Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

Over the years there had been a gradual decline in participation in NAP. While the participation rate in the previous Food Stamp program was estimated at 56% (more than 1.5 million island residents),[10][25] by 1994, participation in the NAP program had decreased to 1.3 million residents,[26] and by 2006 it had decreased to just over 1 million.[1] In contrast, the Puerto Rican population had steadily increased throughout those same periods.[25][26][27]

However, the participation rate increased to 1.3 million in 2018, which was 40% of Puerto Rico's population. Perhaps as a consequence of Hurricane Maria in 2017 and the prolonged recession in Puerto Rico (which began in 2006), NAP had become fundamental in addressing poverty in Puerto Rico.[28]

In 2018, more than 800,000 seniors living in Puerto Rico and over half of Puerto Rico's children,[29] were receiving nutritional assistance through NAP.[30]

Since its creation, the program received much criticism both within and outside Puerto Rico. Critics argue that, since the program provides non-taxable income without any employment requirements, recipients receive free money without incentives for work, which hinders the economic output and development of the island,[7][31] especially when Puerto Rico's employment participation and unemployment rates have been consistently inferior to U.S. national levels,[32] while the average aid provided in Puerto Rico has exceeded the U.S. national average ($94 versus $74.79, respectively; 2001 estimate).[22] Because of this, Puerto Rico has been called the "welfare island".[7] People from the Dominican Republic do many of the jobs in Puerto Rico that pay too little to attract the locals.[7] However, proponents of the program argue that Puerto Rico's social condition is in far worse shape than any of the 50 U.S. states.[33] Approximately half of the island's population lives below the U.S. Federal poverty guidelines,[1][34][35] and many have difficulties in meeting their nutritional needs due to increasing inflation and economic stagnation in the island. Furthermore, the relation between the NAP benefits and the low employment participation and high unemployment rates has not been studied, and there is no consensus on their actual causes.[36]

After Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, NAP received some extra funding[37] but in 2021, the non-voting Puerto Rico representative in the United States House of Representatives, Jenniffer González, and others, stated people in Puerto Rico would be better off if Puerto Rico were participating in SNAP, an entitlement program, versus NAP, a block grant program.[38] González sought to have Puerto Rico participate in SNAP (what the U.S. states, D.C., Guam and the US Virgin Islands have for nutritional assistance)[29] rather than NAP, with its cap and more stringent eligibility requirements.[39][40]

In a collaborative effort by the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and various other Federal agencies, the NAP program was assessed in 2005 and given a 44% and 40% score (out of a possible 100%) in its Program Management and Program Results/Accountability performance indicators, respectively, stating that "the program's financial management practices need improvement."[1][6] The assessment revealed that Puerto Rico's government has not established short-term goals, objectives, and targets to evaluate the program's performance and results, that the program's oversight has been lax in previous years, and that the program's impact and results in Puerto Rico's society have not been evaluated in recent years.[51] The financial management and oversight concerns were later emphasized when, on March 15, 2007, a U.S. investigative task force uncovered a $30 million fraud scheme involving 31 participants, including retailers and beneficiaries, who were withdrawing the funds as cash from the benefits designated exclusively for food purchases, and charging the customers a 20% to 25% fee for the transaction.[52]

The Puerto Rico departments of the Family, Education, and Health have since combined efforts to create a 5-year strategic plan to improve the program's long-term performance and financial management.[53] The Family Department has recently implemented a quality control-like program titled Measure of Efforts and Results System, which evaluates the quality and promptitude of services while reviewing various eligibility elements, to improve customer services and program management.[54] The Department has also agreed to switch from a biennial audit to an annual Single Audit, and subject the program to periodic audits by its Administration for Socio-Economic Development, to detect and correct problems more quickly.[54] Furthermore, the USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has performed regular audits to assure compliance and identify areas for improvement.[50]

Regardless of deficiencies, the federal government's assessment revealed that the current NAP program is actually an improvement over the former Food Stamp program provided in Puerto Rico. In its 2005 assessment report, it concluded:[25]

The [Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico] block grant is successful in two respects compared to the Food Stamp Program that it replaced and consistent with its legislative origins: First, it substantially reduced Federal costs (by more than $500 million a year) compared to the Food Stamp Program it replaced. Second, it substantially reduced the percentage of the Commonwealth's population that receives assistance, from 56 percent in 1981 to 26 percent in 2004.

Since the program started in 1982, only three formal studies over the nutritional impact of the benefits provided to each family have been publicly released, in 1985, 1993, and 1996, respectively.[66] All studies were designed to analyze the impact of the program with respect to the previous food stamps program, focusing on changes in household nutrient availability, while the 1985 and 1993 studies also focused on changes in household food expenditures (the amount of money households spent on acquiring food).[67]

The first and most widely recognized study,[68] published by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. in 1985, found that the NAP program increased household food expenditures for beneficiaries when compared to non-participating families, just as its predecessor did.[69] It also found that the program had the same relevant impact on increasing household food expenditures as the previous food stamp program,[69] however this has been contested by subsequent studies performed on the national food stamp program, which found that "stamp" or "coupon"-type benefits are more effective at increasing food expenditures than direct "cash" benefits.[70] The 1993 study, which also researched the impact on household expenditures, formed a completely different conclusion: that the average beneficiaries under the NAP program spent $5 less per week on food than non-participating families, considering if both would have the same amount of resources available.[71] Nevertheless, this conclusion has also been questioned by subsequent research, attributing this result on the author's determination of the population sample.[71]

All studies revealed minor improvements in household nutrient availability, with the 1985 study revealing an improvement of vitamin and mineral consumption over non-participating families and the 1993 study partially confirming these results.[72] The most extensive study on nutrient availability was published in 1996, which concluded that nutrition did not change significantly after the implementation of the NAP program for all beneficiaries, however most improvements were noted for very low-income beneficiaries versus their non-participating equivalents.[73]

Although these three studies have been used by the federal government and other entities to understand the impact of the NAP program's benefits, the data used by the authors dates back to the periods between 1977 and 1984, providing limited relevant information for the current program of today.[74] Additionally, subsequent research and analysis have revealed insufficiencies in the methodology applied by the authors of all three publications, thereby casting doubt on whether a definitive conclusion of the program's overall impact has been established.[75] A 2004 report published by USDA's Economic Research Service evaluated the reliability and relevancy of these studies, concluding that they are not sufficient to determine the program's current impact and performance, and stating:[75]

The available information on the nutrition-related impacts of the NAP (in Puerto Rico) must be considered to be both limited and dated ... Any serious understanding of current impacts of the NAP on participants' nutrition and health status will clearly require new research. The existing national survey of health and nutrition status does not include Puerto Rico or the Pacific Islands. Consequently, a specialized data collection will be required to address questions about the nutrition- and health-related impacts of the NAP.