Nutrition Programs Struggle to Stave Off Cuts—Despite Success and Public Support

Nutrition Programs Struggle to Stave Off Cuts—Despite Success and Public Support

Each year, USDA updates the official data on hunger in the United States in a report, Household Food Security in the United States. It’s based on the results of a survey conducted at the end of the previous year. The survey asks heads of household if during the past 12 months, due to economic hardship, they or any of their family members were forced to go without eating for any length of time or to reduce their food consumption to unacceptable levels. Those who respond affirmatively are considered “food insecure.”

In 2008, 14.6 percent of all U.S. households were food insecure¹—the highest rate since USDA began reporting food security data in the mid-1990s. One might have expected to see the percentage of food insecure households rise significantly in 2009 and 2010. But, in fact, there was no significant change—which seemed unlikely given the continued rise in unemployment.

Food insecurity did not rise dramatically mainly because enrollment in SNAP increased—by 25 percent in 2009. The average monthly participation in the program grew to more than 33 million people in 2009.² In 2010, enrollment climbed above 40 million people per month, and in 2011, it topped 45 million—about one in seven Americans.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), enacted in February 2009, boosted monthly SNAP benefits by 13.6 percent. This meant that starting in April 2009, a family of four received an increase of approximately $80 per month.{footnote]Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (June 23, 2010), “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Plan Update.”; Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (2009), “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.”{/footnote} The increase in benefits led to a 2.2 percent drop in food insecurity among low-income households that qualified for SNAP. But food insecurity did not decrease at all in low-income households just above the SNAP threshold,³ which is 130 percent of the poverty level.

The Great Recession was the impetus for the increase in benefits, but it was long overdue in any case. Years before, USDA research on SNAP usage was already indicating that more than 90 percent of participating households run out of benefits well before the end of the month.⁴ In households with children, it is common for parents to forgo food themselves so that children do not have to miss meals. Research points to this as a factor in why obesity occurs at higher rates among female heads of poor households. Periods of food scarcity lead to overconsumption once food becomes available again. This condition, known in clinical terms as “post-starvation hyperphagia,” wreaks havoc on people’s metabolism and makes them susceptible to weight gain.[footnote}Abdul G. Dulloo, Jean Jacquet, and Lucien Girardier (1997), “Poststarvation Hyperphagia and Body Fat Overshooting in Humans: A Role for Feedback Signals from Lean and Fat Tissues,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 65, No. 3.{/footnote}

Average Cost of Caring for Very Low Birth Weight Children During Their First Year of Life

In 2010, as the news emerged that the boost in SNAP participation and benefits had done so much to hold the line against hunger in 2009, Congress was already in the midst of debating whether to cut the benefits back again. When Congress initially boosted monthly benefits, legislators decided to let inflation erode the value of the increase over time. First came an $11.9 billion cut in SNAP benefits to help pay for a $26 billion state aid package.⁵ This decision made little sense for two reasons. The SNAP increase was, of course, intended to fill in the food gaps for households that come up short at the end of the month. ⁶ Unemployment was still hovering near 10 percent and was expected to remain high for some time. The additional resources meant that fewer parents had to make the choice to go without food to protect their children from hunger. Second, the raise was intended to help state and local economies recover from the recession: every dollar spent on SNAP generates an additional $1.74 of economic activity.⁷ The SNAP benefits moving through communities save jobs, making it possible for state and local governments to avoid layoffs of teachers, police officers, and other public employees, and preventing layoffs in the private sector as well.

A separate $2.2 billion in cuts to SNAP was the price of getting Congress to agree to the improvements in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Many viewed it as a quid pro quo, since the child nutrition programs benefit many of the same households that participate in SNAP. But according to Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Coalition, this is not entirely true, because the money taken from SNAP had been benefiting whole families and would now be going primarily to school-aged children. Little was done to cushion the financial blow for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers,⁸ for example—even though the most important developmental stage in life is early childhood.⁹

Currently, all of the nutrition programs are at risk of additional cuts as Congress prepares to slash federal spending under the terms of an agreement forged with the White House in August 2011 to raise the government’s debt ceiling. At the time of this writing, we do not yet know the breadth and depth of cuts or proposed cuts to nutrition programs. Many other programs that help low-income families, such as the EITC and other work supports, could also face cuts.

Thus far, SNAP as an entitlement program has managed to escape further cuts. WIC and other programs for low-income people have not been as lucky. In April 2011, $504 million was cut from WIC as part of a deficit reduction deal between the White House and Congress to avoid a government shutdown. Cuts to WIC are appalling considering all that is now known about the critical window of human development during the 1,000 days between pregnancy and age two. The nutritional status of the mother and child at this time makes all the difference for the rest of the child’s life—from school achievements to work productivity.

Cutting WIC also makes little sense economically. In addition to providing foods needed for a healthy pregnancy and early childhood, WIC includes nutrition education and access to health care. The program has been proven to reduce rates of fetal mortality and low birth weight and to enhance the nutritional quality of a baby’s diet.¹⁰ A landmark study in 1991 showed that every dollar spent on WIC saves the government between $1.77 and $3.13 in Medicaid costs for newborns and their mothers. The findings in the study and the strong support for the program from doctors and other medical professionals¹¹ contributed to bipartisan support for steady increases in WIC funding to ensure that no family would be denied participation. But 20 years later—in spite of volumes of additional research that confirms the value of WIC¹²—it seems that ideological differences among elected officials threaten funding for a cost-effective program with broad public support (94 percent in a 2010 study).¹³

Cutting WIC, SNAP, and other nutrition programs goes against everything we know about the value of preventive care in saving on long-term healthcare costs. (See Figure 2.4) Nutrition programs are one of the most cost-effective ways to control rising healthcare costs, which in the long run are a much greater threat to the nation’s economy than the cost of nutrition programs. Hunger makes people more vulnerable to chronic health problems. Intermittent hunger also contributes to binge eating and overeating to cope with stress and depression. Hunger in babies wreaks havoc on their metabolism and makes them susceptible to obesity later in life. And hunger among children affects cognitive development and leads to lower academic achievement.¹⁴