President LBJ & SNAP

President Johnson signing the Food Stamp Act of 1964.

1939 – The First Food Stamp Program

1961 through 1964 – Pilot Food Stamp Program

1964 – Food Stamp Act

1960s through the early 1970s – Program Expansion

1971 through 1974 – Major Legislative Changes

1974 – Nationwide Program

1976 – Participation Milestone

1977 – The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977

1981 – Participation Milestone

Early 1980s – Budget Cutbacks

Mid-1980s through Late 1980s – Recognition of Domestic Hunger

1988 through 2004 – Development of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT)

1992 – Food Stamp Nutrition Education Program State Plans Approval

1993 – Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act

1994 – Participation Milestone

1999 through 2001 – The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and Other Legislative Actions

2002 – The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act

2008 – Participation Milestone

2008 – The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act

2009 – American Recovery & Reinvestment Act

2010 – Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act

2013 – Participation Milestone

2014 – Agricultural Act

1939 – The First Food Stamp Program

The idea for the first Food Stamp Program (FSP) is credited to various people, most notably Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace and the program's first Administrator Milo Perkins. The program operated by permitting people on relief to buy orange stamps equal to their normal food expenditures. For every $1 worth of orange stamps purchased, 50 cents worth of blue stamps were received. Orange stamps could be used to buy any food. Blue stamps could only be used to buy food determined by the Department to be surplus.

"We got a picture of a gorge, with farm surpluses on one cliff and under-nourished city folks with outstretched hands on the other. We set out to find a practical way to build a bridge across that chasm."

Milo Perkins

 

1961 through 1964 – Pilot Food Stamp Program

The 18 years between the end of the first FSP and the inception of the next were filled with studies, reports, and legislative proposals.

Prominent Senators actively associated with attempts to enact an FSP during this period were: Aiken, La Follette, Humphrey, Kefauver, and Symington. From 1954 on, Congresswoman Leonor K. Sullivan strove unceasingly to pass food stamp program legislation. On Sept. 21, 1959, PL 86-341 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to operate a food stamp system through Jan. 31, 1962.

The Eisenhower Administration never used the authority. However, in fulfillment of a campaign promise made in West Virginia, President Kennedy's first Executive Order called for expanded food distribution and, on Feb. 2, 1961, he announced the initiation of Food Stamp pilot programs. The pilot programs would retain the requirement that the food stamps be purchased, but eliminated the concept of special stamps for surplus foods. A Department spokesman indicated the emphasis would be on increasing the consumption of perishables. Isabelle Kelley, who was part of the four-person team that designed the new program, became its first director and the first woman in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to head an action program.

Mr. and Mrs. Alderson Muncy of Paynesville, West Virginia, were the first food stamp recipients on May 29, 1961. They purchased $95 in food stamps for their 15-person household. In the first food stamp transaction, they bought a can of pork and beans at Henderson's Supermarket. By January 1964, the pilot programs had expanded from eight areas to 43 (40 counties, Detroit, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh) in 22 states with 380,000 participants.

 

1964 – Food Stamp Act

On Jan. 31, 1964, President Johnson requested Congress to pass legislation making the FSP permanent. Secretary Orville Freeman had submitted proposed legislation to establish a permanent FSP on April 17, 1963. The bill that was eventually passed by Congress was introduced by Congresswoman Sullivan. Among the official purposes of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 (PL 88-525) were strengthening the agricultural economy and providing improved levels of nutrition among low-income households; however, the practical purpose was to bring the pilot FSP under Congressional control and to enact the regulations into law. The major provisions were:

Required a state plan of operation and development of eligibility standards by states;

Required that recipients purchase their food stamps, paying an amount commensurate with their normal expenditures for food and receiving an amount of food stamps representing an opportunity more nearly to obtain a low-cost nutritionally adequate diet;

Established eligibility for purchased with food stamps of all items intended for human consumption except alcoholic beverages and imported foods (the House version would have prohibited the purchase of soft drinks, luxury foods, and luxury frozen foods);

Prohibited against discrimination on bases of race, religious creed, national origin, or political beliefs;

Divided responsibilities between states (certification and issuance) and the federal government (funding of benefits and authorization of retailers and wholesalers), with shared responsibility for funding costs of administration; and

Appropriated for the first year funding limited to $75 million; $100 million for the second year; and$200 million for the third year.

The Department estimated that participation in a national FSP would eventually reach 4 million at a cost of $360 million annually.

Established the fair market value (FMV) test for evaluating vehicles as resources;

Raised the general resource limit to $1,750;

Penalized households whose heads voluntarily quit jobs;

Established a job search requirement for nonexempt work registrants;

Restricted eligibility for students and aliens;

Eliminated the requirement that households must have cooking facilities;

Replaced store due bills with cash change up to 99 cents;

Established the principle that stores must sell a substantial amount of staple foods if they are to be authorized;

Established the ground rules for Indian Tribal Organization administration of the FSP on reservations; and

Introduced demonstration project authority.

The Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 also included several access provisions:

Allowed using mail, telephone, or home visits for certification;

Required for outreach, bilingual personnel and materials, and nutrition education materials;

Established recipients' right to submit applications the first day they attempt to do so;

Established a 30-day processing standard and inception of the concept of expedited service;

Established SSI joint processing and coordination with AFDC;

Established notice, recertification, and retroactive benefit protections; and

Required states to develop a disaster plan.

The integrity provisions of the new program included fraud disqualifications, enhanced federal funding for states' anti-fraud activities, and financial incentives for low error rates.

EPR was implemented on Jan. 1, 1979. Participation that month increased by 1.5 million over the preceding month.

1981 – Participation Milestone

By 1981, participation hit a new record high of 22.4 million people.

 

Early 1980s – Budget Cutbacks

The large and expensive FSP came under close scrutiny of both the Executive Branch and Congress in the early 1980s. Major legislation in 1981 and 1982 enacted cutbacks including:

Added a gross income eligibility test in addition to the net income test for most households;

Introduced a temporary freeze on adjustments of the shelter deduction cap and the standard deduction and constraints on future adjustments;

Established annual adjustments in food stamp allotments rather than semi-annual;

Added consideration of non-elderly parents who live with their children and non-elderly siblings who live together as one household;

Required periodic reporting and retrospective budgeting;

Prohibited using federal funds for outreach;

Replaced the FSP in Puerto Rico with a block grant for nutrition assistance;

Counted retirement accounts as resources;

Created a state option to require job search of applicants as well as participants; and

Increased disqualification periods for voluntary quitters.

 

Mid-1980s through Late 1980s – Recognition of Domestic Hunger

Recognition of the severe domestic hunger problem in the latter half of the 1980s led to incremental improvements in the FSP in 1985 and 1987, such as elimination of sales tax on food stamp purchases, reinstitution of categorical eligibility, increased resource limit for most households ($2,000), eligibility for the homeless, and expanded nutrition education.

In addition, the Food Stamp Act of 1985 (PL 99-198) required all states to implement an Employment and Training (E&T) program by April 1, 1987. Congress defined an E&T program as containing one or more of the following components: job search, job search training, workfare, work experience or training, or other programs as approved by the Secretary. The new legislation replaced the disqualification for refusing to comply with job search with a disqualification for refusing, without good cause, to participate in an E&T program. The Food Stamp Act of 1985 also required the Secretary to establish performance standards for minimum participation in state E&T programs of persons subject to the work requirements. The legislation established that states were required to reimburse E&T participants for expenses incurred through participation in an E&T program, but states could cap these reimbursements at $25 per person per month. The Food Stamp Act of 1985 also outlined the financial characteristics of E&T programs, providing annual federal grants for E&T state operations and 50 percent federal reimbursement for state agency E&T expenses above the grant levels (including the cost of participant reimbursements).

The Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 (PL 100-435) and the Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act in 1990 (PL 101-624) foretold the improvements that would be coming. The 1988 and 1990 legislation accomplished the following:

Increased benefits by applying a multiplication factor to Thrifty Food Plan costs;

Made outreach an optional activity for states;

Excluded advance earned income tax credits as income;

Simplified procedures for calculating medical deductions;

Instituted periodic adjustments of the minimum benefit;

Authorized nutrition education grants;

Established severe penalties for violations by individuals or participating firms; and

Established EBT as an issuance alternative.

Throughout this era, significant players were principally committee chairmen, namely Congressmen Leland, Hall, Foley, Panetta, and de la Garza in addition to Senator Leahy.

1988 through 2004 – Development of Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT)

Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) is an electronic system that allows a recipient to authorize transfer of their government benefits from a federal account to a retailer account to pay for products received. Benefits are delivered to clients on a debit card. The first Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) pilot began in Reading, Pennsylvania, in 1984.

The Hunger Prevention Act of 1988 (PL 100-435), was signed into law on Sept. 19, 1988, and permitted one or more pilot projects to test whether the use of benefit cards or other automated or electronic benefit delivery systems could enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of operations for both program administrators and recipients.

Following this initiative, the Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act of Nov. 28, 1990 (PL 101-624), established EBT as an issuance alternative and permitted the Department to continue to conduct EBT demonstration projects.

On Aug. 10, 1993, the Conference Report for the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (PL 103-66), included a manager's statement strongly urging the Secretary to encourage state agencies to develop and establish EBT systems.

This was followed by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of Aug. 22, 1996 (PL 104-193), which mandated that states implement EBT systems before Oct. 1, 2002.

A national standard of interoperability and portability applicable to electronic food stamp benefit transactions was established by the Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability Act of 2000 (PL 106-171) on Feb. 11, 2000. In Puerto Rico, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was replaced in 1982 by a block grant program, called the Nutrition Assistance Program. Consequently, Puerto Rico is not interoperable with other states.

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 of May 13, 2002 (PL 107-171), allowed group homes and institutions to redeem EBT benefits directly through banks in areas where EBT has been implemented rather than going through authorized wholesalers or other retailers. This Act also required USDA to submit a report not later than Oct. 1, 2003, to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees describing the status of EBT systems in each state.

State food stamp agencies worked with contractors to procure EBT systems for delivery of Food Stamp and other state-administered benefit programs and benefitted from technological innovations in the commercial sector. As of July 2004, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam operated statewide, citywide, and territory-wide EBT systems to issue SNAP benefits.

EBT helped cut back on food stamp fraud by creating an electronic record of each food stamp transaction, making it easier to identify violations. The rate of trafficking (primarily the exchange of food stamps for cash) went from nearly 4 percent in the 1990's down to around 1 percent after EBT was fully implemented.

In many states, EBT is also used to deliver the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, the federal block-grant program operated by the Department of Health and Human Services, and other state programs.

USDA will rollout EBT Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) for all states and territories by 2020.

(E&T) funds, but required states use at least 80 percent of those funds on providing nonexcepted ABAWDs with work program opportunities;

Allowed states to exempt up to 15 percent of the estimated number of ABAWDs who would otherwise be ineligible;

Restored eligibility for certain elderly, disabled and child immigrants who resided in the United States when PRWORA was enacted; and

Cut administrative funding for states to account for certain administrative costs that previously had been allocated to the AFDC program and now were required to be allocated to the FSP.

The FY 2001 agriculture appropriations bill (PL 106-387) included two significant changes to the FSP. The legislation increased the excess shelter cap to $340 in FY 2001 and then indexed the cap to changes in the Consumer Price Index for all consumers each year beginning in FY 2002. The legislation also allowed states to use the vehicle limit they use in a TANF assistance program if it would result in a lower attribution of resources for the household.

a participation limit;

Stipulated that state agencies must issue monthly benefit allotments to individuals in one lump sum unless a benefit correction is necessary;

Established standards for expungement of benefits and for moving benefits off line;

Prohibited interchange fees on EBT transactions;

Required USDA to set standards for major changes in program design;

Required states to properly testing as a condition of federal financial participation in state automation systems;

Prohibited state agencies from allowing from collecting claims from a household and to assert a claim against a state in cases of major systems failure;

Offered states the option of implementing a telephonic signature process;

Codified regulations regarding bilingual access, civil rights requirements and nutrition education;

Disqualified clients who intentionally obtain cash by purchasing and then discarding a product to obtain the deposit or intentionally sell food purchased with SNAP benefits; and

Allowed more flexibility in setting disqualification periods and fines for certain retailer violations.

2009 – American Recovery & Reinvestment Act

The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (PL 111-5) was passed in response to the Great Recession, which began in December of 2007, to stimulate the economy and facilitate economic recovery. Among the provisions in ARRA was the authority to increase SNAP benefit levels. Since SNAP households spend nearly 97 percent of their benefits within the first month, the increased benefits were viewed as providing an immediate economic stimulus to the economy. SNAP households received the increased benefits between April 1, 2009, and Oct. 31, 2013.

For a four-person household, the enhanced benefits amounted to approximately $80 extra per month in 2009. The value of the enhanced benefit was to gradually phase-out as the value of the enhanced benefit was naturally eroded by the inflationary increases in food prices (and corresponding increases in the annual SNAP maximum allotments). However, the enhanced benefits were sunset early on Nov. 1, 2013, to help pay for a provision in the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010. The Recovery Act also provided nearly $300 million to states for SNAP administrative expenses in FY 2009 and 2010.

 

2010 – Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA) (PL 111-296) which reauthorized the school nutrition programs, was signed into law on Dec. 13, 2010, and had implications for SNAP nutrition education. It restructured SNAP-Ed as the Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program, changing its financial structure to that of 100 percent federal grant funding to states with no state contribution or match. The Act also reshaped SNAP-Ed by including an emphasis on programming centered on obesity prevention in addition to nutrition education and the promotion of physical activity. Moreover, activities were to be evidence-based and delivered through individual and group-based strategies, comprehensive multi-level interventions, and/or community and public health approaches. Many SNAP-Ed efforts increased their focus on policy, systems, and environmental change (PSE) interventions, with a stronger emphasis on partnerships.

Participating state agencies submit an annual SNAP-Ed Plan to FNS. This plan outlines the state’s nutrition education activities and budget for the following year. The number of state agencies with approved SNAP-Ed plans increased from seven in 1992 to 52 state agencies by FY2010. Federal funds approved for SNAP-Ed also grew from $661,000 in 1992 to over $380 million in 2010. This amount represents the federal share of states' total approved funds for SNAP-Ed. In FY 2017, federal funding for the grant program to 50 participating state agencies and 3 U.S. territories totaled $414 million.

2013 – Participation Milestone

In 2013, participation hit a new record high of 47.6 million people. In the years since this record high, participation has steadily decreased to 42.1 million people in 2017.

their SNAP E&T program; and

Adjusted Employment and Training (E&T) funding requirements.

Other certification policy related provisions included:

Excluded medical marijuana from being treated as a medical expense for the purposes of determining the excess medical expense deduction;

Limited the types of programs that count as part of the student exemption for SNAP Employment and Training programs;

Prohibited anyone convicted of certain felonies from receiving SNAP if they are not in compliance with the terms of the sentence or are a fleeing felon;

Required states to verify income using wage data from the National Directory of New Hires; and

Required states to establish an immigration verification system to verify immigration status and an income and eligibility verification system.

Quality control related provisions included:

Set the Quality Control (QC) error threshold at no more than $37 in FY 2014 and to be adjusted annually based on the increase in the Thrifty Food Plan of the preceding year;

Eliminated USDA's ability to waive any portion of a state's QC liability;

Required high performance bonus payments to be used for SNAP expenses including investments in technology, improvements in administration, and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse; and

Required states to submit an annual report to USDA verifying that the state did not issue benefits to individuals who are deceased or disqualified from SNAP.

SNAP-Ed and other provisions included:

Authorized physical activity as a nutrition education activity;

Required state agencies, local agencies, institutions, and contractors to cooperate with USDA and its contractors on evaluations and research; and

Required USDA to consult with an interagency workgroup established by the Office of Management and Budget to create data exchange standards for information required to be reported by states.

SNAP: Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program

The card is called: Golden State Advantage Card (not EBT)

EBT: Electronic Benefits Transfer