Early in the pandemic, unforgettable images of long lines at food pantries across the U.S. became common as the American hunger crisis surged into full public view. These lines eased in part because of the largest-ever increase to payments by the federal government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The extra $100 or more a month that many families got kept them fed at a time when food prices were soaring from inflation.
In March 2023, the federal government ended these higher payments, and our new research shows why hungry Americans are once again queuing up at pickup sites across the country.
As health researchers at the University of Pennsylvania, we used U.S. Census Bureau survey data from over 7 million people to examine what happened when 18 states ended SNAP Emergency Allotments even before the federal government ended the policy nationwide in March 2023.
Our findings are disturbing. The reduction in benefits resulted in an additional one in 20 SNAP households not having enough to eat, putting over 2 million more Americans in that predicament. These harmful consequences began immediately after the higher payments ended and worsened over the next 15 months.
Our findings are especially pertinent because of the impending reauthorization of the Farm Bill, which funds SNAP and is set to expire on Sept. 30. This is an opportunity to fully realize SNAP’s potential to eliminate hunger in one of the richest countries in the world.
Currently, one in eight Americans participate in SNAP. The program is the largest federal safety-net effort designed to ease food insecurity, which is a lack of stable access to adequate amounts of food.
The pandemic led many Americans to experience this level of hunger for the first time. The vast majority of households on SNAP include either a child, an elderly person, or someone with a disability, and live at or below the federal poverty line.
The dramatic health consequences of food insecurity are well established. Babies born to pregnant women without enough food are more likely to have low birth weight, a key risk factor for short- and long-term health complications. Children raised in households short of food face higher risk of anemia, thinking and memory problems, tooth decay, hospitalization and many other bad outcomes. Food insecurity also doubles the risk of diabetes, which affects one in 10 Americans. And among elderly adults, food insecurity has been linked to functional limitations, equivalent to being over 10 years older.
We know through decades of research that SNAP is effective at reducing both food insecurity and its harmful health effects. Some of the most striking evidence comes from analyses of the staggered introduction of SNAP (then known as Food Stamps) in the 1960s and 1970s. People who had access to SNAP as children went on to have higher rates of economic self-sufficiency decades later during adulthood, as well as lower likelihood of incarceration; lower risks of obesity and metabolic syndrome (a cluster of conditions that raise the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and stroke); and longer life expectancies.
These studies show that SNAP is an extraordinarily cost-effective use of public funds, with over $60 worth of benefits for every $1 spent by the government. Despite stated concerns by lawmakers about rising governmental spending, the long-term costs of scaling back SNAP benefits far outweigh the savings. The $60-$1 return is so dramatic that if SNAP recipients were start-ups, investors would be lining up to fund them.
Despite that, policymakers continue to advance bills to limit SNAP’s reach and generosity, including the recent termination of higher payments. Congress recently passed legislation to raise the debt ceiling in early June that included new SNAP work requirements for low-income adults aged 50 to 54 who are non-disabled and have no dependents. While proponents argue that this will promote self-sufficiency among people living in poverty, the reality is different. Multiple well-designed studies show that work requirements lead people to lose access to SNAP without actually increasing employment.
Rolling back SNAP benefits now is especially harsh because we know the higher payments did not do nearly enough to ensure our fellow Americans have enough to eat. Even in 2021, when the higher payments continued in most states, over 10 percent of American households were food insecure for at least part of the year.
Despite recent improvements in the way the U.S. Department of Agriculture calculates the cost of a practical, nutritious meal, the resulting increases in SNAP benefit sizes are unlikely to be sufficient to prevent the so-called “SNAP Cycle” — the pattern of SNAP recipients depleting their monthly benefits within the first two weeks of each month and then having higher food insecurity and worse health outcomes like low blood sugar and emergency department visits, until next month’s benefits arrive.
As shown by our research, increasing benefit sizes alone would dramatically reduce food insecurity. Other strategies would also improve SNAP’s effectiveness, including relaxing work requirements; providing access for college students, who suffer from food insecurity in staggering numbers; reducing burdensome requirements for applying, accessing or renewing SNAP benefits; and doing more outreach to eligible groups, like seniors, who face more barriers to enrolling.
Each of these steps should be considered in the upcoming Farm Bill to turn SNAP into an even more effective way to end hunger and its negative consequences.
As one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we have the tools and resources to put an end to hunger and Americans waiting in food lines — the real question is whether we choose to use them.
Aaron Richterman, MD, MPH, is an associate fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics (LDI) and instructor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.
Christina Roberto, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at LDI and associate professor of health policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
Harsha Thirumurthy, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at LDI and professor of health policy at the University of Pennsylvania.