 million in November 2022. 238, 239 Increased investment in the program, with appropriate flexibilities, could allow for testing an increased number and expanded variety of pilot projects to determine the most effective incentive model and the best ways to expand access to additional SNAP participants. Currently, only 3.7% of SNAP beneficiaries participate in GusNIP nutrition incentive programs. 240 Program enhancements could also help to increase equitable access to GusNIP, including decreasing or eliminating the nonfederal matching requirement for grantees in lower-resourced communities. Additional opportunities to improve equity include increasing technical assistance for applicants and program implementation; promoting greater community participation in project design and implementation; increasing maximum incentive amounts; allowing testing of same-day incentives (discounts) and supporting infrastructure for expansion and integration into EBT. 41 Policymakers should consider streamlining the program to improve consistency across jurisdictions; this would both reduce consumer confusion and make it easier to raise retailer participation. GusNIP should be integrated into retailer operations, and improvements should be made to data, funding, resources, evaluation, and technical assistance across government departments. In addition to increasing GusNIP funding and the percentage of program funds allowed to be used for produce prescriptions from the current limit of 10%, access to produce prescription programs can be expanded through increased insurance coverage. To accomplish this goal, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) could provide clear guidance on how Medicare and Medicaid programs can operate produce prescription programs for beneficiaries, including in lieu of services options (which allow health plans when it is medically appropriate and cost-effective to pay for nonmedical services instead of standard Medicaid benefits). Or HHS could establish a demonstration model within the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. Medicaid and Medicare programs (Section 1115 demonstration waivers in Medicaid and Medicare Advantage Plans) and other state and federal insurance programs could explore other options to cover food and nutrition supports that would broaden coverage of produce prescription programs. The Veterans Health Administration could also provide coverage for produce prescriptions. Retailer Stocking Standards Congress and USDA should strengthen the stocking standards for SNAP- authorized retailers to better align them with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), including providing more options for fruits and vegetables without added sugars, sodium, or fats; lean protein foods; low-fat dairy products; and whole grains. Financial or technical support or specific exemptions could be provided to support smaller retailers in meeting stronger stocking standards or in voluntarily going beyond existing standards. Retail stocking standards are important for providing healthy retail environments for all consumers, including SNAP customers. Stocking standards require that SNAP-authorized stores have available a minimum number and variety of foods. Under current law, SNAP-authorized stores must either (1) have at least three units of three different varieties for each staple food category on a continuous basis, with at least one perishable variety for two staple food categories; or (2) have more than 50% of total gross retail sales from staple foods. 241 Staple foods are defined as "the basic foods that make up a significant portion of a person's diet," which are usually prepared at home and eaten as a meal. Staple food categories include: • Fruits and vegetables; 42 • Dairy products; • Meat, poultry, and fish; and • Breads or cereals. Although the existing criteria ensure that a variety of products across these food categories are available in SNAP-approved stores, they do not fully align with the DGA, which recommends consuming nutrient-dense forms of foods and beverages across all food groups, in recommended amounts, and within calorie limits. According to the DGA, the core elements of a healthy dietary pattern include: • Vegetables of all types; • Fruits, especially whole fruit; • Grains, at least half of which are whole grain; • Dairy, including fat-free or low-fat milk, yogurt, and cheese, and/or lactose- free versions and fortified soy beverages and yogurt as alternatives; • Protein foods, including lean meats, poultry and eggs, seafood, beans, peas, lentils, nuts, seeds, and soy products; and • Oils, including vegetable oils and oils in food, such as seafood and nuts. 242 Strengthening the stocking standards for SNAP-authorized retailers to better align with the DGA could help to ensure that a greater number and variety of fruits and vegetables in all forms, lean protein foods, low-fat dairy products, and whole grain products are available to SNAP customers. For example, the Minimum Stocking Levels and Marketing Strategies of Healthful Foods for Small Retail Food Stores recommended by a Healthy Eating Research expert panel could be considered. Support for smaller retailers in meeting stronger stocking standards or in voluntarily going beyond existing standards could be provided in the form of financial or technical support, or specific exemptions, as needed. Further, it is important that requirements for SNAP retailers adequately balance the need to ensure the availability of nutritious foods to SNAP participants, while also ensuring low-income participants' access to retail food stores. Strengthening stocking standards would benefit all people who shop in SNAP- authorized stores, and not only SNAP participants. Therefore, this policy change has the potential to improve diet quality for all Americans. Congress and USDA should encourage or incentivize through technical assistance or federal funding that in-store and online marketing at SNAP- authorized retailers promote foods and beverages that are recommended by the DGA and do not promote foods and beverages that are not recommended by the DGA. Research should be conducted to identify the impact and feasibility of potential strategies to improve the retail environment for SNAP and non-SNAP customers. 43 For example, retailers could be encouraged or incentivized to promote fresh, frozen, canned, or dried vegetables and fruits; whole grain products; low-fat and fat-free dairy products and fortified soy beverages and yogurt; lean meats and poultry; eggs; seafood; beans, peas, lentils, nuts, seeds, and soy products; and oils. Consistent with the DGA, marketed foods would also be low in added sugars, sodium, and saturated fat. Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program (SNAP-Ed) Congress and USDA should create a robust, coordinated SNAP-Ed that promotes nutrition education and nutritious food choices by doubling funding for SNAP-Ed and better integrating it with other federal and state government programs, allowing the program to reach more individuals. Called the Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant program in the 2018 Farm Bill, SNAP-Ed is a federally funded, evidence-based program that helps people lead healthy, active lives by partnering with state and local organizations in all U.S. states and some territories. 243 SNAP-Ed should better engage with state health department nutrition programs, which are often funded by the CDC. SNAP-Ed programs aimed at children should also be paired with the Childhood Obesity Research Demonstration (CORD) program, funded by the CDC. Congress should realign the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) to work synergistically with SNAP-Ed, while avoiding program duplication. And SNAP-Ed's mission should be shifted to provide more policy, systems, and environmental change interventions which address socioeconomic factors and make healthy choices more accessible by increasing funding and technical assistance for these initiatives. SNAP-Ed would be more innovative and effective if it increased its focus on evaluating the impact and implementation of systems changes, technology, and community health approaches rather than on traditional individual-level education. Research should be conducted on the effectiveness of SNAP-Ed consumer and nutrition education initiatives, including doing a pilot study on online nutrition education. Finally, Congress should double funding for SNAP- Ed to allow it to reach more participants. In FY2022, the funding allocation for SNAP-Ed was $464 million. 244 Demonstration Projects Food and nutrition security should be prioritized in all federal nutrition programs. However, there is currently no component of SNAP to incentivize nutritious food purchases. A 2021 USDA survey found that 88% of SNAP participants face at least one barrier to healthy eating, with difficulty in affording healthy meals (61%), lack of time to prepare meals (30%), and 44 challenges with transportation to a store (19%) being the most common. 245 Demonstration projects could test the effects of potential policy changes to address these and other barriers on diet quality among SNAP participants, while preserving participants' choice and dignity. USDA and Congress should encourage and fund, and states should prioritize, multiple rigorous demonstrate projects in SNAP to evaluate different innovative approaches to jointly reduce hunger and improve nutrition. These demonstrations should be designed to look at the added challenges for a SNAP customer to achieve a nutrient dense diet as compared to the U.S. population, and how to reduce those challenges for all. The demonstrations should test ways to reduce these challenges and could include: • Increased benefit levels; • Behavioral economics, including novel uses of mobile technology and online/remote retail applications, taking into account limitations imposed under applicable privacy laws; • Allowing purchases of hot, prepared foods consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) definition of healthy and/or recommended to be consumed by the DGA; • Incentives for selection of nutrient dense items recommended to be consumed by the DGA; and • Incentives for selection of fewer less healthful items recommended to be minimized or reduced by the DGA. Demonstrations should be designed after the impactful factors are identified through evaluation and should include allowing SNAP customers to "opt in" to participate in a demonstration project. It is important that demonstrations are designed in a way to preserve participant choice and dignity. Both the design and evaluation of the demonstrations should include the perspectives of SNAP participants, be both quantitative and qualitative, and include assessment of the following outcomes: reach, interest in enrollment, stigma, dignity, satisfaction, food security, nutrition security, health, program costs, and health care utilization. Demonstration projects should be implemented through rulemaking, which should identify the specific nutrition criteria and consider the feasibility of implementation at the retailer level. These demonstrations should also seek to establish collaboration between the public and private sectors. A September 2022 poll commissioned by the Bipartisan Policy Center found that a bipartisan majority of U.S. adults (67%) and a majority of SNAP participants (58%) agreed that states should be able to operate pilot programs, either freely or with USDA approval, that seek to improve the nutrition of SNAP participants. With respect to specific changes to SNAP benefits, two-thirds 45 of U.S. adults and 80% of adult SNAP participants supported allowing SNAP benefits to be used for hot, prepared foods. More than two-thirds of adults across political parties and more than three-quarters of SNAP participants also backed providing additional benefits to SNAP participants for the purchase of fruits and vegetables or for a range of healthful foods, such as fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, legumes, and whole grains. More specifically, there was support from a bipartisan majority of U.S. adults and SNAP participants to: • Provide additional benefits to SNAP participants for the purchase of a range of healthful foods, such as fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, seeds, legumes, and whole grains (77% of U.S. adults; 83% of SNAP participants). • Provide additional benefits to SNAP participants for the purchase of fruits and vegetables in all forms (75% of U.S. adults; 78% of SNAP participants). • Provide additional benefits to SNAP participants for the purchase of healthful items, such as fruits and vegetables, if participants do not purchase sugar-sweetened beverages with SNAP benefits (61% of U.S. adults; 52% of SNAP participants). • Provide additional benefits to SNAP participants for the purchase of healthful items, such as fruits and vegetables, if participants do not purchase certain unhealthful foods, such as foods high in added sugars or sodium (such as candy or chips), with SNAP benefits (60% of U.S. adults; 53% of SNAP participants). • Provide additional benefits to SNAP participants for the purchase of healthful items, such as fruits and vegetables, combined with fewer benefits if sugar-sweetened beverages are purchased with SNAP benefits (59% of U.S. adults; 53% of SNAP participants). These findings align with the Task Force's recommendations for SNAP demonstration projects. Many food companies are now offering products that give consumers more choice on foods and beverages containing smaller portion sizes and lower sugar and sodium content, so those foods and beverages are becoming more available. Well-designed demonstrations showcasing these reformulations will allow more consumers, both SNAP and non-SNAP participants, to take advantage of these offerings. Americans are generally still consuming too many foods and beverages that the DGA advises consumers to limit and too few of foods and beverages that the DGA recommends people increase. Action should be taken to help promote shifts toward healthier diets. See Figure 6. 46 Figure 6: DGA Guidance on Intake of Added Sugars Source: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/DGA_FactSheet_ AddedSugars_2021-06_508c.pdf. Data Collection Congress and USDA should invest in a robust research and data collection strategy to identify opportunities to improve nutrition in SNAP. Congress should require that USDA regularly collect data from all federal nutrition programs to measure alignment with, and progress toward, improvements in dietary quality and food security for participants in these programs. To better understand relationships between federal nutrition programs and health and nutrition outcomes, USDA should work across government agencies to collect and share data to identify ways to strengthen federal nutrition programs, including SNAP. Additionally, further investments from Congress are needed to carry out robust, impactful nutrition research. Currently, total federal funding for nutrition research is less than $2 billion annually. 246 Additional investments are needed to better understand the intersections of food, nutrition, and health with SNAP and other federal nutrition programs. Although USDA released a formal definition of nutrition security in March 2022, no nutrition security screening tools exist. Research should be conducted to develop and validate nutrition security screening tools. These tools should then be used to identify gaps in nutrition security among SNAP participants and nonparticipants of varying income levels. 47 Also, a robust evaluation plan should accompany any SNAP demonstration projects. Data on the impact of the demonstrations should be used to inform decisions about additional demonstation projects or the scaling of existing initiatives. USDA should report every two years on the quality of SNAP participants' diets using science-based metrics, such as USDA's Healthy Eating Index, and data collected from nutrition surveys and research, such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The HEI assesses how well individuals meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans by providing a score out of 100. National survey data from What We Eat In America, a component of NHANES, provides the data for the HEI. 247 Data on SNAP and WIC participation are collected through the NHANES survey and could be paired with the Healthy Eating Index to provide a better understanding of the diet quality and health of SNAP participants. 248 Analyses of SNAP and NHANES data are conducted inconsistently and data are typically outdated by the time reports are released. 249 Studies containing important analyses of SNAP participants' eating habits should be produced regularly and their findings should be used to inform changes to SNAP, including ways to better support SNAP participants in accessing and consuming healthy foods. S N A P I N T E G R I T Y, T E C H N O L O G Y, A N D R E TA I L E R C O N S I D E R AT I O N S P O L I C Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N Use data matching, online purchasing, and other technology enhancements to improve SNAP access, integrity, and operations for participants and retailers. Program Integrity and Data Matching USDA, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and state administration agencies should continue to ensure program integrity and protect federal investment and public support for SNAP. The OIG should conduct an independent audit of SNAP's flexibilities provided during the PHE, including increased benefit levels and remote application and recertification processes. Going forward, USDA should work closely with state SNAP agencies, as expected, to provide technical assistance to implement the National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC) system fully and effectively across all states. Once implemented, USDA should conduct an evaluation of NAC's 48 effectiveness in detecting and preventing dual participation in SNAP and ensure all program administrators are in compliance with the final NAC rule. It is important to ensure that federal SNAP funds are spent to provide food assistance only for those who meet eligibility criteria and that fraud, waste, and abuse in the program is limited. During the PHE, Congress and USDA enacted a number of waivers and flexibilities to strengthen SNAP's reach and mitigate the economic crises resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. 250 Some of these flexibilities include providing households with increased benefits levels, expanding SNAP benefits to additional college students, and allowing remote interview and signature options. 251 As Congress and USDA consider lessons learned from the pandemic and policy changes to update and modernize SNAP, it is important to continue to ensure the program's integrity. Specifically, an Office of Inspector General audit should evaluate whether certain PHE- related flexibilities resulted in any improper payments, inaccurate eligibility determinations, fraud, or waste in the program and their impact on food insecurity and poverty among SNAP participants. Congress should use the findings to inform policy changes. The 2018 Farm Bill required USDA to establish an interstate data system, known as the National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC), to identify and prevent multiple issuances of SNAP benefits to participants across statesalso known as interstate dual participation or concurrent enrollment. 252 At the time of the 2018 Farm Bill's enactment, CBO estimated that the nationwide expansion of NAC would reduce SNAP spending by $576 million between 2019 and 2028. 253 Before NAC's permanent establishment, Mississippi undertook the NAC pilot program, funded by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to test the feasibility of establishing a real-time interstate data-matching system to identify and prevent duplicate participation across states. Five states- Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi-participated in the two-year pilot project, which also assessed NAC's technical capacity, states' effectiveness and utilization of NAC as a data-sharing tool, and any potential cost savings to SNAP. 254 USDA's evaluation of the five-state pilot focused on NAC's impact on dual participation and states' effectiveness in utilizing NAC to prevent dual participation; it also compared NAC and the Public Assistance Reporting Information System (PARIS) and NAC's return on investment. 255 Although the National Accuracy Clearinghouse did reduce dual participation in the five pilot states, the impact and effectiveness in utilizing NAC varied by state. 256 Overall findings from the pilot indicated that the rate of dual participation is low; the percentage of dual participants of all eligible individuals ranged from 0.087% in Louisiana to 0.171% in Alabama. 257 Although the pilot is still operating under administrative waivers, Louisiana is no longer participating. 258 49 On October 3, 2022, USDA published an interim final rule, also known as the NAC rule, to establish requirements for all state SNAP agencies to use NAC. 259 Specifically, the rule aims to ensure program integrity by reducing the risk of improper overpayments and to improve customer service by requiring state agencies to take appropriate and timely action to resolve NAC data matches. 260 The rule additionally provides protections to safeguard identity and location information for SNAP applicants and participants and ensure the limited use of NAC's data to prevent dual participation. 261 Effective December 2, 2022, the final NAC rule will be phased in over the next five years. 262 As the final NAC rule is implemented, USDA should work closely with state SNAP agencies to provide technical assistance to ensure full implementation of the NAC system in all states. NAC's implementation in all states should more effectively reduce dual participation because it will allow for data comparison across all 50 states rather than just the five that participated in the pilot. Post-implementation, an independent evaluation assessing compliance with the final NAC rule and NAC's effectiveness in detecting and preventing dual participation in SNAP will help to protect the effectiveness of the federal investment in SNAP and inform future strategies to promote program integrity. Online Purchasing and Other Technology Improvements Congress should authorize the Online Purchasing Pilot as a permanent program and increase equitable access to and promote nutrition through online purchasing. Congress should allow SNAP benefits to be used to cover online shopping transaction, delivery, monthly membership, or other fees up to a certain limit, such as $10 per month per SNAP participant. To promote nutritious food purchases, funding should be provided for retailers to provide incentives to SNAP participants to make healthy food purchases when purchasing online and in stores. To increase equitable access to and promote nutrition through online purchasing, Congress could require USDA to provide a report on the effects of online SNAP redemption, including barriers to access and consumer choice and a comparison of foods purchased. Additionally, Congress should ensure that all communities have access to affordable, high- quality broadband to access federal nutrition programs, including SNAP particularly in rural, tribal, and low-income urban areas. Congress should also establish a USDA micro-grant program to support rural or small-scale retailers to establish or improve their online infrastructure for online SNAP purchasing. The 2014 Farm Bill established a pilot program to test the feasibility and implications of allowing retail food stores to accept SNAP benefits through online transactions. 263 In 2019, the SNAP Online Purchasing Pilot launched in New York state, allowing SNAP participants to select and purchase 50 groceries online through what was intended to be a two-year pilot. 264 The COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the progress of the pilot. Additional states were quickly allowed to enroll in the online purchasing program, and as of September 2022, 49 states and Washington, D.C., have been approved to participate. With 99% of SNAP participants having access to online purchasing as of September 2022, online shopping among SNAP households increased from 35,000 households in March 2020 to more than 3 million in July 2022. 265 As of September 2022, there were 1,240 SNAP-authorized online retail store locations. 266 A 2022 Brookings Institution report found that 93% of the U.S. population has access to at least one of the four largest food delivery companies/platforms, including more than 90% of people in low-income census tracts.h, 267 However, this leaves more than 4.5 million Americans without access. 268 A recent Morning Consult poll commissioned by the Bipartisan Policy Center found that more than 90% of current SNAP participants and 74% of U.S. adults agreed that the online purchase of groceries should be allowed using SNAP benefits. In addition to improving convenience for SNAP participants, expanding online purchasing has the potential to improve nutrition. For example, a 2021 study found that individuals shopping online spent significantly less money on candy, cold or frozen desserts, and grain-based desserts than those shopping in a store, despite spending 44% more per transaction. 269 Ensuring that all communities have access to affordable, high-quality broadband is important for accessing SNAP and other federal nutrition programs. A 2022 Brookings Institution report found that the broadband adoption rate is 86% across the United States, indicating that a lack of broadband is a greater barrier to online food purchasing than a lack of online food delivery vendors. 270 Congress should work with USDA and the Biden administration to promote and expand the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which ensures that households can access and afford broadband that may be needed for work, school, and more. 271 SNAP households are eligible for the ACP, but further outreach could help to raise awareness of the program. Retail improvements in SNAP online purchasing could also help to increase access to the program. A USDA micro-grant program could help to level the playing field for retailers by supporting rural or small-scale retailers in establishing or improving the infrastructure needed for SNAP online purchasing. USDA should also provide technical and financial assistance to smaller retailers that is culturally and linguistically appropriate to incentivize and ease their participation in the online purchasing program. Additionally, to ensure equitable access among SNAP participants, USDA should continue to expand authorized retailers in operational states, with an emphasis on underserved areas; these retailers could include small-scale retailers like h This study includes delivery platforms for hot, prepared foods that are not SNAP-authorized. 51 independent grocers or farmers' markets. USDA could strengthen privacy measures for all online retailers related to sharing SNAP online purchasing and browsing data with third parties. To cover the increased costs associated with online shopping or delivery, many retailers charge shipping, delivery, monthly membership, or other transaction fees. These fees can present a barrier to SNAP participants, as they must be paid with non-SNAP funds. To remove this barrier to online SNAP purchases, Congress should authorize SNAP benefits to be used to cover all or some of these fees up to a limit, such as $10 per month per SNAP participant. Allowing SNAP funds to cover participants' online shopping or delivery fees would help to balance an interest in reducing barriers to online shopping with an interest in ensuring that SNAP participants get the maximum possible food benefit. Congress should also authorize a USDA retailer pilot program to test various strategies to incentivize online retailers to increase the promotion of healthy food purchasing options through policies such as order-of-search results, emails, in-app or website hints or "nudges," and other promotions. FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS P O L I C Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N Modernize the food distribution programs, including The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), to improve nutrition, program access, and program operations. The Emergency Food Assistance Program To continue to meet the needs of Americans experiencing food and nutrition insecurity, Congress should increase TEFAP entitlement funding by $250 million annually, adjusted for inflation, and make programmatic changes to improve the nutritional quality of foods, increase access to the program, and ease administrative burden. To support the distribution of fresh and frozen foods, Congress should reauthorize and annually appropriate at least $200 million for TEFAP administrative grants for storage and distribution and $15 million for TEFAP infrastructure grants to allow for better transport of foods and to increase the distribution of nutritious foods that require temperature control. Congress should also require USDA Foods purchases to maintain a 52 certain percentage of fresh or frozen items, such as low-fat dairy products, produce, and protein foods. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) was first authorized in 1983 to distribute USDA-purchased foods to support agricultural producers and connect low-income families with nutritious foods. 272 TEFAP provides emergency food assistance to low-income individuals who may not qualify for SNAP or who might need additional food assistance. USDA purchases a variety of foods through TEFAP and then makes them available to state agencies, which distribute them through food banks and other community organizations. TEFAP provided more than 39% of food distributed through the Feeding America network of food banks in 2020 more than 2.4 billion meals. 273 USDA considers unemployment and poverty rates in its distribution of food to states. States also receive administrative funds for the storage and distribution of these USDA Foods. In FY2021, TEFAP was authorized at $1.25 billion and distributed 941 million pounds of food. 274 In FY2022, TEFAP food purchase funding was $800 million. In addition, USDA provided $180 million for administrative grants and purchased $516 million in food to support U.S.- grown commodities through Section 32 purchases. 275 Feeding America network food banks, which distribute approximately 85% of TEFAP foods provided nationwide, reported dispensing 1.29 billion pounds of food from TEFAP in FY2022. 276 Annual TEFAP entitlement funding is $250 million, adjusted by the TFP as an inflationary measure. In FY2022, this funding totaled $399 million. 277 This amount should be increased by $250 million annually, or doubled from its original noninflation adjusted amount. Additionally, Congress should authorize $200 milion per year for TEFAP storage and distribution and $15 million per year for infrastructure grants, which would better support the movement of foods, particularly in rural communities. Several improvements can be made at the federal and state levels to increase access to TEFAP and ease administrative challenges. For example, states have different program eligibility requirements, presenting challenges for organizations that serve multiple states. Currently, states can set the income threshold for participation in TEFAP, making the program confusing for participants and cumbersome for organizations distributing foods in multiple states through TEFAP. USDA's Food and Nutrition Service could encourage states to streamline eligibility requirements or allow participants to declare need without providing documentation of meeting income guidelines. In addition, FNS should work with states to ensure they are allowed and encouraged to serve food across state lines with cooperative agreements. For example, food banks that operate in a geographic area that covers multiple states should be allowed to distribute foods across the food bank's entire geographic area without restrictions. To further expand access, states should consider not requiring collection of identification and should remove restrictions on the number of times someone can receive TEFAP food distributions within a month. Flexible distribution 53 plans, which enable participants to pick up food via drive-through, central locations, and more, should be encouraged to further expand access and ease program administration. Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations Congress should reauthorize the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR); allow Native American families to simultaneously use both SNAP and FDPIR; provide tribal authority over administration of SNAP, SNAP-Ed, FDPIR, and other nutrition programs; and expand access to local and regionally produced and traditional foods through FDPIR. Congress should also expand or make permanent 638 Authority, a legal tool for tribal self-determination that gives tribes the ability to administer certain federal government programs; eliminate the matching requirement for tribes; and provide funding to improve infrastructure to update facilities and equipment. Inclusion of more traditional, regional, and cultural foods should also be encouraged. Congress should reauthorize the FDPIR Self-Determination Demonstration Project to strengthen regional tribal communities by requiring the purchase of regional and culturally relevant foods from USDA-authorized tribal farmers and producers. Additionally, Congress should allow USDA to create a pilot program to allow Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) to source locally produced herbs and spices as part of nutrition education in FDPIR and include more traditional/tribally produced foods on a regional basis. FDPIR was established to connect families living on Indian reservations without easy access to stores that accept SNAP benefits with healthy, nutritious foods. 278 The program provides USDA Foods to income-eligible and categorically eligible households, including those living on Indian reservations and American Indian households residing in approved areas near reservations and in Oklahoma. USDA works with state agencies or Indian Tribal Organizations to administer the program at the local level. Participating households have the option to select from more than 100 products to make up their monthly food package. In FY2020, approximately 276 tribes were receiving benefits and 74,900 individuals were participating in the program monthly. 279 Funding for FDPIR was $122 million in FY2021 . 280 Currently, households cannot participate in both FDPIR and SNAP in the same month. Native Americans experience food insecurity and hunger at much higher rates than the national average due to institutional and systemic inequities. While 1 in 9 Americans experience food insecurity, for Indigenous people the rate is 1 in 4, more than twice the rate of the overall U.S. population. 281 In March 2020, food insecurity was as high as 49% among Native households. 282 Tribal organizations should be able to administer TEFAP, SNAP, and SNAP- Ed. Expanding 638 authority to tribes would give them the authority to administer SNAP, FDPIR, and other federal nutrition programs. Encouraging 54 the availability of more traditional, regional, and cultural foods in FDPIR could help to increase program participation and satisfaction among people who are eligible for the program. Commodity Supplemental Food Program To better address the needs of older adults experiencing food insecurity, Congress should allow USDA to update the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), to allow more older adults to participate in the program by updating its criteria for determining program size. CSFP provides nutritious, supplemental USDA Foods to low-income individuals at least 60 years of age. 283 USDA provides foods to state agencies and ITOs, which then distribute them to eligible individuals through food banks and other local agencies. In addition to providing food, the local agencies provide nutrition education through the program and referrals to other assistance programs, such as SNAP and Medicaid. In FY2021, CSFP was authorized at $298 million and 661,000 individuals participated in the program. 284 In FY2022, $332 million was authorized for the program. 285 Although states determine eligibility criteria, including income limits, for CSFP, USDA utilizes a formula to determine caseload in each jurisdiction. Often there are more older adults experiencing food insecurity than slots available in the program, producing a waitlist. For example, in the District of Columbia, which has the highest rate of senior food insecurity in the nation, approximately 13,000 individuals are experiencing food insecurity, but slots to participate in CSFP number only 5,411. 286, 287, 288 Cross-Program Actions Congress should work with USDA to improve food and nutrition security across food distribution programs, including TEFAP, FDPIR, and CSFP, through pilot programs, changes in procurement procedures, and research studies on progress and barriers. There are several opportunities to improve food and nutrition security across TEFAP, FDPIR, CSFP, and other food distribution programs. USDA should be encouraged to collaborate further with community organizations that distribute directly to participants to learn how these programs and program models can be most effective and efficient. Policy changes across programs should help to ensure that traditional, regional, and culturally appropriate foods are incorporated in food distribution programs. USDA can work with partners to ensure they have the necessary infrastructure to distribute nutritious foods. Additionally, USDA's procurement procedures should increase and improve procurement of nutritious foods, such as fruits and vegetables. 55 Congress should require USDA to produce a report on the effectiveness, efficiency, nutritional value, cost, format, impact on diverse populations, and unintended consequences of federal food distribution programs, including food box programs, and provide best-practice recommendations for future programs. In response to food chain disruptions caused by the pandemic, USDA began its Farmers to Families Food Box Program (FFFB) in 2020 under the $19 billion Coronavirus Food Assistance Program. 289 FFFB permitted USDA to purchase up to $6 billion worth of U.S. agricultural products, including produce, meat, and dairy products, which were packed into boxes and distributed locally at food banks or other nonprofits. 290 Before ending in May 2021, the program delivered 174 million boxes of food to individuals and families in need while supporting local farmers and agricultural producers. 291 The program delivered boxes to nearly 78% of all U.S. counties, and reached 89% of counties with poverty rates of at least 20%. 292 In announcing the sunset of the program in 2021, Secretary of Agriculture, Thomas Vilsack, noted that USDA would instead focus on providing food assistance through existing channels, such as TEFAP, SNAP, and WIC. 293 Despite the success in delivering boxes to communities during the height of the pandemic, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) pointed to a need to improve data collection and analysis, the efficiency of the food distribution process, collaboration with existing food and nutrition agencies, and the quality of food boxes to meet the cultural and dietary needs of populations being served. 294 To improve the quality and delivery of current and future food distribution programs, Congress should require USDA to further assess and report on the effectiveness, efficiency, nutritional value, cost, format, unintended consequences, and impact of the FFFB on diverse populations. The report could also be expanded to consider the effectiveness, efficiency, cost, format, and impact on food security and nutrition security, including disparate effects on various populations, of other food distribution programs. Such findings could inform and improve future programs, such as the TEFAP produce boxes or the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program (LFPA). 295 USDA should give local or state agencies and nonprofits the authority to determine the best methods for food distribution. State or local agencies and nonprofit organizations that implement federal food distribution programs know how to best meet the food assistance needs of people in their service area. Depending on the situation or local jurisdiction, the most appropriate format could be a box, bag, or pantry, for example. Some FFFB distributors experienced challenges with preassembled boxes due to a lack of flexibility with client choice and meeting clients' dietary and cultural needs and preferences. Increased flexibility and local control over the format for food distribution would allow USDA to continue fostering relationships with 56 local commodity producers while also ensuring local food banks, nonprofits, and other agencies are able to use their existing distribution infrastructures to meet the dietary and cultural needs of their clients. OTHER FOOD AND NUTRITION PROGR AMS AUTHORIZED T H R O U G H T H E FA R M B I L L P O L I C Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N Improve food and nutrition security for priority populations through other food and nutrition assistance programs, including the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP), Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI), Public-Private Partnerships Program, and Micro-Grants for Food Security Program. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) To increase the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, Congress should provide the necessary funding and approval to expand FFVP to all elementary schools participating in the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). Congress could also provide further funding and approval to expand FFVP to all middle and high schools that participate in CEP. The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program provides low-income elementary school children with access to fresh fruits and vegetables during the school day. 296 According to data from the 2015-2018 NHANES, approximately 75% of children ages 2-19 consumed fruit on a given day and 91% consumed vegetables. 297 Although a majority of children consume some fruits and vegetables, about 60% of children do not eat enough fruit and 93% do not eat enough vegetables. 298 FFVP's goal is to increase consumption and acceptance of fresh produce, while introducing children to new and different varieties and promoting nutrition education. 299 A USDA evaluation found that FFVP increases fruit and vegetable consumption among low-income students, while also helping to reduce plate waste at school meals. 300 Additional research found that FFVP participation can reduce obesity rates. 301 FFVP is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 302 FFVP prioritizes schools with high percentages of children who receive free or reduced-price school meals because low-income households are less likely to purchase healthful foods than higher-income households. 303 Therefore, children with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to consume fresh produce regularly. 57 USDA's Food Nutrition Service allocates FFVP funds to states, and state agencies then work with local school food authorities to implement the program. Participating elementary schools receive $50-$75 per student per school year, although the exact amount is determined by the state agency and is based on the total funds provided and student enrollment. Despite the potential for the program to increase fruit and vegetable intake, existing resources do not allow the program to serve all students who could benefit. As noted previously, in FY2022, FNS distributed $233.1 million to state agencies for FFVP. 304 In FY2019, the most recent year for which full data on program reach are available, FFVP received $172 million, which allowed 7,600 schools to provide fresh fruits and vegetables to 4 million students. 305 However, that same year, more than 30,000 schools participated in the Community Eligibility Provision, meaning they have a large proportion of students that are low-income and could have benefited from the program if additional funds were available. 306 USDA should direct state agencies to encourage participating schools to serve fresh fruits and vegetables through FFVP for as many days as possible. Currently, schools are encouraged to serve fresh produce two days per week. USDA and state agencies should also consider ways to incorporate local and regional food systems in the FFVP procurement process to provide local produce to school districts. Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program To increase access to the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) for all eligible seniors, Congress should reauthorize and increase funding for the SFMNP to allow for program expansion and increased benefit levels. In addition, Congress should require participating states to accept proof of enrollment in other programs with similar income limits (adjunctive eligibility) as satisfying eligibility for SFMNP and make permanent some of the administrative flexibilities that states implemented during the COVID-19 PHE. The Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program provides fresh, nutritious foods to low-income seniors who are at least 60 years of age and have household incomes of no more than 185% of the FPL. 307 The program also supports local producers and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs by connecting seniors with locally produced fruits, vegetables, herbs, and honey. Although older adults consume more fruits and vegetables than younger adults, less than 50% of seniors consume the recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables per day. 308 The SFMNP is particularly important for increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables among low-income older adults. Predictors of fruit and vegetable intake among seniors are complex and relate to health status; geographic/physical environment; gender, marital status, and household composition; social support; race/ethnicity; socioeconomic status; 58 and dietary knowledge. 309 Low food security in adults ages 55 or older has been associated with extreme obesity, lung diseases, and diabetes, adjusting for social and demographic factors. 310 Increasing fruit and vegetable intake in this population is critical, as poor diet quality is a risk factor for chronic diseases, which are particularly common in older adults. 311, 312 Approximately 85% of adults over age 65 have at least one chronic disease, and approximately 60% have two or more, many of which are nutrition-related. 313 The SFMNP operates in U.S. states, territories, and federally recognized Indian Tribal Organizations. 314 USDA provides cash grants to state agencies that submit an annual plan describing how they will operate and administer the program. Coupons or checks are issued to SFMNP-eligible individuals, which can be used at locations that have been authorized by the state agency, such as farmers' markets, CSA, or roadside stands. Typically, the benefit level is at least $20 and cannot exceed $50 per year per individual, unless the state has been granted an exception. 315 In addition to providing the funds, nutrition education is provided to SFMNP participants. In FY2020, 725,686 individuals received SFMNP benefits at an average benefit level of $35. 316 Congress should increase SFMNP funding to allow the program to serve more seniors and increase the benefit amount. In addition, requiring participating states to accept proof of enrollment in other programs with similar income limits, including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), and SNAP, as satisfying eligibility for SFMNP could help to increase participation and reduce administrative burdens. Making permanent some of the administrative flexibilities implemented by states during the COVID-19 PHE could also help to reduce administrative burdens and make SFMNP participation easier and safer for eligible seniors. For example, Congress could require state agencies to offer mailing or home delivery of SFMNP checks or coupons to eligible participants as an alternative to in-person pick-up. Healthy Food Financing Initiative Congress should reauthorize funding for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) at or above the current level to continue to support projects to attract fresh, healthy food retailers that accept SNAP benefits. The Healthy Food Financing Initiative was first authorized in the 2014 Farm Bill and reauthorized in 2018. It is a partnership between USDA, the Department of Treasury, and the Department of Health and Human Services, although Congress has funded HFFI through two of the three departments at one time and not all three simultaneously. 317 In 2018, $125 million was provided to implement the program. HFFI was established to assist low- income communities by improving access to healthy foods in underserved areas and create and preserve quality jobs. 318 In 2021, the program provided grants ranging from $20,000 to $200,000 as one-time investments in food 59 enterprise projects or food retail projects that assist in addressing barriers and high costs to entry in underserved areas. Grantees were located in 46 states, and 45% of grantees served a rural area. 319 HFFI also provides technical assistance to organizations working to plan a food enterprise or retail project that align with HFFI goals. 320 Since the program's inception, it has leveraged more than $220 million in grants and an estimated $1 billion in financing. Through the program, nearly 1,000 grocery and other healthy food retail projects in more than 35 states have received support. 321 In FY2022, $183 million in funding was provided for HFFI between USDA ($160 million) and the Department of the Treasury ($23 million), a major increase in funding from FY2021, during which $28 million was provided. 322 The funding increase came from the American Rescue Plan Act (P.L. 117-2, Title I), which provided funding to address disruptions in the food supply chain and agricultural production systems due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 323 Public-Private Partnerships Congress should authorize and fund a public-private partnerships program and work with USDA to ensure the program is implemented. The 2018 Farm Bill authorized $5 million in discretionary funding for pilot programs that support public-private partnerships addressing food and nutrition insecurity. 324 However, Congress never appropriated funding and the program was not implemented. This program should be reauthorized and fully funded in the 2023 Farm Bill. A program could establish a sustainable funding mechanism for public-private partnerships and develop a coordinated, multisector plan to expand healthy food access and improve diet quality. Such a program could help to support collaborations between government and nonprofit or private-sector entities addressing food and nutrition insecurity. More specifically, grants to organizations embedded in communities and particularly in rural areas would complement SNAP and other federal feeding programs by magnifying their impact and effectiveness in local communities. Diverse and successful partnership models that are identified through this program could be implemented and scaled throughout the country, increasing the long-term capacity to address food and nutrition insecurity. Micro-Grants for Food Security Program Congress should reauthorize the Micro-Grants for Food Security Program to address the unique needs of the noncontiguous U.S. states and territories in promoting food security. The 2018 Farm Bill included the Micro-Grants for Food Security Program, which was intended to increase the quality and quantity of locally grown foods in food insecure communities in Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. territories: 60 American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 325 Reauthorization of this program is important to address the unique needs of these states and territories. 61 Conclusion The 2023 Farm Bill presents immense opportunities to increase access to federal nutrition assistance programs and make program improvements to promote food and nutrition security. Implementing the evidence-based bipartisan policy recommendations in this report would provide legislators with a range of options to improve food and nutrition security, while maintaining program integrity and increasing efficiencies with program administration. Improving collaboration and coordination at the federal, tribal, territorial, state, and local levels could help individuals and families better access and benefit from nutrition assistance and social safety net programs, including SNAP. In addition, it is important that program funding decisions do not expand or improve one program at the expense of another program. Given Americans' poor dietary state, policymakers should give special consideration to promoting good nutrition through SNAP and other farm bill programs. 62 Appendix 1: Description, Eligibility, Participation, and Cost of Farm Bill Nutrition Programs, FY2019–FY2022i Program Description Eligibility Program Cost and Participation Year Cost Participation 703,000 FY2019 $259 million326 individuals327 Participants must Improves the health of reside in one of the 693,000 FY2020 $286 million328 low-income persons states or on one of the individuals329 Commodity at least 60 years of Indian reservations that Supplemental age by supplementing participate in CSFP. Food Program their diets with States can establish local 661,000 (CSFP) monthly food residency requirements. FY2021 $298 million330 individuals331 packages of nutritious Persons must have USDA Foods. income limits at or below 130% FPL. FY2022 $332 million332 760, 547333 Residential: Income Year Cost Participation eligible households that reside on a reservation $143 83,800 FY2019 (whether American million334 individuals335 Indian or non-Indian) or households living in Provides USDA 74,900 approved areas near FY2020 $159 million336 Foods in lieu of SNAP individuals337 a reservation or in benefits to income- Food Oklahoma, where at eligible households Distribution least one member of living on Indian $122 48,000 Program the household is also a FY2021 reservations and million338 individuals339 on Indian member of a Federally to Native American Reservations recognized tribe. families residing (FDPIR) in Oklahoma or in Income eligibility is designated areas near dependent on household reservations. size. The net income Data not Data not standard is the sum of FY2022 available available the applicable SNAP net monthly income standard and the applicable SNAP standard deduction. i Program cost and participation data for FY2022 are included where available. 63 Program Description Eligibility Program Cost and Participation Year Cost Participation 7,600 schools Elementary schools provided Provides a free that participate in the FY2019 $172 million340 fresh produce fresh fruit or National School Lunch to 4 million Fresh Fruit students341 vegetable snack Program, with priority for and Vegetable during the school schools with the highest Data not Program (FFVP) FY2020 $176 million342 day at participating percentage of students available elementary schools. eligible for free and $202.9 Data not reduced-price meals. FY2021 million343 available $233.1 Data not FY2022 million344 available Year Cost Participation Provides funding opportunities to $41.4 million 22 projects conduct and evaluate FY2019 in grants funded346 projects to increase awarded345 the purchase of fruits and vegetables Nonprofit organizations Gus Schumacher by income-eligible and government agencies Nutrition consumers by are eligible to apply for $41 million Incentive providing incentives; the GusNIP Nutrition 30 projects FY2020 in grants Program also provides Incentive Program and funded348 awarded347 (GusNIP) funding to produce the GusNIP Produce prescription programs Prescription Program. to SNAP/Medicaid participants to reduce $110 million 63 projects food insecurity and FY2021 in grants funded350 health care usage and awarded349 associated costs. Data not 81 projects FY2022 available funded351 Year Cost Participation Data not FY2019 $24 million352 available For-profit businesses, The program aims to cooperative businesses, build a more equitable nonprofit organizations, food system that and state, local, and Healthy Food supports the health tribal governments and Financing 20 projects and economic vibrancy governmental agencies FY2020 $27 million353 Initiative (HFFI) awarded354 of all Americans aiming to strengthen, through supporting expand, and innovate local projects. within the food retail supply chain. 134 projects FY2021 $28 million355 awarded356 Data not FY2022 $183 million357 available 64 Program Description Eligibility Program Cost and Participation The program awards Year Cost Participation Low-income seniors, grants to states, generally individuals who $21.0 federally recognized FY2019 832,111359 are at least 60 years million358 Indian Tribal old, with household Seniors Farmers' Organizations, and incomes of no more than Market Nutrition U.S. territories to 185% of the FPL. Some Program provide low-income FY2020 $21.1 million360 725,686361 state agencies accept (SFMNP) seniors with coupons proof of participation that can be exchanged or enrollment in another for eligible foods at means-tested program, $23.7 Data not farmers' markets, FY2021 like SNAP, CSFP, etc. million362 available CSAs, etc. Year Cost Participation The program provides nutrition benefits to Must apply in the state $60.39 35.70 million FY2019 low-income individuals in which the applicant billion363 individuals364 and families, to currently lives and must supplement food meet certain resource, budgets in the form asset, and income Supplemental $79.12 39.88 million of electronic benefits limits. SNAP income FY2020 Nutrition billion365 individuals366 redeemable for and resource limits are Assistance SNAP-eligible foods updated annually. There Program (SNAP) at SNAP-eligible are special SNAP rules for $113.7 41.56 million retailers. Benefit households with elderly FY2021 billion367 individuals368 amounts vary by family members, those 41.16 million household size and with disabilities, or those individuals369 benefit calculation living in Alaska or Hawaii. Data not FY2022 rules. available **Data as of November 10, 2022 Evidence-based Year Cost Participation program that helps people lead healthy, $433.0 million Data not active lives. SNAP- FY2019 allocated to Serves SNAP available Ed teaches people states370 participants, low-income how to make their Supplemental individuals eligible to SNAP dollars stretch, Nutrition receive SNAP benefits $441.0 million how to shop for and Data not Assistance or other means-tested FY2020 allocated to cook healthy meals, available Program- federal assistance states371 and how to stay Education programs, and individuals physically active. (SNAP-Ed) residing in communities $431.2 million The program utilizes Data not with a significant low- FY2021 allocated to individual, group- available income population. states372 based, multilevel and community- or $464.0 million Data not population-based FY2022 allocated to available approaches. states373 65 Program Description Eligibility Program Cost and Participation Year Cost Participation Helps supplement Public or private nonprofit 785 million the diets of low- organizations that provide FY2019 $764 million374 lbs. of food income Americans nutrition assistance to distributed375 by providing them low-income Americans, with emergency food either through the assistance at no cost. distribution of food 719 million The Emergency FY2020 $770 million376 lbs. of food for home use or the Food Assistance distributed377 USDA purchases a preparation of meals; Program (TEFAP) variety of nutritious, households that meet high-quality state eligibility criteria 940 million USDA Foods, and can receive food for FY2021 $1.25 billion378 lbs. of food makes those foods home use and low-income distributed379 available to state individuals may receive distributing agencies. $1.03 billion Data not prepared meals. FY2022 allocated380 available 66 Appendix 2: Findings from BPC SNAP Poll BPC commissioned a poll by Morning Consult to better understand the perspectives of the general public and of SNAP participants about SNAP. The poll was conducted September 12-14, 2022, and reached 2,210 adults, 483 of whom were current SNAP participants. Interviews were conducted online and demographic data was weighted to match an approximate makeup of the U.S. population. The poll had a margin of error of 2% for the general population and 4% for SNAP participants. Percentages might not total 100% due to rounding. The poll questions and responses from all respondents and from SNAP participants only are provided in this section. M O R N I N G C O N S U LT P O L L R E S U LT S – A L L R E S P O N D E N T S Question 1 Response Frequency Percentage Have you or members of your household Yes, current participant 483 22% ever participated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Yes, participated since March 2020 91 4% formerly known as food stamps? but no longer participating Yes, participated between September 2017 and February 2020 but no longer 78 4% participating Yes, participated 5+ years ago but no 230 10% longer participating No, never participated 1328 60% Question 2 Response Frequency Percentage Thinking about the current SNAP benefit Benefit levels are too low 938 42% levels, which of the following best represents your view? Benefit levels are sufficient 655 30% Benefit levels are too high 165 7% Don't know/No opinion 452 20% 67 Question 3 Response Frequency Percentage Do you think current SNAP benefit levels Increase by 20% or more 782 35% should be increased, decreased, or remain the same? Increase by less than 20% 375 17% Remain the same 581 26% Decrease by less than 20% 100 5% Decrease by more than 20% 89 4% Don't know/No opinion 282 13% Question 4-1 Response Frequency Percentage Assuming they meet other eligibility Strongly agree 853 39% criteria, do you agree or disagree the following groups of people should be Somewhat agree 643 29% eligible to participate in SNAP? College students Somewhat disagree 260 12% Strongly disagree 211 10% Don't know/No opinion 244 11% Question 4-2 Response Frequency Percentage Assuming they meet other eligibility Strongly agree 888 40% criteria, do you agree or disagree the following groups of people should be Somewhat agree 697 32% eligible to participate in SNAP? Legal immigrants Somewhat disagree 162 7% Strongly disagree 228 10% Don't know/No opinion 235 11% Question 4-3 Response Frequency Percentage Assuming they meet other eligibility Strongly agree 524 24% criteria, do you agree or disagree the following groups of people should be Somewhat agree 595 27% eligible to participate in SNAP? Individuals with prior drug convictions Somewhat disagree 367 17% Strongly disagree 345 16% Don't know/No opinion 379 17% 68 Question 5 Response Frequency Percentage Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, certain SNAP work requirements should be SNAP participants were required to work stricter than they were prior to the 339 15% at least 80 hours per month or be actively COVID-19 pandemic participating in a work training program to SNAP work requirements should be eligible for SNAP benefits. These work return to what they were prior to the 901 41% requirements for SNAP participants were COVID-19 pandemic temporarily waived to ensure Americans SNAP work requirements should be are able to access the food benefits they less strict than they were prior to the 617 28% need during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic Based on what you know, should the work requirement for SNAP participants be more or less strict than it was compared to Don't Know/No opinion 353 16% prior to COVID-19? Question 6-1 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 501 44% following changes to SNAP benefits? Provide additional benefits to SNAP Somewhat support 349 31% participants for the purchase of fruits and vegetables in all forms (N=262) Somewhat oppose 84 7% Strongly oppose 64 6% Don't know/No opinion 131 12% Question 6-2 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 472 44% following changes to SNAP benefits? Provide additional benefits to SNAP Somewhat support 356 33% participants for the purchase of a range of healthful foods such as fruits, vegetables, Somewhat oppose 82 8% beans, nuts, seeds, legumes, and whole grains (N=1080) Strongly oppose 64 6% Don't know/No opinion 107 10% Question 6-3 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 669 30% following changes to SNAP benefits? Provide additional benefits to SNAP Somewhat support 671 30% participants for the purchase of healthful items, such as fruits and vegetables, Somewhat oppose 270 12% if participants do not purchase sugar- sweetened beverages (SSBs) with SNAP Strongly oppose 274 12% benefits Don't know/No opinion 326 15% 69 Question 6-4 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 653 30% following changes to SNAP benefits? Provide additional benefits to SNAP Somewhat support 681 31% participants for the purchase of healthful items, such as fruits and vegetables, if Somewhat oppose 286 13% participants do not purchase certain unhealthful foods, suchas foods high in Strongly oppose 250 11% added sugars or sodium (like candy or chips), with SNAP benefits Don't know/No opinion 340 15% Question 6-5 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 527 24% following changes to SNAP benefits? Remove sugar-sweetened beverages from Somewhat support 473 21% the products that can be purchased with SNAP benefits Somewhat oppose 411 19% Strongly oppose 506 23% Don't know/No opinion 294 13% Question 6-6 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 567 26% following changes to SNAP benefits? Remove a variety of unhealthful foods, Somewhat support 500 23% including foods high in added sugars or sodium (like candy and chips), from the Somewhat oppose 380 17% products that can be purchased with SNAP benefits Strongly oppose 471 21% Don't know/No opinion 293 13% Question 6-7 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 289 27% following changes to SNAP benefits? Provide additional benefits to SNAP Somewhat support 311 30% participants for the purchase of healthful items, such as fruits and vegetables, Somewhat oppose 161 15% combined with a reduction in benefits if unhealthful foods, such as foods high Strongly oppose 132 13% in added sugars or sodium (like candy or chips), are purchased (N=234) Don't know/No opinion 159 15% 70 Question 6-8 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 329 28% following changes to SNAP benefits? Provide additional benefits to SNAP Somewhat support 354 31% participants for the purchase of healthful items, such as fruits and vegetables, Somewhat oppose 155 13% combined with fewer benefits if sugar- sweetened beverages are purchased with Strongly oppose 152 13% SNAP benefits (N=250) Don't know/No opinion 168 15% Question 7 Response Frequency Percentage SNAP pilot programs are optional and Yes, states should be able to freely not required for SNAP participants. operate pilot programs to improve the 691 31% Pilot program examples include those nutrition of SNAP participants that offer additional benefits for healthy Yes, states should be able to operate food purchases or disincentivize or pilot programs to improve the restrict purchases of unhealthful food nutrition of SNAP participants, but items. Currently, the U.S. Department of 786 36% the program should be approved by Agriculture (USDA) has not approved any the U.S Department of Agriculture state SNAP pilot programs to improve the (USDA) nutrition of SNAP participants. Based on No, states should not be able to what you know, should states be allowed to operate pilot programs to improve the 285 13% operate SNAP pilot programs to improve nutrition of SNAP participants the nutrition of SNAP participants? Don't know/No opinion 448 20% Question 8-1 Response Frequency Percentage Do you agree or disagree SNAP benefits Strongly agree 751 34% should be allowed to be used for the following? Somewhat agree 724 33% Hot, prepared foods Somewhat disagree 281 13% Strongly disagree 249 11% Don't know/No opinion 205 9% Question 8-2 Response Frequency Percentage Do you agree or disagree SNAP benefits Strongly agree 740 33% should be allowed to be used for the following? Somewhat agree 696 31% Certain non-food items (such as household items like cleaning supplies, diapers, and Somewhat disagree 252 11% menstrual products) Strongly disagree 297 13% Don't know/No opinion 225 10% 71 Question 9 Response Frequency Percentage SNAP-authorized stores, including local The food stocking requirement for convenience and corner stores, are SNAP-authorized stores should 829 37% required to have a minimum number of require them to have more healthful a variety of food categories available, food options including meat, poultry, and fish; bread The food stocking requirements for and cereals; vegetables and fruits, and SNAP-authorized stores should not 746 34% dairy products. Some of these items must change be fresh or frozen products, but there are otherwise no nutrition criteria. What The food stocking requirements for do you think about the food stocking SNAP-authorized stores should be 174 8% requirement for SNAP-authorized stores? lessened Don't know/No opinion 464 21% Question 10 Response Frequency Percentage Do you agree or disagree SNAP Strongly agree 975 44% participants should be able to use their benefits to purchase groceries online? Somewhat agree 670 30% Somewhat disagree 145 7% Strongly disagree 132 6% Don't know/No opinion 288 13% 72 M O R N I N G C O N S U LT P O L L R E S U LT S – S N A P PA R T I C I PA N T S Question 1 Response Frequency Percentage Have you or members of your household ever participated in the Supplemental Yes, current participant 483 100% Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps? Question 2 Response Frequency Percentage Thinking about the current SNAP benefit Benefit levels are too low 287 59% levels, which of the following best represents your view? Benefit levels are sufficient 150 31% Benefit levels are too high 15 3% Don't know/No opinion 32 7% Question 3 Response Frequency Percentage Do you think current SNAP benefit levels Increase by 20% or more 280 58% should be increased, decreased, or remain the same? Increase by less than 20% 76 16% Remain the same 88 18% Decrease by less than 20% 12 2% Decrease by more than 20% 9 2% Don't know/No opinion 19 4% Question 4-1 Response Frequency Percentage Assuming they meet other eligibility Strongly agree 258 53% criteria, do you agree or disagree the following groups of people should be Somewhat agree 124 26% eligible to participate in SNAP? College students Somewhat disagree 25 5% Strongly disagree 32 7% Don't know/No opinion 44 9% 73 Question 4-2 Response Frequency Percentage Assuming they meet other eligibility Strongly agree 219 45% criteria, do you agree or disagree the following groups of people should be Somewhat agree 122 25% eligible to participate in SNAP? Legal immigrants Somewhat disagree 40 8% Strongly disagree 48 10% Don't know/No opinion 54 11% Question 4-3 Response Frequency Percentage Assuming they meet other eligibility Strongly agree 155 32% criteria, do you agree or disagree the following groups of people should be Somewhat agree 120 25% eligible to participate in SNAP? Individuals with prior drug convictions Somewhat disagree 56 12% Strongly disagree 68 14% Don't know/No opinion 84 17% Question 5 Response Frequency Percentage Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, certain SNAP work requirements should be SNAP participants were required to work stricter than they were prior to the 42 9% at least 80 hours per month or be actively COVID-19 pandemic participating in a work training program to SNAP work requirements should be eligible for SNAP benefits. These work return to what they were prior to the 143 30% requirements for SNAP participants were COVID-19 pandemic temporarily waived to ensure Americans SNAP work requirements should be are able to access the food benefits they less strict than they were prior to the 214 44% need during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID-19 pandemic Based on what you know, should the work requirement for SNAP participants be more or less strict than it was compared to Don't Know/No opinion 85 18% prior to COVID-19? Question 6-1 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 144 55% following changes to SNAP benefits? Provide additional benefits to SNAP Somewhat support 60 23% participants for the purchase of fruits and vegetables in all forms (N=262) Somewhat oppose 17 6% Strongly oppose 13 5% Don't know/No opinion 27 10% 74 Question 6-2 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 127 57% following changes to SNAP benefits? Provide additional benefits to SNAP Somewhat support 57 26% participants for the purchase of a range of healthful foods such as fruits, vegetables, Somewhat oppose 13 6% beans, nuts, seeds, legumes, and whole grains (N=221) Strongly oppose 6 3% Don't know/No opinion 18 8% Question 6-3 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 153 32% following changes to SNAP benefits? Provide additional benefits to SNAP Somewhat support 97 20% participants for the purchase of healthful items, such as fruits and vegetables, Somewhat oppose 67 14% if participants do not purchase sugar- sweetened beverages with SNAP benefits Strongly oppose 89 18% Don't know/No opinion 77 16% Question 6-4 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 153 32% following changes to SNAP benefits? Provide additional benefits to SNAP Somewhat support 103 21% participants for the purchase of healthful items, such as fruits and vegetables, if Somewhat oppose 79 16% participants do not purchase certain unhealthful foods, such as foods high in Strongly oppose 78 16% added sugars or sodium (like candy or chips), with SNAP benefits Don't know/No opinion 69 14% Question 6-5 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 51 11% following changes to SNAP benefits? Remove sugar-sweetened beverages from Somewhat support 79 16% the products that can be purchased with SNAP benefits Somewhat oppose 85 18% Strongly oppose 221 46% Don't know/No opinion 47 10% 75 Question 6-6 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 65 13% following changes to SNAP benefits? Remove a variety of unhealthful foods, Somewhat support 64 13% including foods high in added sugars or sodium (like candy and chips), from the products that can be purchased with Somewhat oppose 93 19% SNAP benefits Strongly oppose 210 44% Don't know/No opinion 51 11% Question 6-7 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 63 27% following changes to SNAP benefits? Provide additional benefits to SNAP Somewhat support 37 16% participants for the purchase of healthful items, such as fruits and vegetables, Somewhat oppose 52 22% combined with a reduction in benefits if unhealthful foods, such as foods high Strongly oppose 55 24% in added sugars or sodium (like candy or chips), are purchased (N=234) Don't know/No opinion 26 11% Question 6-8 Response Frequency Percentage Do you support or oppose making the Strongly support 75 30% following changes to SNAP benefits? Provide additional benefits to SNAP Somewhat support 58 23% participants for the purchase of healthful items, such as fruits and vegetables, Somewhat oppose 27 11% combined with fewer benefits if sugar- sweetened beverages are purchased with Strongly oppose 55 22% SNAP benefits (N=250) Don't know/No opinion 35 14% Question 7 Response Frequency Percentage SNAP pilot programs are optional and Yes, states should be able to freely not required for SNAP participants. operate pilot programs to improve the 145 30% Pilot program examples include those nutrition of SNAP participants that offer additional benefits for healthy Yes, states should be able to operate food purchases or disincentivize or pilot programs to improve the restrict purchases of unhealthful food nutrition of SNAP participants, but items. Currently, the U.S. Department of 137 28% the program should be approved by Agriculture (USDA) has not approved any the U.S Department of Agriculture state SNAP pilot programs to improve the (USDA) nutrition of SNAP participants. Based on No, states should not be able to what you know, should states be allowed to operate pilot programs to improve the 98 20% operate SNAP pilot programs to improve nutrition of SNAP participants the nutrition of SNAP participants? Don't know/No opinion 103 21% 76 Question 8-1 Response Frequency Percentage Do you agree or disagree SNAP benefits Strongly agree 267 55% should be allowed to be used for the following? Somewhat agree 120 25% Hot, prepared foods Somewhat disagree 30 6% Strongly disagree 30 6% Don't know/No opinion 37 8% Question 8-2 Response Frequency Percentage Do you agree or disagree SNAP benefits Strongly agree 223 46% should be allowed to be used for the following? Somewhat agree 97 20% Certain non-food items (such as household items like cleaning supplies, diapers, and Somewhat disagree 52 11% menstrual products) Strongly disagree 76 16% Don't know/No opinion 35 7% Question 9 Response Frequency Percentage SNAP-authorized stores, including local The food stocking requirement for convenience and corner stores, are SNAP-authorized stores should 159 33% required to have a minimum number of require them to have more healthful a variety of food categories available, food options including meat, poultry, and fish; bread The food stocking requirements for and cereals; vegetables and fruits; and SNAP-authorized stores should not 175 36% dairy products. Some of these items must change be fresh or frozen products, but there The food stocking requirements for are otherwise no nutrition criteria. What SNAP-authorized stores should be 46 9% do you think about the food stocking lessened requirement for SNAP-authorized stores? Don't know/No opinion 103 21% Question 10 Response Frequency Percentage Do you agree or disagree SNAP Strongly agree 355 73% participants should be able to use their benefits to purchase groceries online? Somewhat agree 88 18% Somewhat disagree 8 2% Strongly disagree 4 1% Don't know/No opinion 28 6% 77 Appendix 3: Full List of Task Force Recommendations S N A P E L I G I B I L I T Y, B E N E F I T L E V E L S , A N D P R O G R A M A D M I N I S T R AT I O N P O L I C Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N Ensure that SNAP benefit levels are adequate to achieve a nutritious diet; that eligibility requirements and employment and training programs promote workforce participation and increased earnings without presenting undue barriers to SNAP participation; and that access to SNAP is expanded to all U.S. territories. • As required by the 2018 Farm Bill, USDA should continue to re-evaluate the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) every five years and annually update benefit levels for inflation to ensure benefit adequacy. • Congress should support the utilization of categorical eligibility to simplify program administration, provide program flexibility, and expand eligibility to families in need. • To remove unnecessary barriers to SNAP participation, Congress should make permanent certain public health emergency-related procedural flexibilities, such as providing applicants the option to interview and provide their signature remotely. USDA should also encourage states to utilize existing SNAP demonstration authority to test alternative approaches to program administration to improve program access, efficiency, and delivery of SNAP benefits. Congress should consider evidence from state demonstration projects and input from state SNAP administrators, community partners, and participants to better inform and modify SNAP administration rules. • To increase access to SNAP and participation among eligible households, Congress should streamline and simplify program requirements, program administration, and data sharing. 78 • Congress should expand SNAP and SNAP-Ed to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, in place of the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) block grants. • To reduce barriers to SNAP participation, support underserved communities, and advance racial equity, Congress should expand SNAP benefits to college students, immigrant communities subject to a waiting period, and people in the military; Congress should also eliminate military members' basic allowance for housing (BAH) from SNAP eligibility determinations. • USDA should require states to provide five months of SNAP benefits to households that have had their cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program terminated. The benefit amount for these months should be equal to the amount received before TANF was terminated. • Congress should enhance SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) programs through continued evaluation of existing E&T programs, such as E&T pilot programs and "SNAP to Skills," to improve their effectiveness in increasing workforce participation and earnings and their cost-effectiveness. • Changes to the work requirements to simplify administration, streamline application processes, and ensure compliance with the law should be considered during the reauthorization of the 2023 Farm Bill. The Task Force recognizes the administrative complexities and challenges for beneficiaries of the current work requirements but makes no specific recommendations in this brief. NUTRITION AND ELIGIBLE FOODS IN SNAP P O L I C Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N Strengthen nutrition in SNAP by encouraging the consumption of nutritious foods through establishment of a fruit and vegetable cash value benefit (CVB), further expansion of and investment in the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP), stronger retailer stocking standards, improvements to the SNAP-Ed program, better data collection, and demonstration projects. • To overcome the barriers that SNAP participants face in accessing healthy food options, including fruits and vegetables, Congress should support an increase in accessibility, availability, affordability, and intake of nutritious foods, including fruits and vegetables. Options to achieve this goal include: 79 A pilot program providing a new monthly cash value benefit (CVB) for SNAP participants for fruits and vegetables in all forms (e.g., fresh, frozen, canned, dried) similar to the WIC CVB; or Scaling and expanding the existing GusNIP nutrition incentive and produce prescription programs to reach additional SNAP participants by making the GusNIP program permanent and increasing funding to at least $1 billion, or 1% of SNAP expenditures. Congress should also make GusNIP program enhancements to increase equitable access to the program, including decreasing or eliminating the nonfederal matching requirement for grantees in lower-resourced communities, and ensure that GusNIP incentive and produce prescription programs include fruits and vegetables in all forms (e.g., fresh, frozen, canned, dried). • Congress and USDA should strengthen the stocking standards for SNAP- authorized retailers to better align them with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), including providing more options for fruits and vegetables without added sugars, sodium, or fats; lean protein foods; low-fat dairy products; and whole grains. Financial or technical support or specific exemptions could be provided to support smaller retailers in meeting stronger stocking standards or in voluntarily going beyond existing standards. • Congress and USDA should encourage or incentivize through technical assistance or federal funding that in-store and online marketing at SNAP-authorized retailers to promote foods and beverages that are recommended by the DGA and do not promote foods and beverages that are not recommended by the DGA. Research should be conducted to identify the impact and feasibility of potential strategies to improve the retail environment for SNAP and non-SNAP customers. • Congress and USDA should create a robust, coordinated SNAP-Ed that promotes nutrition education and nutritious food choices by doubling funding for SNAP-Ed and better integrating it with other federal and state government programs, allowing the program to reach more individuals. • USDA and Congress should encourage and fund, and states should prioritize, multiple rigorous demonstrate projects in SNAP to evaluate different innovative approaches to jointly reduce hunger and improve nutrition. These demonstrations should be designed to look at the added challenges for a SNAP customer to achieve a nutrient dense diet as compared to the U.S. population, and how to reduce those challenges for all. The demonstrations should test ways to reduce these challenges and could include: Increased benefits levels; Behavioral economics, including novel uses of mobile technology and online/remote retail applications, taking into account limitations imposed under applicable privacy laws; 80 Allowing purchases of hot, prepared foods consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) definition of healthy and/or recommended to be consumed by the DGA; Incentives for selection of nutrient dense items recommended to be consumed by the DGA; and Incentives for selection of fewer less healthful items recommended to be minimized or reduced by the DGA. • Congress and USDA should invest in a robust research and data collection strategy to identify opportunities to improve nutrition in SNAP. • Congress should require that USDA regularly collect data from all federal nutrition programs to measure alignment with, and progress toward, improvements in dietary quality and food security for participants in these programs. • USDA should report every two years on the quality of SNAP participants' diets using science-based metrics, such as USDA's Healthy Eating Index, and data collected from nutrition surveys and research, such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. S N A P I N T E G R I T Y, T E C H N O L O G Y, A N D R E TA I L E R C O N S I D E R AT I O N S P O L I C Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N Use data matching, online purchasing, and other technology enhancements to improve SNAP access, integrity, and operations for participants and retailers. • USDA, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and state administration agencies should continue to ensure program integrity and protect federal investment and public support for SNAP. The OIG should conduct an independent audit of SNAP's flexibilities provided during the PHE, including increased benefit levels and remote application and recertification processes. • USDA should work closely with state SNAP agencies, as expected, to provide technical assistance to implement the National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC) system fully and effectively across all states. Once implemented, USDA should conduct an evaluation of NAC's effectiveness in detecting and preventing dual participation in SNAP and ensure all program administrators are in compliance with the final NAC rule. • Congress should authorize the Online Purchasing Pilot as a permanent program and increase equitable access to and promote nutrition through 81 online purchasing. Congress should allow SNAP benefits to be used to cover online shopping transaction, delivery, monthly membership or other fees up to a certain limit, such as $10 per month per SNAP participant. To promote nutritious food purchases, funding should be provided for retailers to provide incentives to SNAP participants to make healthy food purchases when purchasing online and in stores. • To increase equitable access to and promote nutrition through online purchasing, Congress could require USDA to provide a report on the effects of online SNAP redemption, including barriers to access and consumer choice and a comparison of foods purchased. Additionally, Congress should ensure that all communities have access to affordable, high-quality broadband to access federal nutrition programs, including SNAP particularly in rural, tribal, and low-income urban areas. Congress should also establish a USDA micro-grant program to support rural or small-scale retailers to establish or improve their online infrastructure for online SNAP purchasing. FOOD DISTRIBUTION PROGRAMS P O L I C Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N Modernize the food distribution programs, including The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), to improve nutrition, program access, and program operations. • To continue to meet the needs of Americans experiencing food and nutrition insecurity, Congress should increase TEFAP entitlement funding by $250 million annually, adjusted for inflation, and make programmatic changes to improve the nutritional quality of foods, increase access to the program, and ease administrative burden. • To support the distribution of fresh and frozen foods, Congress should reauthorize and annually appropriate at least $200 million for TEFAP administrative grants for storage and distribution and $15 million for TEFAP infrastructure grants to allow for better transport of foods and to increase the distribution of nutritious foods that require temperature control. Congress should also require USDA Foods purchases to maintain a certain percentage of fresh or frozen items, such as low-fat dairy products, produce, and protein foods. 82 • Congress should reauthorize the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR); allow Native American families to simultaneously use both SNAP and FDPIR; provide tribal authority over administration of SNAP, SNAP-Ed, FDPIR, and other nutrition programs; and expand access to local and regionally produced and traditional foods through FDPIR. • Congress should also expand or make permanent 638 Authority, a legal tool for tribal self-determination that gives tribes the ability to administer certain federal government programs; eliminate the matching requirement for tribes; and provide funding to improve infrastructure to update facilities and equipment. Inclusion of more traditional, regional, and cultural foods should also be encouraged. Congress should reauthorize the FDPIR Self-Determination Demonstration Project to strengthen regional tribal communities by requiring the purchase of regional and culturally relevant foods from USDA-authorized tribal farmers and producers. Additionally, Congress should allow USDA to create a pilot program to allow ITOs to source locally-produced herbs and spices as part of nutrition education in FDPIR and include more traditional/Tribally-produced foods on a regional basis. • To better address the needs of older adults experiencing food insecurity, Congress should allow USDA to update the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), to allow more older adults to participate in the program by updating its criteria for determining program size. • Congress should work with USDA to improve food and nutrition security across food distribution programs, including TEFAP, FDPIR, and CSFP, through pilot programs, changes in procurement procedures, and research studies on progress and barriers. • Congress should require USDA to produce a report on the effectiveness, efficiency, nutritional value, cost, format, impact on diverse populations, and unintended consequences of federal food distribution programs, including food box programs, and provide best-practice recommendations for future programs. • USDA should give local or state agencies and nonprofits the authority to determine the best methods for food distribution. 83 OTHER FOOD AND NUTRITION PROGR AMS AUTHORIZED T H R O U G H T H E FA R M B I L L P O L I C Y R E C O M M E N D AT I O N Improve food and nutrition security for priority populations through other food and nutrition assistance programs, including the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP), Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP), Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI), Public-Private Partnerships Program, and Micro-Grants for Food Security Program. • To increase the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables, Congress should provide the necessary funding and approval to expand FFVP to all elementary schools that participate in the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). Congress could also provide further funding and approval to expand FFVP to all middle and high schools that participate in CEP. • To increase access to the Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) for all eligible seniors, Congress should reauthorize and increase funding for the SFMNP to allow for program expansion and increased benefit levels. • Congress should require participating states to accept proof of enrollment in other programs with similar income limits (adjunctive eligibility) as satisfying eligibility for SFMNP and make permanent some of the administrative flexibilities that states implemented during the COVID-19 PHE. • Congress should reauthorize funding for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) at or above the current level to continue to support projects to attract fresh, healthy food retailers that accept SNAP benefits. • Congress should authorize and fund a public-private partnerships program and work with USDA to ensure the program is implemented. • Congress should reauthorize the Micro-Grants for Food Security Program to address the unique needs of the noncontiguous U.S. states and territories in promoting food security. 84 References 1 Congressional Research Service, The 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334): Summary and Side- by-Side Comparison, February 22, 2019. Available at: https://www.everycrsreport.com/ files/20190222_R45525_2505ddecf39c9258f5f2dcbc7d585961b05f0b2e.pdf. 2 Congressional Research Service, "Farm Bill Primer: What Is the Farm Bill?," June 28, 2022. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12047. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Program Data Overview," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/overview. 6 Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2022 to 2032, May 2022. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-05/57950-Outlook.pdf. 7 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "FNS Nutrition Programs," November 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/programs. 8 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Statistical Supplement to Household Food Security in the United States in 2021, September 2022. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=104662. 9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Adult Obesity Facts," 2022. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html. 10 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Childhood Obesity Facts," 2022. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html. 11 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Chronic Diseases in America," 2022. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/infographic/chronic- diseases.htm. 12 T.V. Jardim, D. Mozaffarian, et al., "Cardiometabolic disease costs associated with suboptimal diet in the United States: A cost analysis based on a microsimulation model" PLOS Medicine 16(12), 2019 . Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pmed.1002981. 13 Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2022 to 2032, 2022. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-05/57950-Outlook.pdf. 14 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States in 2021, September 2022, Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/ webdocs/publications/104656/err-309.pdf?v=9520. 15 Healthy Eating Research, Strengthening the Public Health Impacts of SNAP: Key Opportunities for the Next Farm Bill, July 2021. Available at :https:// healthyeatingresearch.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/her-snap-farm- bill-3.pdf. 85 85 16 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States in 2021, September 2022, Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/ webdocs/publications/104656/err-309.pdf?v=9520. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, "Food Security in the U.S.," 2022. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/ food-security-in-the-u-s/measurement/. 20 Ibid. 21 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States in 2021, September 2022, Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/ webdocs/publications/104656/err-309.pdf?v=9520. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "USDA Actions on Nutrition Security," 2022. Available at: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/usda-actions-nutrition-security.pdf. 26 Ibid. 27 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "What is Nutrition Security?" Available at: https:// www.usda.gov/nutrition-security. 28 Ibid. 29 F. Juul, N. Parekh, et al., "Ultra-processed food consumption among US adults from 2001 to 2018," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 115(1): 211–221, January 2022. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqab305. 30 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "USDA Actions on Nutrition Security." Available at: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ usda-actions-nutrition-security-infographic.pdf. 31 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Adult Obesity Facts," 2022. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html. 32 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "National Diabetes Statistic Report," 2022. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics-report/index.html. 33 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Childhood Obesity Facts," 2022. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/childhood.html. 34 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Chronic Diseases in America," 2022. Available at: Chronic Diseases in America | CDC. 35 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "USDA Actions on Nutrition Security." Available at: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ usda-actions-nutrition-security-infographic.pdf. 86 36 T.V. Jardim, D. Mozaffarian, et al., "Cardiometabolic disease costs associated with suboptimal diet in the United States: A cost analysis based on a microsimulation model" PLOS Medicine 16(12): 2019. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pmed.1002981. 37 Bipartisan Policy Center, Expanding Access to Obesity Treatment for Older Adults, February 2022, Available at: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/ BPC_ExpandingAccessToObesityFinal.pdf. 38 D.D. Payán, K.P. Derose, et al., "The Food Environment in 3 Neighborhoods in South Los Angeles, California: Access, Availability, Quality, and Marketing Practices," Prev Chronic Dis. 17(E61), 2020. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/ issues/2020/20_0028.htm. 39 D. Cassady, K. Liaw, and L.M. Soederberg Miller, "Disparities in obesity-related outdoor advertising by neighborhood income and race," Journal of Urban Health92:835–842. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26337182/. 40 S.K. Young and H. Stewart, "U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Affordability on the Thrifty Food Plan Depends on Purchasing Power and Safety Net Supports," Int J Environ Res Public Health, 19(5): 2772. March 2022. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/1660- 4601/19/5/2772. 41 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Farm Bill Spending," 2022. Available at: https://www. ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-commodity-policy/farm-bill-spending/. 42 Congressional Research Service, The 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334): Summary and Side- by-Side Comparison, February 2019. Available at: https://www.everycrsreport.com/ files/20190222_R45525_2505ddecf39c9258f5f2dcbc7d585961b05f0b2e.pdf. 43 Congressional Research Service, Farm Bill Primer: What Is the Farm Bill?, June 2022. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12047. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Congressional Research Service, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: SNAP and Nutrition Title Programs, 2019. Available at: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11087.pdf. 48 Jessica Shahin, "SNAP Families First Coronavirus Response Act and Impact on Time Limit for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs)," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 2020. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ snap/ffcra-impact-time-limit-abawds. 49 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP: COVID-19 Waivers by State," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/disaster/pandemic/covid-19/ snap-waivers-flexibilities. 50 Congress.gov. "Text - H.R.2617 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023." December 29, 2022. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th- congress/house-bill/2617/text. 87 51 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Changes to SNAP Benefit Amounts- 2023," 2023. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/changes-2023- benefit-amounts. 52 Ibid. 53 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP and the Thrifty Food Plan," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/thriftyfoodplan. 54 Ibid. 55 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "USDA Modernizes the Thrifty Food Plan, Updates SNAP Benefits," 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda. gov/news-item/usda-0179.21. 56 Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2022 to 2032, 2022. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-05/57950-Outlook.pdf. 57 Congressional Budget Office, "Baseline projections: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," 2022. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2022- 05/51312-2022-05-snap.pdf. 58 Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2022 to 2032, 2022. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-05/57950-Outlook.pdf. 59 Congressional Budget Office, "Baseline projections: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," 2022. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2022- 05/51312-2022-05-snap.pdf. 60 Angela Rachidi, "A 20-Year Look at SNAP Participation and Costs," 2021. Available at: www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/A-20-Year-Look-at-SNAP-Participation- and-Costs.pdf?x91208. 61 U.S. Department of Agriculture, SNAP-Ed Connection. Available at: https://snaped. fns.usda.gov/. 62 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "SNAP-Ed Final Allocations For FY 2022," 2022. Available at: https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FY_22_SNAP- Ed_Allocations.pdf. 63 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, "Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP)." Available at: https://www.nifa. usda.gov/grants/programs/gus-schumacher-nutrition-incentive-program. 64 Nutrition Incentive Hub, "GusNIP Grantees." Available at: https://www. nutritionincentivehub.org/grantee-projects. 65 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "USDA Invests More Than $59M to Improve Dietary Health and Nutrition Security," 2022. Available at: https://www.usda.gov/media/ press-releases/2022/11/22/usda-invests-more-59m-improve-dietary-health-and- nutrition-security. 66 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, "USDA NIFA Invests $40M to Improve Dietary Health and Reduce Food Insecurity," 2022. Available at: https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/press-releases/usda-nifa-invests- 40m-improve-dietary-health-reduce-food-insecurity. 88 67 Nutrition Incentive Hub, "About GusNIP," 2022. Available at: https://www. nutritionincentivehub.org/about/gusnip. 68 Congressional Research Service, The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP): Background and Funding, June 2022. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/ product/pdf/R/R45408. 69 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "The Emergency Food Assistance program," 2020. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/emergency- food-assistance-program. 70 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Annual Summary Of Food And Nutrition Service Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ sites/default/files/resource-files/annual-11.xlsx. 71 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "FY22 Food and Administrative Funding for TEFAP," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ tefap/fy22-food-and-administrative-funding. 72 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Total TEFAP Assistance to States," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/tefap/total-tefap-assistance- states. 73 Data provided by Feeding America. 74 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations," 2020. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/fdpir/ fdpir-fact-sheet. 75 "Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations Self-Determination Demonstration Project: Solicitation of Proposals for Additional Tribal Organizations To Participate," 87 Fed. Reg. 63023, 63023-63029; (7 pages), (Proposed October 18, 2022). Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/18/2022-22570/ food-distribution-program-on-indian-reservations-self-determination-demonstration- project. 76 K. Finegold, F.D. Kramer, et al., The Role of the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) in Nutritional Assistance to Mothers, Infants, Children, and Seniors. August 2008. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/85990/ccr-48.pdf?v=0. 77 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "CSFP: Caseload Assignments for the 2022 Caseload Cycle and Administrative Grants," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/csfp/caseload-assignments-2022-caseload-cycle-and- administrative-grants. 78 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program," 2021. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/ files/resource-files/SFMNPFactSheet.pdf. 79 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SFMNP Grant Data," 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/sfmnp-grant-data. 80 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program," 2017. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/ files/resource-files/FFVPFactSheet.pdf. 89 81 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program: Allocation of Funds for FY 2022," 2021. Available at: https://www. fns.usda.gov/cn/sp-14-2021. 82 Bipartisan Policy Center, Strengthening Child Nutrition Programs, January 2022. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/child-nutrition-programs/. 83 America's Healthy Food Financing Initiative, "Who We Are," Available at: https:// www.investinginfood.com/who-we-are/. 84 Congressional Research Service, "The 2018 Farm Bill and Sideby(P.L. 115334) Side Comparison Summary," 2021. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R45525. 85 U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development, "Healthy Food Financing Initiative," 2021. Available at: https://www.rd.usda.gov/about-rd/initiatives/healthy- food-financing-initiative. 86 Congressional Research Service, "The USDA Healthy Food Financing Initiative," 2022. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12214#:~:text=In%20 2022%2C%20USDA%20designated%20%24155,Title%20I%2C%20§1001). 87 U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, "Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018: Highlights and Implications," 2022. Available at: https:// www.ers.usda.gov/agriculture-improvement-act-of-2018-highlights-and-implications/. 88 U.S Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, "Micro-Grants for Food Security Program." Available at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/grants/ mgfsp. 89 U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, "Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018: Highlights and Implications," 2022. Available at: https:// www.ers.usda.gov/agriculture-improvement-act-of-2018-highlights-and-implications/. 90 Ibid. 91 Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2022 to 2032, 2022. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-05/57950-Outlook.pdf. 92Ibid. 93 P. Canning and R. Mentzer Morrison, "Quantifying the Impact of SNAP Benefits on the U.S. Economy and Jobs," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2022. Available at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/quantifying-the- impact-of-snap-benefits-on-the-u-s-economy-and-jobs/. 94 Ibid. 95 National Grocers Association, "Grocers Impact America," 2022. Available at: https:// grocers.guerrillaeconomics.net/reports/b4735c28-b8d5-4100-b8c7-0f8859be2df3?. 96 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "HEI Scores for Americans," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/hei-scores-americans. 90 97 C.G. Scrafford, X. Bi, et al., "Health Economic Evaluation Modeling Shows Potential Health Care Cost Savings with Increased Conformance with Healthy Dietary Patterns among Adults in the United States," J Acad Nutr Diet, 119(4): 599-616. April 2019. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30591404/. 98 Ibid. 99 Healthy Eating Research, Strengthening the Public Health Impacts of SNAP: Key Opportunities for the Next Farm Bill, July 2021. Available at: https:// healthyeatingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/her-snap-farm-bill-3.pdf. 100 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Includes Earnings Incentives." June 5, 2019. Available at: https://www. cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program- includes-earnings-incentives. 101 Healthy Eating Research, Strengthening the Public Health Impacts of SNAP: Key Opportunities for the Next Farm Bill, July 2021. Available at: https:// healthyeatingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/her-snap-farm-bill-3.pdf. 102 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP Data Tables," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance- program-snap. 103 Ibid. 104 Healthy Eating Research, Strengthening the Public Health Impacts of SNAP: Key Opportunities for the Next Farm Bill, July 2021. Available at: https:// healthyeatingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/her-snap-farm-bill-3.pdf. 105 Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2022 to 2032, 2022. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022-05/57950-Outlook.pdf. 106 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "USDA Modernizes the Thrifty Food Plan, Updates SNAP Benefits," 2021. Available at: https://www.usda.gov/media/press- releases/2021/08/16/usda-modernizes-thrifty-food-plan-updates-snap-benefits. 107 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Barriers that Constrain the Adequacy of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Allotments," 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/barriers-constrain-adequacy-snap- allotments. 108 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP Eligibility," 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112 Congressional Research Service, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Categorical Eligibility, February 2022. Available at: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42054. pdf. 91 113 Ycharts, "US Consumer Price Index: Used Cars and Trucks," 2022. Available at : https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_consumer_price_index_used_cars_and_trucks. 114 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, "Summary Findings: Food Price Outlook, 2022 and 2023," 2022. Available at: https ://www.ers.usda.gov/ data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings/. 115 SNAP Screener, "SNAP Elligability Guides," 2022. Available at: https://www. snapscreener.com/?p=guides. 116 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE)," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/broad-based- categorical-eligibility. 117 Congressional Research Service, The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Categorical Eligibility. February 2021. Available at: https://crsreports.congress. gov/product/pdf/R/R42505#:~:text=Specifically%2C%20household%20gross%20 monthly%20income,of%20the%20federal%20poverty%20level. 118 Dottie Rosenbaum, "SNAP's "Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility" Supports Working Families and Those Saving for the Future," 2019. Available at: https://www.cbpp. org/research/food-assistance/snaps-broad-based-categorical-eligibility-supports- working-families-and. 119 Ibid. 120 Center for Law and Social Policy, Eliminating Asset Limits: Creating Savings for Families and State Governments, October 2016. Available at: https://www.clasp.org/ publications/report/brief/eliminating-asset-limits-creating-savings-families-and-state- governments/. 121 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP Data Tables," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance- program-snap. 122 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Policy Basics: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), June 2022. Available at: https://www.cbpp.org/research/ food-assistance/the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap. 123 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Trends in USDA SNAP Participation Rates: FY 2016-2019," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ snap/trends-participation-rates-fy-2016-2019. 124 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "SNAP Participation Rates by State, All Eligible People," 2017. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/usamap. 125 Ibid. 126 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Trends in USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2016 to Fiscal Year 2019, March 2022. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/Trends2016-2019. pdf. 127 Ibid. 92 128 Ibid. 129 No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices, "Reaching More Kids with SNAP," 2022. Available at: https://bestpractices.nokidhungry.org/programs/Supplemental- Nutrition-Assistance-Program/reaching-more-kids-with-snap. 130 Ibid. 131 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP Eligibility," 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility. 132 Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, SNAP Waivers and Adaptations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of State Agency Perspectives in 2020, June 2021. Available at: https://files.constantcontact.com/391325ca001/43b432bd-bdde-4525-8e63- a1b0293de236.pdf. 133 Ibid. 134 Andrew Cheyne and Ellen Vollinger, "Continuing SNAP Procedural Flexibilities," Food Research & Action Center, August 18, 2022. Available at: https://frac.org/blog/ continuing-snap-procedural-flexibilities. 135 Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, SNAP Waivers and Adaptations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of State Agency Perspectives in 2020, June 2021. Available at: https://files.constantcontact.com/391325ca001/43b432bd-bdde-4525-8e63- a1b0293de236.pdf. 136 Ibid. 137 C. Caspi, H. Seligman, et al., "COVID-19 Pandemic-Era Nutrition Assistance: Impact And Sustainability," Health Affairs, May 2022. Available at: https://www.healthaffairs. org/do/10.1377/hpb20220330.534478/. 138 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, SNAP Waivers and Adaptations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of State Agency Perspectives in 2020, June 2021. Available at: https://files.constantcontact.com/391325ca001/43b432bd-bdde-4525- 8e63-a1b0293de236.pdf. 139 Steven Carlson, Zoe Neuberger, and Dottie Rosenbaum, "WIC Participation and Costs are Stable," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2017. Available at:https:// www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/wic-participation-and-costs-are- stable#:~:text=To%20simplify%20program%20administration%20under,the%20 other%20program's%20income%20limit). 140 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Policy Basics: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), June 2022. Available at : https://www.cbpp.org/ research/food-assistance/the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program- snap#:~:text=SNAP%20operates%20in%20the%2050,of%20the%20Northern%20 Mariana%20Islands. 141 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) Block Grants," Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/nap/nutrition- assistance-program-block-grants. 142 Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, P.L. 117–103, Enacted March 15, 2022. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10331/pdf/COMPS-10331.pdf. 93 143 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Summary of Nutrition Assistance Program Puerto Rico (NAP)," 2022. Available at: https ://fns-prod. azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/Puerto-Rico-NAP-Summary.pdf. 144 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Summary of Nutrition Assistance Program American Samoa (NAP)," 2022. Available at: https://fns-prod. azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/fy2023-nap-am-samoa-summary.pdf. 145 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Summary of Nutrition Assistance Program Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (NAP)," 2022. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/fy2023- nap-cnmi-summary.pdf. 146 U.S. Census Bureau, "QuickFacts Puerto Rico," 2021. Available at: https://www.census. gov/quickfacts/PR. 147 Brynne Keith-Jennings, "Introduction to Puerto Rico's Nutrition Assistance Program," November 2020. Available at: https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/ introduction-to-puerto-ricos-nutrition-assistance-program. 148 Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation, "U.S. Virgin Islands: Fast Facts," 2017. Available at: https://files.kff.org/attachment/Fact-Sheet-US-Virgin-Islands-Fast-Facts. 149 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Update to Feasibility Study on Implementing SNAP in Puerto Rico Final Report, July 2022, Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/ default/files/resource-files/PRSNAP-Feasibility-Report.pdf. 150 Ibid. 151 Ibid. 152 Ibid. 153 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Students," 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda. gov/snap/students#:~:text=The%20new%2C%20temporary%20exemption%20 expands,considered%20eligible%20for%20work%20study. 154 Congressional Research Service, Food Insecurity Among College Students:Background and Policy Options, June 2021. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R46817. 155 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Students," 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda. gov/snap/students#:~:text=The%20new%2C%20temporary%20exemption%20 expands,considered%20eligible%20for%20work%20study. 156 Congressional Research Service, Food Insecurity Among College Students: Background and Policy Options, June 2021. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R46817. 157 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Food Insecurity: Better Information Could Help Eligible College Students Access Federal Food Assistance Benefits, January 2019. Available at: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-95. 158 Ibid. 94 159 Health Affairs Forefront,"Food Insecurity On College Campuses: The Invisible Epidemic", 2022. DOI: 10.1377/forefront.20220127.264905. 160 Ibid. 161 Lynne Winter, "With Inflation Soaring, More College Students Struggle With Food Insecurity," 2022. Available at: https://red.msudenver.edu/2022/with-inflation- soaring-more-college-students-struggle-with-food-insecurity/. 162 Ibid. 163 Hope Center, #Realcollege 2021: Basic Needs Insecurity During The Ongoing Pandemic, March 2021. Available at: https://www.luminafoundation.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/04/real-college-2021.pdf. 164 Ibid. 165 U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Students," 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda. gov/snap/students#:~:text=The%20new%2C%20temporary%20exemption%20 expands,considered%20eligible%20for%20work%20study. 166 Ibid. 167 Health Affairs Forefront,"Food Insecurity On College Campuses: The Invisible Epidemic", 2022. Available at: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/ forefront.20220127.264905/ 168 Congressional Research Service, Food Insecurity Among College Students:Background and Policy Options, June 2021. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R46817. 169 Congressional Research Service, The 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115334): Summary and Side by Side Comparison, February 2019. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R45525. 170 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP Policy on Non- Citizen Eligibility," 2013. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility/ citizen/non-citizen-policy. 171 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, "Summary of Immigrant Eligibility Restrictions Under Current Law," 2009. Available at: https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/summary-immigrant- eligibility-restrictions-under-current-law. 172 Bryan Baker and Sarah Miller, "Estimates of the Lawful Permanent Resident Population in the United States and the Subpopulation Eligible to Naturalize: 2022," 2022. Available at: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/2022_0920_plcy_ lawful_permenent_resident_population_estimate_2022_0.pdf. 173 National Immigration Law Center, "Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.nilc.org/issues/economic-support/ overview-immeligfedprograms/. 95 174 Migration Policy Institute, "State Immigration Data Profiles: United States," 2019. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/income/US. 175 Kaiser Family Foundation, "State Health Facts: Distribution of the Total Population by Federal Poverty Level (above and below 200% FPL)," 2021. Available at: https://www. kff.org/other/state-indicator/population-up-to-200-fpl/?currentTimeframe=0&sortM odel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D#note-1. 176 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Military and Veteran Families." Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/military-and-veteran-families. 177 Blue Star Families, 2020 Military Family Lifestyle Survey Comprehensive Report, 2020. Available at: https://bluestarfam.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BSF_MFLS_ CompReport_FULL.pdf. 178 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP Eligibility," 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility. 179 Tom Jurkowsky, "Military families should not have to endure food insecurity," May 2021. Available at: https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/554375-military- families-should-not-have-to-endure-food-insecurity/. 180 Congressional Research Service, The 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115334): Summary and Side by Side Comparison, February 2019. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R45525. 181 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Policy Basics: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, March 2022. Available at: https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income- support/temporary-assistance-for-needy-families. 182 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Family Assistance, "About TANF," 2022. Available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/programs/tanf/about. 183 Urban Institute, Balancing at the Edge of the Cliff Experiences and Calculations of Benefit Cliffs, Plateaus, and Trade-Offs, January 2022. Available at: https://www.urban.org/ sites/default/files/publication/105321/balancing-at-the-edge-of-the-cliff_0.pdf. 184 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Pandemic Unemployment Insurance Provisions: What They Mean for Access to SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF, October 2021. Available at: https://www.cbpp.org/research/economy/pandemic-unemployment-insurance- provisions-what-they-mean-for-access-to-snap. 185 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "A Short History of SNAP," 2018. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-history-snap. 186 Ibid. 187 Ibid. 188 Ibid. 189 Ibid. 190 Ibid. 96 191 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Key Data: U.S. Summary, FY 2021 - FY 2022 Generated from National Data Bank, July 2022. Available at: https:// fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/data-files/keydata-july-2022.pdf. 192 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Employment and Training Resources Available to States," 2019. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ snap/employment-and-training-resources-available-states. 193 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Expanding Opportunities & Reducing Barriers to Work: Kansas Final Report, May 2022. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/ default/files/resource-files/SNAP-ET-FinalReport-Kansas.pdf. 194 Ibid. 195 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "FY 2021 SNAP E&T Data and Technical Assistance (DATA) Grants," 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda. gov/grant/fy-2021-snap-et-data-and-technical-assistance-data-grants. 196 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "USDA invests $6.5 million to improve access and equity in SNAP Employment and Training," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/news-item/fns-0013.22. 197 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "FNS SNAP E&T National Partnerships Grants," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/grant/snap-e-and- t-national-partnership. 198 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "FY 2021 SNAP E&T Data and Technical Assistance (DATA) Grants." Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ grant/fy-2021-snap-et-data-and-technical-assistance-data-grants. 199 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "USDA invests $6.5 million to improve access and equity in SNAP Employment and Training," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/news-item/fns-0013.22. 200 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Expanding Opportunities & Reducing Barriers to Work: Final Summary Report, May 2022. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/ default/files/resource-files/SNAP-ET-FinalReport.pdf. 201 Ibid. 202 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Considerations for Administering SNAP E&T Programs: Lessons from the SNAP E&T Pilots," 2022. Available at: https://fns-prod. azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/SNAP-ET-Administration-Brief.pdf. 203 Ibid. 204 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "USDA invests $6.5 million to improve access and equity in SNAP Employment and Training," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/news-item/fns-0013.22. 205 U.S. Department of Agriculture, SNAP to Skills, "State Highlights." Available at: https://snaptoskills.fns.usda.gov/state-highlights. 97 206 U.S Department of Agriculture, Considerations for Improving Participant Experiences in the USDA SNAP Employment and Training (SNAP E&T) Programs: Lessons from the SNAP E&T Pilots, December 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ considerations-improving-participant-experiences-usda-snap-employment-and- training-snap-et. 207 Ibid. 208 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP Work Requirements," 2019. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements. 209 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP Families First Coronavirus Response Act and Impact on Time Limit for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs)," 2020. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ffcra- impact-time-limit-abawds. 210 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "ABAWD Waivers," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ABAWD/waivers#:~:text=The%20 law%20allows%20states%20to,the%20general%20SNAP%20work%20requirements. 211 U.S Department of Agriculture, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Status of State AbleBodied Adult without Dependents (ABAWD) Time Limit Waivers Fiscal Year 2023 1st Quarter," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/resource-files/FY23-Quarter%201-ABAWD-Waiver-Status.pdf. 212 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Unemployment Rates for States," 2022. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm. 213 Urban Institute, The Impact of SNAP Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) Time Limit Reinstatement in Nine States, June 2021. https://www.urban.org/sites/ default/files/publication/104451/the-impact-of-snap-able-bodied-adults-without- dependents-abawd-time-limit-reinstatement-in-nin_0.pdf. 214 U.S. Census Bureau, "About a Third of Families Who Received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits Had Two or More People Working," 2020. Available at: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/07/most-families-that-received-snap- benefits-in-2018-had-at-least-one-person-working.html. 215 Congressional Budget Office, Work Requirements and Work Supports for Recipients of Means-Tested Benefits, June 2022. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2022- 06/57702-Work-Requirements.pdf. 216 Ibid. 217 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP Data Tables," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance- program-snap. 218 F. Fang Zhang, J. Liu, et al., "Trends and Disparities in Diet Quality Among US Adults by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Status," JAMA Netw Open, June 2018. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC6258006/. 98 219 T. Andreyeva, A.S. Tripp, and M.B. Schwartz, "Dietary Quality of Americans by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Status: A Systematic Review," Am J Prev Med, 49(4):594-604, October 2015.Available at: https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26238602/. 220 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Indicators Of Diet Quality, Nutrition, And Health For Americans By Program Participation Status, 2011–2016: SNAP Report, December 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/indicators-diet- quality-nutrition-and-health-americans-program-participation-status-2011. 221 T. Andreyeva, A.S. Tripp, and M.B. Schwartz, "Dietary Quality of Americans by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Status: A Systematic Review," Am J Prev Med, 49(4):594-604, October 2015. Available at: https://pubmed. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26238602/. 222 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Indicators Of Diet Quality, Nutrition, And Health For Americans By Program Participation Status, 2011–2016: SNAP Report, December 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/indicators-diet- quality-nutrition-and-health-americans-program-participation-status-2011. 223 Ibid. 224 Ibid. 225 S.K. Young and H. Stewart, "U.S. Fruit and Vegetable Affordability on the Thrifty Food Plan Depends on Purchasing Power and Safety Net Supports," Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 19(5): 2772, February 2022. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph19052772. 226 Ibid. 227 National WIC Association, Multi-State Wic Participant Satisfaction Survey: Cash Value Benefit Increase During Covid, March 2022. Available at: https://thewichub.org/multi- state-wic-participant-satisfaction-survey-cash-value-benefit-increasing-during- covid/. 228 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Review of WIC Food Packages: Improving Balance and Choice: Final Report, 2017. Available at: https://doi. org/10.17226/23655. 229 Federal Register, "Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC Food Packages," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 7 CFR Part 246. Available at: www.govinfo. gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-11-21/pdf/2022-24705.pdf. 230 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, "The GusNIP - Nutrition Incentive Program," 2022. Available at: https://www.nifa.usda.gov/ grants/funding-opportunities/gusnip-nutrition-incentive-program. 231 Nutrition Incentive Hub, Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program Training, Technical Assistance, Evaluation, and Information Center (GusNIP NTAE): Impact Findings, August 2021. Available at: https://www.nutritionincentivehub.org/media/fjohmr2n/ gusnip-ntae-impact-findings-year-2.pdf. 232 Ibid. 99 233 Ibid. 234 Ibid. 235 Ibid. 236 Ibid. 237 D. Thilmany, A. Baumann, et al., The Economic Contributions of Healthy Food Incentives, January 2021. Available at: https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/ economic_contributions_incentives_2_2_21.pdf. 238 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "USDA Invests More Than $59M to Improve Dietary Health and Nutrition Security," 2022. Available at: https://www.usda.gov/media/ press-releases/2022/11/22/usda-invests-more-59m-improve-dietary-health-and- nutrition-security. 239 U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, "USDA NIFA Invests $40M to Improve Dietary Health and Reduce Food Insecurity," 2022. Available at: https://www.nifa.usda.gov/about-nifa/press-releases/usda-nifa-invests- 40m-improve-dietary-health-reduce-food-insecurity. 240 Fair Food Network, Double Up Food Bucks 2021 Annual Impact Report, 2021. Available at: https://fairfoodnetwork.org/resources/double-up-food-bucks-2021-annual-impact- report/. 241 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Is My Store Eligible?," March 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailer/eligible. 242 U.S. Department of Argiculture, Deitary Guidelines for Americans 2020-2025, December 2020. Available at: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/ Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans-2020-2025.pdf. 243 U.S. Department of Agriculture, SNAP-Ed Connection, "About," Available at: https:// snaped.fns.usda.gov/about. 244 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "SNAP-Ed Final Allocations For FY 2022," 2022. Available at: https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/FY_22_SNAP- Ed_Allocations.pdf. 245 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Barriers that Constrain the Adequacy of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Allotments: Survey Findings, June 2021. Available at: www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis. 246 S.E. Fleischhacker, C.E. Woteki, et al., "Strengthening national nutrition research: rationale and options for a new coordinated federal research effort and authority," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 112(3): 721–769, September 2020. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa179. 247 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Data," 2018. Available at: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/ continuousnhanes/overviewquex.aspx?BeginYear=2017. 248 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "NHANES 2021-2022 Questionnaire Instruments." Available at: https://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/continuousnhanes/ questionnaires.aspx?BeginYear=2021. 100 249 E. Condon, S. Drilea, et al., Diet Quality of Americans by SNAP Participation Status: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2007-2010, May 2015. Prepared by Walter R. McDonald & Associates Inc. for the Food and Nutrition Service. Available at: https://www.mathematica.org/publications/report-diet-quality-of- americans-by-snap-participation-status-20072010. 250 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP COVID-19 Waivers," 2021, Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/programs/fns-disaster- assistance/fns-responds-covid-19/snap-covid-19-waivers. 251 Ibid. 252 Congressional Research Service, The 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115334): Summary and Side by Side Comparison, February 2019. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R45525. 253 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, "Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018: Highlights and Implications," 2019. Available at: https:// www.ers.usda.gov/agriculture-improvement-act-of-2018-highlights-and-implications/ nutrition/. 254 National Accuracy Clearing House, National Accuracy Clearing House Evaulation, Final Report, October 2015. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/ resource-files/nac-pilot-evaluation.pdf. 255 Ibid. 256 Ibid. 257 Ibid. 258 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirement for Interstate Data Matching to Prevent Duplicate, 87 Fed. Reg. 59633, October 3, 2022. 7 CFR 272, 7 CFR 273. Available at: www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/03/2022-21011/ supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-requirement-for-interstate-data- matching-to-prevent. 259 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) - Implementation of the National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC) Interim Final Rule," 2022. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/ nac-ifr-implementation-memo.pdf. 260 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Requirement for Interstate Data Matching to Prevent Duplicate, 87 Fed. Reg. 59633, October 3, 2022. 7 CFR 272, 7 CFR 273. Available at: www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/10/03/2022-21011/ supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-requirement-for-interstate-data-matching- to-prevent. 261 Ibid. 262 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Implementation of the National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC) Interim Final Rule," 2022. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/nac- ifr-implementation-memo.pdf. 101 263 Agricultural Act of 2014, H.R. 2642, 113 Cong., 2014, Vol. 113, pt. 79. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/pl_113-79.pdf. 264 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "USDA Launches SNAP Online Purchasing Pilot," 2019. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ pressrelease/2019/fns-000319. 265 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "USDA Expands SNAP Online Shopping, Adds New Retailers," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ news-item/fns-0009.22. 266 Ibid. 267 Caroline George and Adie Tomer, "Delivering to deserts: New data reveals the geography of digital access to food in the U.S.," 2022. Available at: https://www. brookings.edu/essay/delivering-to-deserts-new-data-reveals-the-geography-of-digital- access-to-food-in-the-us/. 268 Ibid. 269 L.Y. Zatz, A.J. Moran, et al. "Comparing Online and In-Store Grocery Purchases," J Nutr Educ Behav, 53(6): 471-479, June 2021. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/34116742/. 270 Caroline George and Adie Tomer, "Delivering to deserts: New data reveals the geography of digital access to food in the U.S.," 2022. Available at: https://www. brookings.edu/essay/delivering-to-deserts-new-data-reveals-the-geography-of-digital- access-to-food-in-the-us/. 271 Federal Communications Commission, "Affordable Connectivity Program," 2022. Available at: https://www.fcc.gov/acp. 272 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "The Emergency Food Assistance Program," 2020. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/tefap- program-fact-sheet-2019_1.6.20.pdf. 273 Feeding America Action, "The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)," 2022. Available at: https://feedingamericaaction.org/learn/issue-areas/tefap/. 274 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Program Data Overview: Summary of Annual Data, FY 2017-2021," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda. gov/pd/overview. 275 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "FY22 Food and Administrative Funding for TEFAP," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ tefap/fy22-food-and-administrative-funding. 276 Data provided by Feeding America. 277 Feeding America, "2023 Farm Bill: What's Needed to End Hunger in the U.S." 278 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservation," 2020. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/ fdpir-program-fact-sheet-2020-for%20website.pdf. 102 279 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Program Data Overview: Summary of Annual Data, FY 2017-2021." Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/ overview. 280 Feeding America, "FY 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act Summary," 2022. Available at: https://feedingamericaaction.org/wp-content/uploads/Feeding-America- FY22-Omnibus-Bill-Summary.pdf. 281 Eric Meredith, "November is Native American Heritage Month," Hunger+Health, Feeding America, 2020. Available at: https://hungerandhealth.feedingamerica. org/2020/11/november-native-american-heritage-month/#:~:text=Native%20 Americans%20suffer%20from%20some,1%20in%209%20Americans%20overall. 282 Lexie Holden, "Sneak Peek: NFBC's Policy Priorities for 2023 Farm Bill," Native Farm Bill Coalition, 2022. Available at: https://www.nativefarmbill.com/post/sneak-peek- nfbc-s-policy-priorities-for-2023-farm-bill. 283 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "CSFP Fact Sheet," 2019. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/csfp/csfp-fact-sheet. 284 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Program Information Report: Key Data," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/overview. 285 Feeding America, "FY 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act Summary," 2022. Available at: https://feedingamericaaction.org/wp-content/uploads/Feeding-America- FY22-Omnibus-Bill-Summary.pdf. 286 Feeding America, The State of Senior Hunger in 2020, May 2020. Available at: https:// www.feedingamerica.org/sites/default/files/2022-05/The%20State%20of%20 Senior%20Hunger%20in%202020_Full%20Report%20w%20Cover.pdf. 287 Melissa Jensen, "Older Americans in D.C. Continue to go Hungry During COVID-19," 2022. Available at: https://www.dchunger.org/updates/older-americans-in-d-c- continue-to-go-hungry-during-covid-19/. 288 DC Health, "Commodity Supplemental Food Program." Available at: https://dchealth. dc.gov/service/commodity-supplemental-food-program-0. 289 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "USDA Announces Coronavirus Food Assistance Program," 2020. Available at: https://www.usda.gov/media/press- releases/2020/04/17/usda-announces-coronavirus-food-assistance-program. 290 U.S. Government Accountablity Office, "USDA Food Box Program: Key Information and Opportunities to Better Assess Performance," 2021. Available at: https://www.gao. gov/products/gao-21-353. 291 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Service, "USDA Farmers to Families Food Box," 2021. Available at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food-to- usda/farmers-to-families-food-box. 292 U.S. Government Accountability Office, USDA Food Box Program: Key Information and Opportunities to Better Assess Performance, September 2021. Available at: https://www. gao.gov/products/gao-21-353. 103 293 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Marketing Service, "USDA Farmers to Families Food Box," 2021. Available at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food-to- usda/farmers-to-families-food-box. 294 U.S. Government Accountability Office, USDA Food Box Program: Key Information and Opportunities to Better Assess Performance, September 2021. Available at: https://www. gao.gov/products/gao-21-353. 295 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "USDA Announces Its Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement with California," 2022. Available at: https://www. usda.gov/media/press-releases/2022/07/27/usda-announces-its-local-food-purchase- assistance-cooperative. 296 U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Fact Sheet," 2017. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/ FFVPFactSheet.pdf. 297 E.A. Wambogo, N. Ansai, et al., "Fruit and vegetable consumption of children and adolescents in the United States," 2015–2018. NCHS Data Brief, no 391. 2020. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db391.htm. 298 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Newsroom, "Children eating more fruit, but fruit and vegetable intake still too low," 2014. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/ media/releases/2014/p0805-fruits-vegetables.html. 299 U.S Department of Agriculture, "The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program,"2017. Available at: fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/FFVPFactSheet. pdf. 300 S. Bartlett, L. Olsho, et al., "Evaluation of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP): Executive Summary. Prepared by Abt Associates under Contract No. AG3198-D-09-0053," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 2013. Available at: https://www.abtassociates.com/sites/default/files/migrated_ files/844cf1f1-a054-4f08-bbf1-f2126a21846d.pdf. 301 Y. Qian, R. Nayga, et al., "The Effect of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program on Childhood Obesity," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 38(10).Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1093/aepp/ppv017. 302 U.S Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "The Fruit and Vegetable Program," 2017. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource- files/FFVPFactSheet.pdf. 303 S.A. French, C.C. Tangney, et al., "Nutrition quality of food purchases varies by household income: the SHoPPER study." BMC Public Health, 19: 231, 2019. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6546-2. 304 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program: Allocation of Funds for FY 2022," 2022. Available at: https://www. fns.usda.gov/cn/sp-14-2021. 305 Bipartisan Policy Center, Strengthening Child Nutrition Programs, January 2022. Available at: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/child-nutrition-programs/. 104 306 Food Research and Action Center, Community Eligibility: The Key to Hunger-Free Schools School Year 2019–2020, May 2020. Available at: https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/ CEP-Report-2020.pdf. 307 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Seniors Farmers Market Nutrition Program," 2021. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/ files/resource-files/SFMNPFactSheet.pdf. 308 E.J. Nicklett and A.R. Kadell, "Fruit and vegetable intake among older adults: a scoping review," Maturitas, 75(4): 305-312, August 2013. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/23769545/. 309 Ibid. 310 J.A. Vaccaro and F.G. Huffman, "Sex and Race/Ethnic Disparities in Food Security and Chronic Diseases in U.S. Older Adults," Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, 2017, 3. Availabe at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2333721417718344. 311 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Poor Nutrition," 2022. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/factsheets/nutrition. htm. 312 P. Boersma, L.I. Black, and B.W. Ward, "Prevalence of Multiple Chronic Conditions Among US Adults, 2018," Prev Chronic Dis, 17:200130, 2020. Available at: http://dx.doi. org/10.5888/pcd17.200130. 313 National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging, "Supporting Older Patients with Chronic Conditions," 2017. Available at: https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/ supporting-older-patients-chronic-conditions. 314 U.S Department of Agriculture, "Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Program," 2021. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/ SFMNPFactSheet.pdf. 315 Ibid. 316 Ibid. 317 Congressional Research Service, "The USDA Healthy Food Financing Initiative," 2022. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12214#:~:text=In%20 2022%2C%20USDA%20designated%20%24155,Title%20I%2C%20§1001). 318 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, "Healthy Food Financing Initiative," 2021. Available at: https://www.rd.usda.gov/about-rd/initiatives/healthy- food-financing-initiative. 319 America's Healthy Food Financing Initiative, "Impact," 2022. Available at: https:// www.investinginfood.com/impact/. 320 America's Healthy Food Financing Initiative, "Home," 2022. Available at: https://www. investinginfood.com/. 321 America's Healthy Food Financing Initiative, "About America's Healthy Food Financing," 2022. Available at: Initiative https://www.investinginfood.com/about- hffi/. 105 322 Congressional Research Service, "The USDA Healthy Food Financing Initiative," 2022. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12214#:~:text=In%20 2022%2C%20USDA%20designated%20%24155,Title%20I%2C%20§1001). 323 Ibid. 324 Congressional Research Service, The 2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334): Summary and Side- by-Side Comparison, February 2019. Available at: https://www.everycrsreport.com/ files/20190222_R45525_2505ddecf39c9258f5f2dcbc7d585961b05f0b2e.pdf. 325 Ibid. 326 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Cost Of Food Distribution Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/resource-files/fd$sum-11.pdf. 327 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Commodity Supplemental Food Program: Total Participation," 2022. Available at: fns-prod. azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/20csfp-11.pdf. 328 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Cost Of Food Distribution Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/resource-files/fd$sum-11.pdf. 329 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Commodity Supplemental Food Program: Total Participation," 2022. Available at: fns-prod. azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/20csfp-11.pdf. 330 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Cost Of Food Distribution Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/resource-files/fd$sum-11.pdf. 331 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Commodity Supplemental Food Program: Total Participation," 2022. Available at: fns-prod. azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/20csfp-11.pdf. 332 Feeding America, "FY 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act Summary," 2022. Available at: https://feedingamericaaction.org/wp-content/uploads/Feeding-America- FY22-Omnibus-Bill-Summary.pdf. 333 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "CSFP: Caseload Assignments for the 2022 Caseload Cycle and Administrative Grants," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/csfp/caseload-assignments-2022-caseload-cycle-and- administrative-grants. 334 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Cost Of Food Distribution Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/resource-files/fd$sum-11.pdf. 335 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Food Distribution Program On Indian Reservations: Persons Participating," 2022. Available at: https:// fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/21irpart-11.pdf. 336 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Cost Of Food Distribution Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/resource-files/fd$sum-11.pdf. 106 337 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Food Distribution Program On Indian Reservations: Persons Participating," 2022. Available at: https:// fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/21irpart-11.pdf. 338 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Cost Of Food Distribution Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/resource-files/fd$sum-11.pdf. 339 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Food Distribution Program On Indian Reservations: Persons Participating," 2022. Available at: https:// fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/21irpart-11.pdf. 340 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "FNS-101: Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program," March 4, 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/fns-101- ffvp. 341 Bipartisan Policy Center, Strengthening Child Nutrition Programs, January 2022. Available at: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/child-nutrition-programs/. 342 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "FNS-101: Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program," March 4, 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/fns-101- ffvp. 343 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Allocation of Funds for FY 2021," 2020. Available at: https://www. fns.usda.gov/ffvp/allocation-funds-fy-2021. 344 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Allocation of Funds for FY 2022," 2021. Available at: https://www. fns.usda.gov/cn/sp-14-2021. 345 Nutrition Incventive Hub, "GusNIP Grantees." Available at: https://www. nutritionincentivehub.org/grantee-projects. 346 Ibid. 347 Ibid. 348 Ibid. 349 Ibid. 350 Ibid. 351 Ibid. 352 Congressional Research Service, "The USDA Healthy Food Financing Initiative," 2022. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12214#:~:text=In%20 2022%2C%20USDA%20designated%20%24155,Title%20I%2C%20%C2%A71001. 353 Ibid. 354 Healthy Food Financing Initiative, 2020 Targeted Small Grant Awards, 2020. Available at: www.investinginfood.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020-HFFI-Award-Book. pdf. 107 355 Congressional Research Service, "The USDA Healthy Food Financing Initiative," 2022. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12214#:~:text=In%20 2022%2C%20USDA%20designated%20%24155,Title%20I%2C%20%C2%A71001. 356 Healthy Food Financing Initiative, Healthy Food Financing Initiative Award Book, Targeted Small Grants 2021, 2021. Available at: www.investinginfood.com/wp-content/ uploads/2022/06/2021-HFFI-TSG-Award-Book.pdf. 357 Congressional Research Service, "The USDA Healthy Food Financing Initiative," 2022. Available at: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12214# :~ :text=In%20 2022%2C%20USDA%20designated%20%24155,Title%20I%2C%20%C2%A71001. 358 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP) FY 2019 Profile." Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ sites/default/files/resource-files/SFMNP-FY-2019-Profile.pdf. 359 Ibid. 360 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SFMNP Profile Data," 2021. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfmnp/sfmnp-profile-data. 361 Ibid. 362 Ibid. 363 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs," 2022. Available at: https://fns-prod. azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/SNAPsummary-11.pdf. 364 Ibid. 365 Ibid. 366 Ibid. 367 Ibid. 368 Ibid. 369 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," 2022. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/ files/resource-files/34SNAPmonthly-11.pdf. 370 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP-Ed Final Allocations for FY2019," 2019. Available at: https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/FY2019SNAP-EdFinalAllocation_3.pdf. 371 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP-Ed Final Allocations For FY 2020." Available at: https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/FY%202020%20Allocations%20FINAL%2010_08_2019.pdf. 372 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP-Ed Final Allocations for FY 2021 with Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 Provision."Available at: https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ FY%202021%20Final%20SNAP-Ed%20Allocation%203-24-21.pdf. 108 373 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "SNAP-Ed Final Allocations for FY 2022," 2022. Available at: https://snaped.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/FY_22_SNAP-Ed_Allocations.pdf. 374 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Cost Of Food Distribution Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/resource-files/fd$sum-11.pdf. 375 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Annual Summary Of Food And Nutrition Service Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ sites/default/files/resource-files/annual-11.xlsx. 376 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Cost Of Food Distribution Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/resource-files/fd$sum-11.pdf. 377 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Annual Summary Of Food And Nutrition Service Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ sites/default/files/resource-files/annual-11.xlsx. 378 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Cost Of Food Distribution Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/resource-files/fd$sum-11.pdf. 379 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "Annual Summary Of Food And Nutrition Service Programs," 2022. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ sites/default/files/resource-files/annual-11.xlsx. 380 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, "FY 2022 TEFAP Administrative Funds And Food Entitlement Allocations," 2022. Available at: https:// www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/resource-files/tefap-fy22-allocations.pdf. 109 Policy Areas Campus Free Expression 1225 Eye St NW, Suite 1000 Economy Washington, DC 20005 bipartisanpolicy.org Education 202 - 204 - 2400 Energy Governance Health Immigration Infrastructure The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) is a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that actively fosters bipartisanship by combining the best ideas from both parties to promote health, security, and opportunity for all Americans. Our policy solutions are the product of informed deliberations by former elected and appointed officials, business and labor leaders, and academics and advocates who represent both ends of the political spectrum. BPC prioritizes one thing above all else: getting things done. @BPC_Bipartisan facebook.com/BipartisanPolicyCenter instagram.com/BPC_Bipartisan 1225 Eye Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005 I D E A S . A C T I O N . R E S U LT S .