The Changing Food Assistance Landscape: The Food Stamp Program in a Post-Welfare Reform Environment

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) dramatically transformed and continues to transform the food assistance landscape in the United States. The Act cut more funds from the Food Stamp Program than it did from any other program, through reductions in benefits per person and restrictions in eligibility. Despite these cuts, food stamps now have a more prominent role in the post-welfare reform social safety net because the largest cash-assistance entitlement program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), was replaced with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, a nonentitlement program. This leaves the Food Stamp Program as one of the only remaining entitlement programs available to almost all low-income households.food stamps, transfer payments, food consumption, nutrition, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety, Food Security and Poverty,

State-Level and County-Level Estimates of Health Care Costs Associated with Food Insecurity.

IntroductionFood insecurity, or uncertain access to food because of limited financial resources, is associated with higher health care expenditures. However, both food insecurity prevalence and health care spending vary widely in the United States. To inform public policy, we estimated state-level and county-level health care expenditures associated with food insecurity.MethodsWe used linked 2011-2013 National Health Interview Survey/Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (NHIS/MEPS) data to estimate average health care costs associated with food insecurity, Map the Meal Gap data to estimate state-level and county-level food insecurity prevalence (current though 2016), and Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care data to account for local variation in health care prices and intensity of use. We used targeted maximum likelihood estimation to estimate health care costs associated with food insecurity, separately for adults and children, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsAmong NHIS/MEPS participants, 10,054 adults and 3,871 children met inclusion criteria. Model estimates indicated that food insecure adults had annual health care expenditures that were $1,834 (95$1,073-2,595, P < .001) higher than food secure adults. For children, estimates were 80 higher, but this finding was not significant (95% CI, -$171 to$329, P = .53). The median annual health care cost associated with food insecurity was $687,041,000 (25th percentile,$239,675,000; 75th percentile, $1,140,291,000). The median annual county-level health care cost associated with food insecurity was$4,433,000 (25th percentile, $1,774,000; 75th percentile,$11,267,000). Cost variability was related primarily to food insecurity prevalence.ConclusionsHealth care expenditures associated with food insecurity vary substantially across states and counties. Food insecurity policies may be important mechanisms to contain health care expenditures

A COMPARISON OF FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS IN MEXICO AND THE UNITED STATES

The social safety nets in Mexico and the United States rely heavily on food assistance programs to ensure food security and access to safe and nutritious foods. To achieve these general goals, both countries' programs are exclusively paid for out of internal funds and both target low-income households and/or individuals. Despite those similarities, economic, cultural, and demographic differences between the countries lead to differences in their abilities to ensure food security and access to safe and nutritious foods. Mexico uses geographic and household targeting to distribute benefits while the United States uses only household targeting. U.S. food assistance programs tend to be countercyclical (as the economy expands, food assistance expenditures decline and vice-versa). Mexican food assistance programs appear to be neither counter- nor procyclical. Food assistance programs have little effect on the extent of poverty in Mexico, while the opposite is true in the United States, primarily because the level of benefits as a percentage of income is much lower in Mexico and a much higher percentage of eligible households receive benefits from food assistance programs in the United States.Food assistance programs, social safety net, targeting methods, macroeconomy, poverty, Progresa, DICONSA, FIDELIST, LICONSA, DIF, Food Stamp Program, WIC, the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety, Food Security and Poverty,

A CONSIDERATION OF THE DEVOLUTION OF FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL POLICY

Diverse needs and preferences across the United States provide justification for the devolution, or decentralization, of many Federal Government programs to the State or local level. The move toward devolution, however, has not been evidenced in U.S. agricultural policy, despite significant differences across States in such areas as commodity production, production costs, income distribution, and opportunities for off-farm work. The existing structure of USDA funding and program delivery already reflects an appreciation of the gains from devolution, with some programs accommodating differences in State and regional preferences. This report considers the implications of devolving $22 billion in 2003 budget outlays, mostly for domestic commodity and natural resource programs and rural development and housing programs. The local knowledge of needs and references is valuable and can provide the basis for increased program efficiency.Public policy, devolution, agricultural policy, program delivery, Agricultural and Food Policy,

COMPASS: a 2.6m telescope for CMBR polarization studies

COMPASS (COsmic Microwave Polarization at Small Scale) is an experiment devoted to measuring the polarization of the CMBR. Its design and characteristics are presented

Temperature inversion symmetry in the Casimir effect with an antiperiodic boundary condition

We present explicitly another example of a temperature inversion symmetry in the Casimir effect for a nonsymmetric boundary condition. We also give an interpretation for our result.Comment: 4 page