Adoption and Implementation of SNAP

Adoption and Implementation of SNAP

The process of adoption and implementation of any food incentive program by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires in-depth research and justified findings on the proposal. Just like many countries globally, the nutrition status of all the citizens is significant to the countries’ food security agenda. The United States adopted the Food Stamp Program, currently known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-SNAP, to assist in combating the hunger experienced by its citizens (Leung et al, 2017).  Before the adoption of the food program, USDA conducted a critical decision-making process based on the impacts of the program. Some of the vital considerations included the planning, budgeting, and implementation processes to ensure the smooth running of the problems.

The adoption of ideology was arrived after its many positive intentions such as improving the nutritive conditions of the American citizens by helping them to fight hunger, maximizing the use of surplus agricultural produce, and improving the standards of low-income citizens. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was permanently adopted in 1964 as the Food Stamp Program by the USDA. Since the adoption of the nutritional program, the United States has boosted the health of most low-income individuals as well as their families by the provision of monthly benefits that help in buying food throughout the month. Moreover, the adoption of the program made sure that it was implemented in such a way that would prevent queries of bias to occur. Due to this, the program is evenly distributed and stretches across all the geographical boundaries of the states.

Consequently, due to the complexity of the program, the implementation process was stringent since it required an effective allocation of funds. The implementation process follows a set of laid down policies to avoid the interference of ethics of the program. Although the program is a multibillion-dollar initiative, all the American citizens cannot be adequately catered for by the program; for instance, statistics reveal that only one among seven individuals benefit from the program. The policies behind the implementation of SNAP are based on several factors such as the magnitude of the impact on the lives of the targeted individuals, the complexity of the problems experienced by the citizens, the financial and human resources required throughout the implementation process and the regulations put in place. Since the nutritive program was initiated to promote the nutrition status of low-income generating citizens measures, need to be generated and regulations reviewed due to the dynamic changing world.

The implementation framework, inclusive of the policies, determine members who are eligible for the SNAP program. The implementation procedures only allow individuals who receive assistance from other social federal programs or those who meet the income eligibility criteria and employment requirements to be fit for accessing support from the program. For example, the gross monthly income ought to be equal or less than 130% of the poverty line; however, households which have individuals living with disabilities or the elderly need not meet this criterion (Leung et al, 2017). The implementation policy restricts college students, strikers, illegal immigrants, and some legal migrants from accessing the benefits of SNAP.

Additionally, the implementation guidelines allow applications through the respective federal application techniques which include both physical and online applications. It is mandatory for every participant to undergo an eligibility interview which proves their identity, income, immigration status, the composition of their household among others. For convenience purposes, the test can be done over the phone. The USDA have signed a contract with more than 250,000 stores across all the states of the U.S. to ensure closer accessibility of SNAP services. However, the benefits are restricted to the purchase of essential foods but not alcoholic beverages, hot foods, and non-food items (Parks et al, 2019). SNAP prohibits cash at hand but only restricts access to its benefits to the electronic benefit transfer card (EBT) to promote security and mismanagement of allocated benefits.

Besides, the implementation of SNAP in a fiscal year costs multi-billion on the expenditure of federal governments to ensure an effective flow of resources; for instance, Leung et al (2017) affirms that in 2017 the federal governments spent $71 billion on anti-hunger programs such as SNAP. In order to provide a nutritious diet for low-income families, USDA uses a thrifty food plan (TFP). Relatively to the factors considered in the formulation of implementation policies, the households with a higher deviation from the poverty line receive more funds than those closer to the line. Averagely, households receive benefits worth $126 monthly to cater for food.

To ensure a fair, comprehensive implementation plan, USDA recommended periodic reapplication of benefits whereby individuals reapply for benefits annually or after every six months. The reapplication process is done to ascertain any changes in the income since they affect the eligibility of an individual to SNAP. According to Parks et al (2019), due to the changing dynamics in the social and economic world, the implementation of SNAP in every fiscal year is affected by the emergence of farm bills which instigate the revision of SNAP to ensure improved diets and health of American citizens. The changes attract the attention of SNAP policy makers since they are designed to improve the nutrition status of individuals as well as reducing healthcare costs.