Basic needs

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, (formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) distributes food vouchers to households with incomes that fall within 130% of the federal poverty threshold. They support approximately 40 million people, including low income workers, unemployed citizens, and disabled heads of household.[18] This program is an entitlement program, meaning if anyone is qualified, they will receive the benefits. The Food Stamp Program, the former name of SNAP, first began as a temporary program under President Roosevelt's (FDR) administration in 1939, allowing its recipients to buy surplus food determined by the Department. According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the idea is credited to Henry Wallace, Secretary of Agriculture, and Milo Perkins, the program's first Administrator. After the program was discontinued from 1943 to 1961, the Food Stamp Program gradually expanded and became permanent during President Johnson's term in 1964. The program eventually grew nationwide, accepting more people and becoming more accessible. In the 1980s, the government addressed the extreme food insecurity in the US, leading to improvements like the sales tax elimination on food stamps. SNAP became eligible to the homeless and grew in resources, including nutrition education. 2013 marked their highest recipient rate, gradually decreasing to 42 million people in 2017.[18] SNAP is the largest part of the government's Farm Bill, which is passed by Congress every five years. After much debate on funding, Congress passed the Farm Bill in 2018, portioning $664 billion to mainly SNAP.[18] SNAP is proven to be highly beneficial to its participants, preventing a majority of households from reaching below the poverty line. Data from the USDA indicates that children who participate in SNAP are connected to more positive health effects and economic outcomes. 10% of SNAP recipients are reported to rise above the poverty line, and economic self-sufficiency especially increases for women.[19] Furthermore, research by Mark Zandi has shown that a $1 increase in food stamp payments also increases GDP by $1.73.[20]

The current benefits of SNAP, however, is threatened by proposals to cut funding and limit eligibility requirements. In the recent passing of the Farm Bill, there were attempts to limit eligibility and reduce benefits, which would affect about 2 million people. Ultimately, overall bipartisan support kept the total funding and prevented the proposals from being enacted.[19] Along with this recent threat, there have been proposals to limit the programs in the past. In the mid-1990s, Congress imposed time limits for unemployed adults that were not disabled or raising children. In 2014, Republican representatives wanted to cut 5% of the program's funding, about $40 billion, for the next ten years. This did not pass, but funds were still cut by 1%, or $8.6 billion, creating limitations in the program. In 2017, the House of Representatives proposed to cut $150 billion from SNAP's funding through 2026. However, the cuts were not enacted, and the original budget amount remained.[21] These past threats to the funding of SNAP imply an uncertain future for its ongoing benefits.

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, offers referrals to health care, nutrition information, and nutritious foods to low-income women, infants, and children who are at risk of health issues.[22] Unlike SNAP, WIC is a federal grant program that runs under a specific amount of funds by the government, meaning not everyone who is qualified will receive benefits. WIC was first introduced in 1972 and became permanent in 1974.[22] This program helps approximately 7.3 million participants each month and is reported to support 53% of infants born in the United States. In 2017, annual costs were $5.6 billion.[19] Like SNAP, WIC is researched to also be highly effective for its participants. Benefits of WIC is associated with less premature and infant deaths and fewer occasions of low birthrates.[19] Economically, $1.77 to $3.13 is saved in health care costs for each dollar invested in WIC.[19]

The Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) addresses place-based theories of poverty, aiming to develop grocery store chains in low-income communities and improve access to nutritious food.[21] In the early 2000s, the metaphor of food deserts- low income communities that do not have access to grocery stores and nutritious foods- have been connected to health disparities.[21] More than 29 million of US residents are reported to live in neighborhoods that resemble a food desert.[21] The concept of the food desert has been increasingly linked to spatial reasons of poverty. It was understood that the food desert was the main reason why there were nutritional concerns in these neighborhoods. In 2010, President Obama introduced HFFI, which was passed by Congress in 2014 through the Farm Bill.[21]

In the Oxford Academic journal, Social Work, Adriana Flores- a socialist advocate- brings attention to the limitations of government programs such as SNAP.[23] Flores states that while the government assists people with food insecurity through SNAP, important basic needs like hygiene products are excluded, ultimately forcing low-income people to decide between hygiene items and other living payments. Flores considers SNAP as one of the few entitlement programs that need to be expanded.

In the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Laura Wolf-Powers criticizes HFFI, arguing that these policies imply that the origins of food insecurity mainly derive from geographical reasons.[21] She and other scholars[24] claim that income-centered policies would be significantly more effective. Wolf provides evidence that families with lower incomes have a larger tendency to live in food deserts. This makes them more prone to health issues and nutrition deprivation. Studies directly investigating shopping behavior of low-income residents disclose that their shopping decisions depend more on price, quality, staff, and similarities to other shoppers than simply the location of the store.[21] The studies show that income is a more urgent reason than distance. Despite these studies and calls for reform, the journal illustrates the government's unwillingness to reform policies toward income redistribution and wage floors.[21] The scholars notice optimistic changes in 2016, when 19 states established minimum wages, increasing economic self-sufficiency.[21] This study seeks to criticize the government's spatial approach using investments and avoidance of income policies and labels the primary source of food insecurity as a lack of income.

Another project that started within the community is food pantries on college campuses. Food pantries were created to provide food at no cost and decrease food insecurity among students. In 2008, issues of food insecurity and homelessness among students were recognized by student affairs professionals due to the increasing tuition costs.[25] A rising number of students especially in community colleges were experiencing food insecurity or homelessness, reaching between a fifth to two-thirds of American college students.[25] This was more prevalent among Black and Latino communities, students in households that receive less than $20,000 in income, students with dependents, and former foster youth. They were reported to be skipping meals and purchasing cheaper foods, usually processed and unhealthy. These food pantries were founded by student leaders who advocated to improve food security and who also experienced food insecurity themselves. In the New Directions for Community Colleges, an academic journal, Jarrett Gupton observed food pantries and other solutions that benefited students. Because food pantries are limited due to the amount of food, staff, and hours of availability, Gupton suggests increasing students’ food literacy and utilizing community gardens, co-ops, and having affordable on-campus food plans.[25] Although these nongovernmental approaches are beneficial to the public and spreading awareness of these basic needs issues, these projects are limited and cannot reach everyone in need. This issue leads to debates about government reforms and adopting a Rights-based approach to development to combat basic needs insecurity.