The Problem
A 2013 study by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service found that 1 out of every 6 households in the United States faced food insecurity, meaning over 50 million Americans had difficulty acquiring adequate nutrition in their diet due to a lack of resources they have available at their disposal. The number of Americans living in food-insecure households has risen over the past few years due to the 2008 financial crises, which has reduced opportunities for millions of Americans in the past few years. Although the numbers have not returned to pre-recession levels, Congress has passed legislation in the past year to decrease funding for federal nutrition assistance programs.
Food-insecure households experience consequences, both immediate and long-term, that go beyond statistics. Individuals living in food-insecure households often have to make trade-offs between different financial obligations with limited resources available in order to make sure that they have the basic necessities to meet their immediate needs; often it means sacrificing a few meals to pay utility or medical bills. Contrary to popular belief, most food-insecure households have individuals who are employed but are still unable to purchase enough food commodities for an adequate diet; they are known as the “working poor”.
Food insecurity has direct and indirect consequences for at-risk households and local community. Members of food-insecure households are more likely to develop health-related problems in regards to their physical and mental well-being. They are more likely to develop diabetes, chronic illnesses such as hypertension and other cardiovascular diseases, higher levels of aggression and anxiety, and slower social developmental skills. Children in food-insecure households face the same health-related issues and are more likely to develop behavioral issues which can lead to fighting, bullying, mood swings, and etc. Children living under these stressful environments face academic challenges, which hinder their long-term academic and economic potential.
Alongside the personal costs, food insecurity has an economic cost. The Center for American Progress’ 2011 report – Hunger in America: Suffering We All Pay For demonstrates that food insecurity is costing the United States at least $167.5 billion “due to the combination of lost economic productivity per year, more expensive public education because of the rising costs of poor education outcomes, avoidable health care costs, and the cost of charity to keep families fed”. The number does not include the cost of operating and running the federal nutrition assistance programs.
Food insecurity takes a toll on the personal well-being for individuals living in food-insecure households. The costs go beyond individual households and extend into the public domain, costing the United States approximately $542 for every American (Cooper, Shepard, and Setren, 2011). The cost of food insecurity is too great to ignore but is often hidden from the public.
Policy Options
Option #1: Increasing SNAP Benefits
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is a federal program that provides financial assistance to food-insecure households who make less than 130% of the federal poverty line, which is $11,500 for an individual and $23,000 for a family of four. SNAP benefits supplement a household’s food budget so that they could meet the USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan budget; it assumes that the household spends approximately 30% of their income on food and provides benefits for the household to meet the Thrifty Food Plan budget. The proposed policy option recommends that Congress pass legislation to change the formula for SNAP benefits from the Thrifty Food Plan to the USDA’s Low-cost plan, a 30% increase in proposed benefits for SNAP recipients.
Increasing the SNAP benefits that households receive would allow them to meet their immediate needs and provide adequate nutritious foods to all its’ members. This policy would also provide an economic boost to the United States’ economy. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimate that “every $1 increase in SNAP benefits generates about $1.70 in economic activity” and is ranked as one of the most cost-effective ways to boost economic growth and create jobs.
Despite the potential benefits from this policy, it will be difficulty to implement due to the hostile political climate in Congress against any increases in federal spending, especially towards social services.
Option #2: Raising the Minimum Wage
An alternative policy to address food insecurity in the United States would be to tackle poverty, the root of food insecurity, by increasing the minimum wage from $7.25/hour to $10.10/hour. National Public Radio reports that the minimum wage has lost its real value since the early 1970s in real terms; for example, in 1968 a worker making the minimum wage would make an equivalent of $10 an hour in today’s money (“Raising Minimum Wage”, 2012). The value of the minimum wage has not caught up with the gains made by workers’ productivity or the average wage growth. As more and more households rely on jobs that provide the minimum wage, it is important that we increase the rate to ensure that it keeps pace with overall productivity growth to ensure that the workers reap the financial rewards of their labor.
Contrary to the first option, increasing the minimum wage would be paid for by corporations instead of the United States’ federal government. The policy would increase economic activity by approximately $32.6 billion in the first six months of implementation and generate approximately 140,000 new jobs, and reduce SNAP expenditure by $4.6 billion due to lower enrollment in the program (Cooper & Hall, 2013; West & Reich, 2014). Also, the policy option is politically viable since an increase in the minimum wage is popular across the political spectrum amongst the general public.
The proposed policy would receive pushback from conservative economists and the business lobby since they state that it threatens economic stability and reduce overall employment numbers as businesses try to cut costs to save profitability.
Option #3: Increasing Funding to Local Non-Governmental Organizations
The last policy option recommends that Congress increase funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). TEFAP is a federally funded program that provides food aid to local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as food banks and soup kitchens. The program provides food to State Distributing Agencies to distribute to local NGOs; the amount of food that each state receives is pre-determined by the number of unemployed state residents and the number of state residents living below the federal poverty line. Congress should increase the funding for TEFAP by changing the second requirement to reflect the true number of residents living in poverty by adjusting the federal poverty level by state to account for disparities in cost-of-living expenses.
An increase in TEFAP funding would boost the national farm economy; farmers receive an additional 11 cents per dollar from TEFAP purchases (27 cents per dollar) compared to retail purchases (16 cents per dollar) (“The Emergency Food Assistance Program”, 2014). In addition, the program leverages the infrastructure established by local NGOs to combat food insecurity in local communities. TEFAP utilizes the NGOs food distribution networks and their volunteer base to have the food reach local food-insecure households in their local communities.
The policy option faces a similar hurdle as the first policy option – it has to overcome the current hostile political climate that is hostile to any increases in government spending, despite the relatively smaller amount being requested. Alongside the political challenge, TEFAP funding has a couple of structural shortcomings – (1) any funding increase will be temporary and can be reduced at a later time; and (2) the program has a limited reach to assist food-insecure households since NGOs can only assist food-insecure households that are able to reach their food distribution site.
Food Insecurity Works Cited
Food Insecurity Annotated Bibliography