main government assistance program
for low-income families trying to protect themselves from hunger. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) operates several nutrition programs, but
most of the resources go to SNAP. In
recent years, with unemployment rates
stuck between 8 percent and 10 percent,
SNAP has worked as it was designed
to. It has expanded to record-high participation levels, because more people
than ever have needed to rely on the
program.12
Technically, the Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC), which gives a boost to
low-income workers, lifts more people
above the poverty line than SNAP. The
EITC serves a much different purpose,
though—it comes in a lump sum tax
refund after the household files its tax
return for the previous year. This makes
it better suited to paying down debts or
making purchases that are out of reach
in the monthly budget of someone living in or near poverty. SNAP, on the
other hand, provides the day-to-day resources to keep food in the refrigerator.
It’s not difficult to imagine improvements to SNAP, starting with benefits
that last for the entire month and are
enough to enable families to purchase
healthy foods rather than cheaper,
unhealthy alternatives. The majority of families who receive SNAP benFigure 3
efits cannot make them last the entire
month. Eighty percent of benefits are
redeemed within the first two weeks of
the month.13 Less expensive, unhealthy
foods are the inevitable tradeoff to
shorten the duration of the time at the
end of every month when there is little
food in the house.
The average family receiving SNAP
benefits lives in “deep poverty,” meaning its income is less than half the poverty level. For a family of four, for example,
this is $11,500 a year or less. In 2011, the
year for which we have the most recent
data, there were 7.2 million American
children whose families earned below
50 percent of the poverty line.14 In 2011,
1.46 million U.S. households lived on
income of less than $2 per person, per day,
with 2.8 million children in these households.15 The number of families living
at this level of poverty rises and falls
depending on the state of the economy.
But there is no doubt that every year,
there are families in America trying to
get by on less than $2 per person a day
(that’s roughly $60 a month for housing,
utilities, food, clothes, health care, and
everything else). In 2011, SNAP effectively cut in half the number of people
living on $2 a day.16 This is significant
but not enough to eliminate hunger.
About 50 percent of all U.S. children
will, at some point before they turn 18,
SNAP Cuts Extreme Poverty Significantly
Number of non-elderly households with children with incomes below $2 per person per day
according to U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation
1.6 million
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
$2 per person per day
$2 per person per day counting SNAP
0.2
0
June Feb. Oct. June Feb. Oct.
’96 ’97 ’97 ’98 ’99 ’99
1996-99 survey
Source: CBPP, 2012
4 Briefing Paper, March 2013
Apr. Dec. Aug. Apr. Dec.
’01 ’01 ’02 ’03 ’03
2001-03 survey
Apr. Dec. Aug. Apr. Dec. Aug.
’04 ’04 ’05 ’06 ’06 ’07
2004-07 survey
Nov. July Mar. Nov.
’08 ’07 ’10 ’11
2008-11 survey
live in a household that participates in
SNAP.17 Research shows that children
whose families received SNAP benefits
were less likely to experience developmental delays than children in families with similar incomes that did not
receive SNAP.18 The effects of hunger
on children’s development begin in
the womb. Babies whose mothers experience hunger during pregnancy are
more likely to enter the world with a low
birth weight.19 By elementary school,
children who are hungry are four times
more likely than non-hungry children
to need mental health counseling, seven
times more likely to get into fights frequently, and 12 times more likely to be
involved in crime.20 By the time they
are in high school, hungry children are
twice as likely as their peers to have seen
a psychologist, twice as likely to have
been suspended from school, and more
likely to be described as having difficulty
getting along with other children.21 The
school lunch and breakfast programs
make a difference—but we can’t assume
that this is enough to compensate for an
empty refrigerator at home.
Hunger is certainly related to why
children decide to drop out of school.
When children are hungry, they are unable to concentrate and unable to perform to their potential. The ladder of
opportunity that we hope school will be
for every child is pulled out from under
these teens. Dropping out of high school
is a decision that carries lifelong economic consequences: most people without high school diplomas are consigned
to jobs at poverty-level wages. It’s a decision that will also affect the young person’s children, reducing, in turn, those
children’s odds of escaping poverty.
Adults who were malnourished as
children are also more likely to have
health problems than peers who were
well nourished. Because low-wage workers are less likely to hold jobs with benefits such as health insurance, or paid
sick leave, they fall even further behind
financially when they or their children
become ill and need medical attention.
“Society, in turn, bears the costs of in-