Skip to main content
Harvard Public Health Magazine

Exploring what works, what doesn’t, and why.

Subscribe

Exploring what works, what doesn’t, and why.

Subscribe
Explore
All Topics
3D illustration: A full grocery basket with lit candles reading “SNAP60”. Confetti is in the background.

Opinion

As food stamps turn 60, four reasons to celebrate

The program reduces food insecurity and poverty.
As food stamps turn 60, four reasons to celebrate
Filed Under
Policy & Practice
Republish
Written by
Christopher Bosso
Published
August 28, 2024
Republish this article
Read Time
4 min

Quick, name one of America’s most successful social welfare programs. (Vote in our poll.) You probably didn’t come up with food stamps—the program about to observe its 60th birthday.

That’s a shame. I’ve spent years researching the history, political resilience, and impact of what is now the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. In an era of cynicism about government, SNAP stands out for doing its job. Yet most Americans, even those who benefit from SNAP, are unaware of its scope and importance.

Signed into law on August 31, 1964, the nation’s largest food assistance program now makes a difference in the lives of some 42 million Americans. Here are four reasons why SNAP is worth celebrating as a government program that works.

SNAP feeds many Americans

SNAP does what its name suggests: It supplements food purchasing power, thereby alleviating household food insecurity, reducing poverty, and improving health. Any household with gross income below 130 percent of the federal poverty line—such as a family of four earning less than $47,554—is eligible. It is flexible—benefit levels are adjusted for household income and size, and it permits income deductions for basic needs, such as rent and a car. And SNAP tides people over when they have short-term swings in household income, as it did during the COVID-19 pandemic. SNAP beneficiaries include active military service members with families, seasonal workers, and college students—anyone whose income does not keep up with routine expenses.

Sign up for Harvard Public Health

Exploring what works, what doesn't, and why.

Delivered to your inbox weekly.

  • By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to receive email communications from Harvard Public Health.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

SNAP offers dignity and choice

SNAP’s roots are in a Depression-era program that enabled enrollees to “purchase” food at local retailers with postage-stamp-sized coupons—hence “food stamps.” Paper was phased out in the early 2000s in favor of the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card, onto which a specific dollar amount in benefits is loaded each month. The EBT card is one of SNAP’s superpowers. Program enrollees go to one of approximately 250,000 participating food retailers, from Walmart to the local bodega, select their groceries, and use the EBT card to pay. That’s it. No colored coupons that shame the user at checkout. No box of food picked out by someone else. With the EBT card, the SNAP user is a consumer, like any other American.

SNAP has broad support

The key puzzle in my research was how SNAP has endured over six decades despite efforts by some conservatives to cut back or eliminate the program. The answer: it’s about food. Even as the parties spar over SNAP rules, the program overall enjoys wide public support. Americans may not like “welfare” in the abstract, but they also don’t want fellow Americans to go hungry. SNAP’s focus on food is key to its longevity.

SNAP is politically viable

While expanded cash assistance has similar anti-poverty effects, the failure to extend pandemic-era supplements suggests that SNAP’s “in kind” arrangement poses fewer political problems. Political feasibility matters.

In the $112.8 billion program, fraud by SNAP recipients is rare. Yes, an occasional SNAP user sells an EBT card at a discount for cash, but fraud rates are a little over one percent of benefits provided. A bigger problem is theft of benefits through card skimmers at checkout, accounting for millions of dollars of losses to enrollees who can ill afford them. Another occurs when states miscalculate benefits.

Could SNAP be better? Sure. Two suggestions:

Make it easier to apply for food stamps

SNAP benefits are funded by the federal government, but the program is administered through the states. Some states make applying as easy as possible, while others demand excessive household details or require in-person interviews, among other administrative burdens. Where you live in America should not determine whether you can access benefits to which you are entitled.

Loosen purchase restrictions on food stamps

Urban legends notwithstanding, you cannot use SNAP to buy cigarettes and booze. But you also cannot use it for diapers or soap, or even hot prepared foods. The program still reflects 1960s-era assumptions that mom is at home cooking from scratch, not rushing from work to cobble dinner together. That $4.99 Costco rotisserie chicken is a lifesaver for working parents. Congress must update SNAP to the realities of life in 2024.

SNAP works. Without it, tens of millions of Americans would be far worse off. Short of addressing poverty—the root cause of food insecurity—SNAP ensures that all Americans get a chance at a decent diet without sacrificing all personal autonomy and pride. That’s no small achievement.

Sources images: iStock

Filed Under
Policy & Practice
Contributors
CB
Christopher Bosso
Christopher Bosso is a professor of public policy and politics at Northeastern University. His most recent book is Why SNAP Works: A Political History—and Defense—of the Food Stamp Program (University of California Press).

More in Policy & Practice

See all