The SNAP Solution to Food Insecurity in America

Sojung Kim

In 2015, 42.2 million Americans lived in food insecure households.1 One out of every six
children worries about where theyll get their next meal.2 In the face of such rampant food
insecurity, federal food assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP), the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) help support families and children in
need by providing access to more food.3 Over the past several years, these federal nutritional
assistance programs have been effective at mitigating the effects of food insecurity and helping
families put food on the table. In fact, SNAP in and of itself kept 10.3 million people out of
poverty and food insecurity in 2012, including nearly 5 million children.4

Unfortunately, with the recent inauguration of Donald Trump as the President of the
United States, the efficacy and value of these programs is being called into question. Under
President Trumps proposed budget for 2018, several federal food assistance programs stand to
be significantly weakened. Trump has proposed a $200 million cut in aid to WIC, a program that
gives supplemental food, health care referrals, and nutrition education to low-income pregnant or
nursing women and young children.6 Federal funding for Meals on Wheels, a program that helps
the poor, senior citizens, and veterans get access to food, would be completely eliminated.7 To
explain these clearly shifting federal priorities, Trumps budget chief Mick Mulvaney has stated
that, We cant spend money on programs just because they sound good and great.8
Since the recent budget proposal only covers discretionary spending, theres been no
official word on how SNAP, a non-discretionary mandatory spending program, will be affected
yet. However, an overarching trend towards cutting programs targeted at helping low-income
families and individuals buy food is unmistakably evident in Trumps agenda. Funding for
SNAP can only be slashed through Congressional action, which seems a scarily realistic
possibility given that the last six budgets promoted by the Republican House Budget Committee
would have drastically cut SNAP, even by over 20% over the next ten years.9 Cuts of
comparable magnitude to those that have been proposed in Congress in the past would
effectively end food assistance for millions of low-income families.10 In the face of serious food
insecurity that still affects millions of American households, Congress should be moving to
increase, not decrease, federal spending on SNAP in order to help alleviate American food
insecurity.

The Insidious Harms of Food Insecurity

Food insecurity is defined by the USDA as, a household-level economic and social
condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food.11 Although many people may
associate food insecurity and hunger with third world and developing nations, there are millions
of households unsure of where their next meal will come from right here in the United States. As
of 2015, 13% of American households were food insecure, with the majority of those households
having children to feed as well.12 In fact, one out of every six kids lives in a food insecure
household, with higher rates of food insecurity in minority homes or households headed by a
single mother.13 This means that around 15 million children in America come from families
struggling to consistently put food on the table.14 This is not only problematic because access to
food is a fundamental human need, but the effects of food insecurity in America are also
deceivingly widespread, affecting those going hungry as well as the rest of the American
population. Although food insecurity affects individuals of all ages, some of the most devastating
impacts stem from food insecure children.
Health and Development Problems
Children in food insecure households are at risk of serious health consequences,
including increased hospitalizations, poor health, iron deficiency, attention deficit disorder,
hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes.15 A study published in the Journal of Nutrition
attributes these impacts to a lack of access to adequate, healthier foods.16 These health concerns
early on in a childs life also increase the risk of health disparities and poverty as an adult.17
Research has also linked food insecurity among adults to lower scores on mental health exams,
poor cardiovascular health, and all the health consequences listed above.18 These impacts are
only compounded for people at higher risk, such as the elderly and new mothers, as a study
published in the Journal of Social Science & Medicine finds that food insecure women are at a
greater risk for severe depression and other mental health problems.19
The food secure population of Americans is affected by food insecurity because of the
strain these health problems place on the healthcare system. In 2003, hundreds of young children
were hospitalized with nutritional deficiencies, which costs about $16,000 per child. More
generally, another study published in the Journal of Nutrition finds that a food insecure child is
31% more likely to be hospitalized at some point during their childhood as a food secure child.20
Because many of these families experiencing food insecurity are supported by Medicaid, the
welfare system ends up footing a large billjust one of the diagnoses for nutritional deficiencies
amongst children 0-4 years old, protein-calorie malnutrition, cost Medicaid $1.25 million in
2003.21 The strain on the healthcare system extends beyond childhood though, as food insecurity
increases the likelihood of a person becoming a high-cost user of healthcare services by 50%,
and increases the likelihood of senior citizens having depression by 60%.22 The long term costs
of food insecurity to the healthcare system are immense because food insecurity can cause long
term, chronic health problems while also weakening the immune system, which makes
hospitalizations with other illnesses more common as well.

Educational Problems
Food insecurity during childhood has long-term harms on the cognitive and educational
development of affected children. Even before children enter the school system, chronic
undernutrition slows cognitive development during early childhood (0-3 years of age) because
affected children's brains and central nervous systems lack sufficient nutrition to grow
correctly.23 Subsequently, a study published by Contemporary Economic Policy found that
kindergartners from food insecure homes (or even marginally food secure homes) began their
education with lower math scores and achieved less during the school year than their peers.24
As children grow older, food insecurity continues to have an accumulating negative
impact on their academic development. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study shows that
students who had been food insecure in kindergarten still had lower reading and math scores than
their peers when they reached third grade.25 The achievement gap starts with initial delays in
cognitive development and is compounded by the fact that students who are hungry in school are
less likely to be able to concentrate on their work and have less energy, meaning that students
begin to fall further and further behind their peers over time. Ultimately, a study published in
Pediatrics finds that students from food insecure backgrounds are more likely to repeat a grade
or be placed into special educational services.26
In this way, food insecurity and its effects on education pose quite the economic problem:
children who perform poorly in school and repeat grades are much more likely to drop out of
high school. A report compiled by No Kid Hungry finds that students who drop out of high
school earn $500,000 less than a high school graduate and $2 million less than a college graduate
over their career span, meaning they not only contribute less to the economy with their earnings,
but also are more likely to have jobs without health insurance or retirement plans.27 This in turn,
increases the likelihood that society will have to bear the costs of increased health problems,
lost worker productivity, and lost tax revenue as individuals achieve and earn less The
ultimate indirect cost incurred by society from food insecurity is the loss or reduction of human
capital in the overall workforce.28

Criminal Justice Problems

Food insecurity can also cause long term emotional, behavioral, mental, and social
problems in young children, which ultimately increases the likelihood that theyll have issues
with the criminal justice system.29 Data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study show that
young children from food insecure backgrounds tend to have less self control and more
loneliness, impulsiveness, hyperactivity, and skipped classes when compared to their peers, even
after controlling for confounding variables.30 These problems continue and compound as children
age. Hungry elementary schoolers are four times more likely than non-hungry children to have
a history of needing mental health counseling; seven times more likely to be classified as
clinically dysfunctional; seven times more likely to get into fights frequently; and twelve times
more likely to steal.31 Continuing on the same path, teenagers that have grown up in food
insecure environments are twice as likely to have seen a psychologist and twice as likely to be
suspended from school.32
As the No Kid Hungry report states, behavioral problems throughout childhood often lead
to criminal problems in the future, which not only affects food insecure individuals but also
society at large due to the economic burden of incarceration and rehabilitation. According to the
U.S. Bureau of Prisons, it costs an average of $30,620 a year to incarcerate someone.33

Overall Economic Harm

Because the effects of food insecurity are so insidious, long-term, and multifaceted,
calculating the true economic costs of food insecurity in America is a nearly insurmountable
task. However, researchers from Brandeis University estimated the cost of food insecurity in
2011 by compiling the economic burdens on society due to increased health problems and
decreased educational attainment.34 After considering a myriad of costs such as those from direct
and indirect health problems, lost worker productivity, increased special education need, and
increased school dropouts, researchers found that the total so-called Hunger Bill was $167.5
billion.35 Even without accounting for additional costs incurred through the criminal justice
system, food insecurity is costing America well over $160 billion dollars a year, straining our
healthcare, school, and judicial systems while dragging down economic growth.
Food insecurity is not only a massive humanitarian and economic problem, its also a
self-perpetuating one. Since food insecurity affects ones ability to receive a quality education
and remain healthy, it also traps victims in a cycle of poverty. This is explained by the No Kid
Hungry report as a phenomenon in which the impacts of one generations poverty present
barriers to the next generations achievement of its potential, since lower earning capacity can
impact their childrens food security (and thus their health, education, earning capacity, etc.).36
How SNAP Alleviates Food Insecurity
SNAP helps alleviate food insecurity by giving food insecure households supplemental
food funds, formerly known as food stamps. SNAP benefits are meant to help participating
households pay the costs of a nutritionally adequate, low-cost diet by compensating for
additional necessary costs after the family devotes 30% of their monthly income to food
purchases.37 Even though SNAP currently only provides an average of $1.13 per person per meal
for a household with young children, SNAP has kept millions of households out of poverty,
enabling them to become more food secure and financially stable.38

39

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that SNAP kept 10.3 million people
out of poverty in 2012, including almost 5 million children; in fact, SNAP lifted 2.1 million
children out of deep poverty (defined as 50% of the poverty line), more than any other
government assistance program.40 The effect on food insecurity has been correspondingly
significant, with a report by the Council of Economic Advisors finding that SNAP reduces the
percentage of food insecure families by up to 30%.41
As SNAP keeps families out of poverty and helps struggling parents feed their children,
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities finds that child food insecurity in a household
decreases by approximately a third after the family receives SNAP for six months.42 Because of
the tremendous negative effects that food insecurity can have on the health, development, and
education of a child, SNAP benefits help children grow up and remain physically healthier,
achieve more academically, have better mental and emotional health, and ultimately live more
productive lives.43 Children are 6% less likely to have stunted growth, 5% less likely to have
heart disease, 16% less likely to be
obese, and 18% more likely to
graduate high school.44
The benefits of SNAP,
however, extend far beyond just
improved health for children. Food
insecure mothers who participate in
SNAP while pregnant are less likely
to give birth to low birth weight
children, and their children are less
likely to be unhealthy or have
developmental problems.45 In food
insecure adults, SNAP benefits
lower the likelihood of diabetes,
blood pressure, obesity, heart
disease, and heart attack because of
the increased access to a steady
source of relatively nutritious food.46
Moreover, food insecure women who had access to SNAP while they grew up are much more
likely than their non-beneficiary peers to have gotten an education and have stable employment,
income, and financial status.47
On top of all these benefits, by decreasing the percentage of income that families are
required to spend on food, SNAP helps families direct more resources into other necessary
expenses like housing, electricity and utility bills, and medical care.48 The Brookings Institute
explains that, SNAP participation reduces the risk of falling behind on rent or mortgage
payments by 7% and on utility bills by 15%. Participants are also less likely to experience
medical hardship: SNAP participation decreases the likelihood of forgoing a necessary visit to a
doctor or hospital by 9%.49
Due to the widespread benefits of decreased food insecurity on areas ranging from
American health, education, and criminal justice to general financial well-being, federal SNAP
expenditures are found to be extremely economically beneficial as well. According to a joint
report by the USDA and the Economic Research Service, spending $1 billion on SNAP increases
U.S. GDP by $1.79 billion.50 In other words, spending $1 on SNAP returns $1.79 to the
American economy. The same report estimates that the effect of a $1 billion increase in SNAP
benefits results in the creation of 9,000-18,000 full time jobs, including increased
self-employment.51 Overall, not only does spending on SNAP help American families and
children obtain a stable food source and meet a basic human need, but the benefits of decreased
food insecurity also lead to long term economic growth for the entire nation.

SNAP Funding Cuts Have and Will Increase Food Insecurity

Since President Trump and the Republican led Congress have made it clear that the
current federal government seeks to cut funding for a wide variety of nutritional assistance
programs, its imperative to make clear the potentially catastrophic harms that could arise due to
cuts in federal SNAP funding.
In 2017, the Republican House Budget Committee released a budget plan that would cut
SNAP by $150 billion over ten years.52 The committee has proposed similar budget cuts for their
past five budget plans, and cuts of this magnitude would leave millions of low-income
Americans, particularly childless adults living in areas of very high unemployment, people with
disabilities, and low-income seniors without food assistance.53 Not only would SNAP funding
cuts take food out of the mouths of hungry American families and children, the overall level of
food insecurity would rise and all of the harms of food insecurity such as decreased health,
decreased educational attainment, and stunted economic growth would grow more severe.
In fact, when SNAP funding has been cut in the past, food insecurity has risen
significantly among low-income American households. The first time SNAP funding was cut
significantly was in 2013, when SNAP benefits dropped by approximately 16% after a provision
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act expired.54 Researchers from Indiana University
and Purdue University found that the prevalence of food insecurity grew by 8.3% for families
who had their SNAP benefits cut when compared to non-SNAP families.55 Even more
concerningly, the likelihood that the same households would expererience severe food insecurity
increased by almost 15% after SNAP was cut when compared to non-SNAP families.56
SNAP funding cuts have directly caused increases in food insecurity in the past, and will
do so in the future because of the simple causal nature of the relationship between SNAP benefits
and the ability of families to buy more food. When families who are struggling to make ends
meet receive nutritional assistance, theyre more able to put food on the table. Not only does
increased food insecurity create numerous societal problems as spoken about earlier, cutting
SNAP benefits for children who have been receiving benefits actually puts them straight back
into a high risk category for poor health. Compared to families with children who consistently
receive SNAP benefits, families with children whose benefits are reduced or completely cut are
twice as likely to forego necessary medical care for their children because theyre already unable
to pay for basic living needs (e.g. food, housing, electricity).57

Congress Needs to Increase SNAP Funding

Instead of cutting SNAP funding, Congress needs to adjust the federal budgets for the
coming years to allocate additional funding for SNAP in order to help alleviate food insecurity.
Since SNAP funding can only be changed through Congressional action, the U.S. House of
Representatives (specifically the House Budget Committee) and the U.S. Senate must work
together to ensure that increased SNAP funding is approved.
 When it comes to figuring out how much money to allocate to increased SNAP benefits,
the general rule of thumb seems to be the more the better. Logically, increased SNAP benefits
for food insecure households means that theyll receive more nutritional support which allows
them to buy more food and experience less food insecurity. The stimulus package of 2009
provides a historical example in which increased SNAP funding led to decreased food insecurity.
SNAP benefits were increased by $45 billion in 2009 in response to the financial crisis of 2007
and 2008, increasing benefits for families by an average of 17%.58 According to a report by the
Economic Research Service of the USDA, after SNAP benefits were increased, the percentage of
food insecure households was 2.2% lower than expected after just one year of increased benefits;
correspondingly, severe food insecurity improved by 2%.59
Although $45 billion may seem like an impossible sum of money, President Trump has
already proposed an $54 billion increase in defense spending, made possible by drastic spending
cuts in other areas of the federal government.60 Thus, it would be possible to increase SNAP
spending by similar amounts, and increased SNAP spending would actually be very
economically favorable. As previously explained, a $1 billion increase in SNAP funding
increasing U.S. GDP by $1.79 billion in the long term.61
When comparing the potential increases in SNAP spending to the Hunger Bill, or the
annual sum cost of food insecurity to the American economy, the economic incentive to increase
SNAP funding becomes even clearer. A drastic move to add all food insecure and hungry
Americans to SNAP would cost the federal government $83 billion, yet thats still only half of
the annual Hunger Bill, which is over $160 billion a year.62 When put into this broader context,
increasing spending on SNAP in order to decrease food insecurity saves money in the long run
and stimulates the economy, offsetting the initial federal investment into SNAP.

Dispelling SNAP Concerns

Although many of those who oppose increasing welfare and the social safety net do so
because of the belief that people grow dependent on welfare and drain the system without
attempting to get back on their feet, data collected by the USDA shows that most SNAP
participants who are able to work, do work. About 64% of the people who participate in SNAP
are young children, the elderly, or the disabled who are unable to work, 22% of participants work
full time, are caretakers of children, or are training to work, and only 14% of participants are
working part time, are unemployed, or are registered for work.63 In terms of long term SNAP
participant demographics, a study from the book SNAP Matters finds that, households with
full-time, year-round workers have grown more as a share of SNAP recipients than any other
group since 1980.64 The study concludes that SNAP does not or negligibly disincentivizes work.

63

Moreover, although some believe that SNAP is prone to large scale errors that lead to
people getting more money than they deserve, SNAP actually has a very high accuracy rate when
it comes to providing the correct amount of benefits to the correct people. According to USDA
data, the percentage of SNAP benefits that were overpaid was only 2.61% in 2013, and SNAP
error rates have been declining steadily since 1998, despite increases in SNAP participants.65 In
fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analyzes this further and puts minor SNAP errors
into a larger context: the net loss to the government [in 2013] from errors was about 2 percent
of benefits. In comparison, 16.9 percent of taxes legally due in 2006 (the most recently studied
year) went unpaid, according to Internal Revenue Service.66 Although there may always be
some inefficiencies and error in any given system, the error rates for SNAP are extremely small
and have been dropping fairly consistently year after year. When these error rates are compared
against the tremendous benefits that millions of people experience due to decreased food
insecurity, the impact of small errors is negligible.

Conclusion
With over 40 million Americans living in households struggling to consistently and
adequately feed their families, food insecurity is both a human rights and an economic problem
that must be addressed.67 Food insecurity not only significantly affects American health,
education, and criminal justice systems, but the ripple effects of decreased educational
attainment and poor health ultimately also harm the American economy; the total cost of food
insecurity to the U.S. due to both direct and indirect harms comes out to over $160 billion a
year.68 SNAP is one of the most effective federal food support programs that targets food
insecurity, lifting approximately 10 million Americans, including 5 million children, out of
poverty and food insecurity every year.69 SNAP helps families put food on the table, thereby
decreasing food insecurity and alleviating many of the detrimental effects of hunger.
Thus, instead of cutting SNAP funding along with funding for many other federal
nutritional assistance programs as proposed by President Trump, Congress must include more
funding for SNAP in the federal budget. More SNAP funding will allow for increased benefits to
food insecure families which will help alleviate food insecurity as has been proven in the past.
Not only will Congress be helping American families keep themselves and their children healthy,
educated, and out of the criminal justice system, Congress will be effectively investing in the
American people, helping the U.S. economy become stronger in the long run through increased
GDP and workforce productivity, increased job creation, and decreased costs from the Hunger
Bill.
ENDNOTES
1. Feeding America, Hunger and Poverty Facts
and Statistics, available at
http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-ameri
ca/impact-of-hunger/hunger-and-poverty/hunger
-and-poverty-fact-sheet.html?referrer=https://w
ww.google.com/ (last accessed April 2017);
2015 is the most recent year for which the
USDA has published data on food insecurity in
American households. United States Department
of Agriculture Economic Research Service,
Household Food Security in the United States
in 2015, available at https://www.ers.usda.gov
/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food
-security-in-the-us/media-resources.aspx#preval
ence (last accessed April 2017)
2. Feeding America, Child Hunger in
America, available at http://www.
feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/
impact-of-hunger/child-hunger/ (last accessed
April 2017)
3. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Food
Assistance Programs, available at
https://www.nutrition.gov/food-assistance-progr
ams (last accessed April 2017)
4. Steven Carlson and others, SNAP Works for
Americas Children, Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities (2016): 1, available at
http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/fil
es/9-29-16fa.pdf
5. Feeding America, Understanding Food
Insecurity, available at http://www.multivu.
com/assets/62036/photos/62036-fa-mmg2013ins
ecurityinfographic-original.jpg?1370628205
6. USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Women,
Infants, and Children,available at
https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/women-inf
ants-and-children-wic (last accessed April
2017); Nsikan Akpan, Trumps Budget Cuts
Drastically Into Science and Health Programs,
PBS, available at http://www.
pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trumps-budget-cuts-
drastically-science-health-programs/ (last
accessed April 2017)
7. Eliott McLaughlin, Meals on Wheels Could
Take Funding Hit in Trump Budget, CNN,
available at http://www.cnn.com/
2017/03/16/politics/meals-on-wheels-trump-bud
get-blueprint/ (last accessed April 2017)
8. The White House Office of the Press
Secretary, Press Briefing by Press Secretary
Sean Spicer, 3/16/2017, #25, available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/20
17/03/16/Press-briefing-press-secretary-sean-spi
cer-3162017-25
9. Dottie Rosenbaum and Brynne
Keith-Jennings, House 2017 Budget Plan
Would Slash SNAP by More Than $150 Billion
Over Ten Years, Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities (2016): 1, available at
http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/fil
es/3-21-16snap.pdf; Mandatory spending
programs are those which have been established
by Congress by authorization laws. Funding for
such programs cant be reduced without
changing the actual authorization law. Kimberly
Amadeo, Mandatory Spending: Definition,
Programs, and Impact, available at
https://www.thebalance.com/mandatory-spendin
g-definition-programs-and-impact-3305940 (last
accessed April 2017)
10. Rosenbaum and Keith-Jennings, House
2017 Budget Plan Would Slash SNAP by More
Than $150 Billion Over Ten Years.
11. USDA Economic Research Service,
Definitions of Food Security, available at
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-a
ssistance/food-security-in-the-us/definitions-of-f
ood-security.aspx#characteristics (last accessed
April 2017)
12. Feeding America, Hunger and Poverty
Facts and Statistics.
13. Ibid.
14. Billy Shore, Briefing Book 2016:
Childhood Hunger in America, No Kid Hungry
(2016): 5, available at https://www.nokid
hungry.org/pdfs/nkh-briefing-book-2016.pdf
15. Maureen Black, Household Food
Insecurities: Threats to Childrens Well-being,
American Psychological Association (2012),
available at http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/
resources/indicator/2012/06/household-food-ins
ecurities.aspx (last accessed April 2017); Hilary
Seligman, Barbara Laraia, and Margot Kushel,
Food Insecurity Is Associated with Chronic
Disease among Low-Income NHANES
Participants, Journal of Nutrition 140 (2010):
304310, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2806885/
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Craig Gundersen and others, Map the Meal
Gap 2016, Feeding America (2016): 39,
available at http://www.feedingamerica.org/h
unger-in-america/our-research/map-the-meal-ga
p/2014/map-the-meal-gap-2014-exec-summ.pdf
19. Ibid; Colleen Heflin, Kristine Siefert, and
David Williams, Food insufficiency and
womens mental health: Findings from a 3-year
panel of welfare recipients, Journal of Social
Science and Medicine 61 (2005): 1977, available
at http://www.isr.umich.edu/williams/All%
20Publications/DRW%20pubs%202005/food%2
0insuffiency.pdf
20. John Cook and others, Food Insecurity Is
Associated with Adverse Health Outcomes
among Human Infants and Toddlers, Journal of
Nutrition 134(6) (2004): 1435, available at
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/6/1432.full.pd
f+html
21. John Cook and Karen Jeng, Child Food
Insecurity: The Economic Impact on our
Nation, No Kid Hungry (2009): 19, available at
https://www.nokidhungry.org/sites/default/files/
child-economy-study.pdf
22. Tiffany Fitzpatrick et al. (2015), Looking
Beyond Income and Education: Socioeconomic
Status Gradients Among Future High-Cost Users
of Health Care, American Journal of Preventive
Medicine 49(2) (2015), available at
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0749379715000823
23. Cook and Jeng, Food Insecurity Is
Associated with Adverse Health Outcomes
among Human Infants and Toddlers. p. 14
24. Joshua Winicki and Kyle Jemison, Food
insecurity and hunger in the kindergarten
classroom: its effect on learning and growth,
Contemporary Economic Policy 21(2)
(2003):145-157
25. Edward Frongillo and others, Food Stamp
Program participation is associated with better
academic learning among school children,
26. Katherine Alaimo, Christine Olson, and
Edward Frongillo, Food Insufficiency and
American School-Aged Children's Cognitive,
Academic, and Psychosocial Development,
Pediatrics 108(1) (2001): 46, available at
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pedi
atrics/108/1/44.full.pdf
27. Cook and Jeng, Food Insecurity Is
Associated with Adverse Health Outcomes
among Human Infants and Toddlers. p. 23
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid. p. 20
30. Frongillo and others, Food Stamp Program
participation is associated with better academic
learning among school children; J. Michael
Murphy and others, Relationship between
hunger and psychosocial functioning in low-
income American children, Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry 37(2) (1998): 163, available at http://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S08085
6709638764?showall%3Dtrue%26via%3Dihub
31. Cook and Jeng, Food Insecurity Is
Associated with Adverse Health Outcomes
among Human Infants and Toddlers. p. 23
32. Ibid.
33. Prisons Bureau, Annual Determination of
Average Cost of Incarceration, Federal
Register, available at https://www.federalregister
.gov/documents/2015/03/09/2015-05437/annual-
determination-of-average-cost-of-incarceration
34. Donald Shepard, Elizabeth Setren, and
Donna Cooper, Hunger in America: The
Suffering We All Pay For, Brandeis University
Journal of Nutrition 136 (2006): 1077
and Center for American Progress, available at
http://people.brandeis.edu/~shepard/Hunger-201
1-briefing-PowerPoint.pdf
35. Ibid.
36. Cook and Jeng, Food Insecurity Is
Associated with Adverse Health Outcomes
among Human Infants and Toddlers. p. 23
37. Kathleen Short, The Research
SUPPLEMENTAL POVERTY MEASURE:
2011, U.S. Census Bureau, available at https://
www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/su
pplemental/research/Short_ResearchSPM2011.pdf
38. Steven Carlson and others, SNAP Works
for Americas Children, p. 1
39. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
SNAP Helps Families Afford Adequate Food,
available at http://www.cbpp.org/snap-
helps-families-afford-adequate-food-0
40. Steven Carlson and others, SNAP Works
for Americas Children, p. 1
41. Brynne Keith-Jennings, Documenting
SNAPs Powerful Impact, Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, available at
http://www.cbpp.org/blog/documenting-snaps-p
owerful-impact (last accessed April 2017)
42. Steven Carlson and others, SNAP Works
for Americas Children, p.2
43. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
Children with Access to SNAP Fare Better
Years Later, available at http://www.cbpp.org
/children-with-access-to-snap-fare-better-years-l
ater-4 (last accessed April 2017)
44. Ibid.
45. Steven Carlson and others, SNAP Works
for Americas Children, p.2
46. Diane Schanzenbach, Lauren Bauer, and
Greg Nantz, Twelve facts about food insecurity
and SNAP, The Hamilton Project from the
Brookings Institute, available at https://www.
brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/THP
_12Facts_SNAP.pdf
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. Kenneth Hanson, The Food Assistance
National Input-Output Multiplier (FANIOM)
Model and Stimulus Effects of SNAP,
Economic Research Report Number 103 (2010):
iv, available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/
webdocs/publications/err103/7996_err103_1_.p
df?v=41056
51. Ibid.
52. Rosenbaum and Keith-Jennings, House
2017 Budget Plan Would Slash SNAP by More
Than $150 Billion Over Ten Years.
53. Ibid.
54. Bhagyashree Katare and Jiyoon Kim,
Effects of the 2013 SNAP Benefit Cut on Food
Security, Indiana-Purdue University (2016): 1
55. Ibid. p.2
56. Ibid.
57. Allison Bovell and others, Making SNAP
Work for Families Leaving Poverty, Childrens
HealthWatch, available at
www.childrenshealthwatch.org/wp-content/uplo
ads/FINALPhilly-Food-to-web3.pdf; Stephanie
Ettinger de Cuba and others, Punishing Hard
Work: The Unintended Consequences of Cutting
SNAP Benefits, Childrens HealthWatch,
available at www.childrenshealthwatch.org/
publication/punishing-hard-work-unintendedcon
sequences-cutting-snap-benefits/
58. USDA Food and Nutrition Service,
American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of
2009, available at https://www.fns.usda.
gov/arra/snap (last accessed April 2017)
59. Mark Nord and Mark Prell, Food Security
of SNAP Recipients Improved Following the
2009 Stimulus Package, USDA Economic
Research Service, available at https://www.ers.
usda.gov/amber-waves/2011/june/food-security-
of-snap/ (last accessed April 2017)
60. Dan Merica, Trump's 'hard power budget'
increases defense spending, cuts to State Dept,
EPA, CNN, available at http://www.cnn.com/
2017/03/16/politics/donald-trump-budget-bluepr
int/ (last accessed April 2017)
61. Kenneth Hanson, The Food Assistance
National Input-Output Multiplier (FANIOM)
Model and Stimulus Effects of SNAP.
62. Donald Shepard, Elizabeth Setren, and
Donna Cooper, Hunger in America: The
Suffering We All Pay For.
63. USDA, SNAP Supports Work, available at
https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap
/ABAWD-Info13.pdf
64. Brynne Keith-Jennings, Documenting
SNAPs Powerful Impact.
65. Dottie Rosenbaum, SNAP Error Rates at
All-Time Lows, Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, available at http://www.cbpp.org/
sites/default/files/atoms/files/7-2-14fa.pdf p.1
66. Ibid.
67. Feeding America, Hunger and Poverty
Facts and Statistics.
68. Donald Shepard, Elizabeth Setren, and
Donna Cooper, Hunger in America: The
Suffering We All Pay For.
69. Steven Carlson and others, SNAP Works
for Americas Children, p.2