The Shutdown Proved That the USA Needs SNAP

Since the Food Stamp Act of 1964 and until the recent government shutdown, the Food Stamp program (renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), had operated without interruption. Most SNAP participants have their grocery needs satisfied thanks to the SNAP subsidies, with only 35% of SNAP households also using community resources such as food pantries or food banks. That is, prior to the shutdown, 65% of the 22.4 million SNAP participating households (approximately 42 million people) did not rely on food pantries.

The shutdown created the conditions for a natural experiment where we could see what the USA would experience without SNAP outside of the conditions of a laboratory. We learned that the 12% of Americans who rely on SNAP find it vital for their household budgets. During the shutdown, lines at food pantries lengthened, and, to “stretch” resources, many food pantries provided households with less food. While many communities stepped up to provide food pantries with more resources, this short-term experiment left open the question of when donor fatigue would set in.

Consider that in 2023, 9.3 million households (24.4 million persons) received free groceries from a food pantry or other community resource. Without SNAP, the 65% of SNAP participating households that had not previously relied on food pantries would likely start relying on food pantries, adding approximately 14.6 million households to food pantry lines.

Adding another 14.6 million households to the preexisting 9.3 million households that use food pantries would entail scaling up the network to an unprecedented level and restructuring it. This would come at a high cost and cannot be accomplished in the short-term. Further, the long-term resources available for such scaling up are uncertain—while Americans are generous in the short-term, establishing an equitable and resourced scaled-up network would require long-term private donations to food assistance at a scale never before shown. Donor fatigue would likely set in.

Reductions in SNAP will fall on the shoulders of communities.

But even if food pantries could provide food to millions more households, the amount of food that pantries typically provide is far less than average SNAP benefits. SNAP provides to participants, on average, approximately $188 per person per month in electronic benefits available to purchase groceries. A family of four receives approximately $750 per month, or $9,000 annually. In contrast, food pantries or food banks typically provide anywhere between the equivalent of two to five days’ worth of food per month. The US Department of Agriculture “thrifty” food plan costs out one week of food for a family of 4 at $231. That is, even if a family were lucky enough to get a full week of food per month from a food pantry, that value would be far less than the value of SNAP benefits (e.g., $2,770 vs. $9,000 per year).

During the government shutdown and pause in SNAP benefits, I toured a large food pantry 30 miles outside of Pittsburgh. Staff reported a surge in new enrollees (in one week getting approximately seven times the number of new families to serve than usual), calls from people outside of the pantry’s service area needing help, and needing volunteers to direct traffic during open hours. The increase in monetary and food donations could not keep pace with the surge in demand, forcing a reduction in each household’s food allotment. Participants lined up well before the pantry opened due to anxiety about food running out.

While SNAP is intended to make it possible for households to meet their monthly food needs, the food pantry and food bank network is not designed to do such. The network was originally designed to cover the period between when one applied for Food Stamps and when expedited benefits would start to flow, which used to be approximately four days but has increased to seven days.

The Trump administration is exploring ways to reduce the number of SNAP participants such as having shorter periods for recertification or making it mandatory for all SNAP households to reapply. The administration hopes that such barriers will discourage people from receiving SNAP.

Reductions in SNAP will fall on the shoulders of communities. The short, natural experiment we all witnessed reinforces that SNAP is the nation’s first line of defense against hunger and food insecurity and food pantries can only be a secondary and supplemental source of food. Food pantries and food banks cannot substitute for a robust, reliable, government-funded food safety net.