Improving the Nutritional Impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program:

Abstract

Introduction The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest federal food assistance program designed to alleviate food insecurity and improve dietary intake. This study assessed the opinions of SNAP participants and food-insufficient nonparticipants on their perceptions of the program and strategies to improve its nutritional impact. Methods This study surveyed 387 individuals via Amazon Mechanical Turk, of whom 118 were SNAP participants and 269 were food insufficient but not enrolled in SNAP (nonparticipants). Open-ended questions were coded and analyzed for thematic content. For closed-ended questions, response frequencies were compared using chi-square tests. Data were analyzed in 2016. Results SNAP participants reported that the program successfully served its primary purpose: to allow individuals to buy enough food to make ends meet and reduce food insecurity. Importance was placed on buying food for their children/families and the ability to allocate money for other expenses. To improve the nutritional impact, SNAP participants suggested more nutrition education, increasing the benefit allotment, incentivizing healthful foods, and excluding unhealthful foods for purchase with SNAP. When participants and nonparticipants were asked to choose between SNAP and a nutritionally enhanced program combining healthy incentives with exclusions for sugary beverages (i.e., SNAP+), 68% of participants and 83% of nonparticipants chose SNAP+. Of those who initially chose SNAP, 68% of participants and 64% of nonparticipants chose SNAP+ if paired with a 50% increase in total benefits. Conclusions SNAP participants and food-insufficient nonparticipants support policies that facilitate purchases of healthful foods and limit purchases of unhealthful foods, specifically sugary beverages.

Transactions at a Northeastern Supermarket Chain: Differences by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Use

“…A SNAP+ program has been proposed 31 in which the beneficiary could choose to either: (1) continue with the current SNAP benefit package, or (2) agree to a revised package, in which sugar-sweetened beverages are ineligible and benefits specifically for purchase of fruits and vegetables are increased. This addresses concerns that SNAP policy is paternalistic because it provides a choice to the beneficiary and also added financial benefit to purchase healthier foods.…”

A mixed methods assessment of the barriers and readiness for meeting the SNAP depth of stock requirements in Baltimore’s small food stores

“…Having a consistent customer base that would buy the perishable foods in the corner stores would alleviate much of the stocking pressures. Leung et al found that SNAP participants were supportive of increasing nutrition education and incentivizing healthful foods, which would be helpful for increasing customer demand in small stores (Leung et al 2017). Other suggestions include activities to enhance communication between customers and store owners, to communicate presence of a demand for healthier options to store owners and ensure a sustainable relationship of supply and demand (Gittelsohn et al 2008; Kim et al 2017; Song et al 2012).…”

Ethical imperatives against item restriction in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

“…By offering a financial bonus when shoppers buy produce with SNAP, these programs have increased consumption of healthy foods while preserving participants’ freedom to choose (Klerman et al, 2014). Some studies have found that incentives, when paired with item restrictions, can achieve favorable dietary outcomes, though others have found that participants favor increased benefit amounts over this hybrid incentive-restriction (Leung et al, 2017; Harnack et al, 2016). While the long-term funding strategy for bonus programs is subject to question, it exists as a proven method of improving SNAP participants’ nutritional decisions.…”

“…Though these proposals have been rejected, state legislatures and administrators continue to discuss similar mechanisms for controlling what SNAP can buy. Additionally, the perspectives of SNAP participants regarding item restriction have not been systematically studied in ways that are representative (Leung et al, 2017; Leung et al, 2013; Blumenthal et al, 2014). …”