Nearly Fifteen Percent of U.S. Households Were Food Insecure Sometime in 2008, According to USDA

The prevalence of food insecurity (the percentage of households with low  or very low food security) hovered between 10 and 12 percent from 1998  to 2007, before rising to 14.6 percent in 2008, according to USDA’s analysis  of CPS data. USDA recently reported that about 17 million households in the United  States (or 14.6 percent of all U.S. households) were food insecure at some  point in 2008. Among households with incomes below the poverty line, those headed by  single parents, and those headed by minorities, prevalence rates for food  insecurity were higher than the national average rate of 14.6 percent. were food insecure. However, in more than 4.3 million of these households,  children—as well as adults—experienced food insecurity sometime during  the year. The Federal Government Spent More Than $62.5 Billion on 18 Food Assistance Programs in Fiscal Year 2008

		Spending on the 18 Food Assistance Programs Totaled more than $62.5 Billion in Fiscal Year 2008

The federal government spent approximately $62.7 billion on 18 domestic  food and nutrition assistance programs in fiscal year 2008, with the 5  largest programs accounting for 95 percent of total spending. Spending on Most of the Large Programs— Excluding SNAP—Has Remained Stable

Since 1995 SNAP spending has fluctuated, while spending on the other  large programs—the National School Lunch Program, WIC, the School  Breakfast Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program— remained relatively stable. Economic conditions—such as unemployment or poverty—affect  spending on food assistance programs. Research Shows 7 Programs Have Positive Outcomes Related to Their Goals but Little Is Known about the Remaining 11 Programs

		Seven Programs— Including Four of the Five Largest—Generally Show Positive Outcomes Consistent with Many of Their Program Goals

Research suggests that participation in seven of the programs we  reviewed, including four of the five largest—WIC, the National School  Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, and SNAP—is associated  with positive health and nutrition outcomes consistent with most of these  programs’ goals, including raising the level of nutrition among low-income  households, safeguarding the health and wellbeing of the nation’s children,  improving the health of Americans, and strengthening the agricultural  economy (see appendix III for summary of program goals). Little Is Known about the Health and Nutrition Outcomes of the Remaining 11 Programs

Little is known about the effectiveness of the remaining 11 programs  because they have not been well studied. The System of Multiple Programs and Agencies That Provide Food Assistance Helps Address a Variety of Needs but Can Result in Overlap and Inefficiency

		The 18 Food Assistance Programs Are Designed to Meet a Variety of Needs

Federal food assistance is provided through a decentralized system that  involves multiple federal, state, and local providers and covers 18 different  programs. By targeting various needs, the 18 food assistance programs help increase  access to food for vulnerable populations, according to several agency  officials and local providers we spoke with. The Multiple Food Assistance Programs Show Signs of Program Overlap, Which Can Result in Inefficient Use of Resources, and USDA Has Taken Some Steps to Address This

The federal food assistance structure—with its 18 programs—shows signs  of program overlap, which can create unnecessary work and waste  administrative resources, creating inefficiency. GAO has found that program overlap—having multiple programs provide  comparable benefits to similar target populations—is an inefficient use of  federal funds. Overlapping eligibility requirements create duplicative work for  providers and applicants. We also met with  federal officials and relevant experts. Other programs that have nutrition  education components but primarily provide food assistance—such as the  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Special Supplemental  Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), the National  School Lunch Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program—are  included in this review. These site  visits also helped us better understand the implications of providing food  assistance through multiple programs and agencies. Food Assistance: Research Provides Limited Information on the  Effectiveness of Specific WIC Nutrition Services.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government spends billions of dollars every year on domestic food assistance programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture administers most of these programs and monitors the prevalence of food insecurity--that is, the percentage of U.S. households that were unable to afford enough food sometime during the year. Other federal agencies also fund food assistance programs; however, comprehensive and consolidated information on the multiple programs is not readily available. Congress asked GAO to examine: 1) the prevalence of food insecurity in the United States, 2) spending on food assistance programs, 3) what is known about the effectiveness of these programs in meeting program goals, and 4) the implications of providing food assistance through multiple programs and agencies. GAO's steps included analyzing food security and program spending data, analyzing studies on program effectiveness, analyzing relevant federal laws and regulations, conducting site visits, and interviewing relevant experts and officials.

What GAO Found

The prevalence of food insecurity hovered between 10 and 12 percent over the past decade until it rose to nearly 15 percent (or about 17 million households) in 2008. Households with incomes below the poverty line, households headed by single parents, minority households, and those with children had higher than average rates of food insecurity. These households were more likely to report, for example, that they had been hungry, but didn't eat, because there wasn't enough money for food. While some households were able to protect children from the effects of food insecurity, many could not. In more than 4.3 million households, children--as well as adults--were affected by food insecurity sometime during the year. The federal government spent more than $62.5 billion on 18 domestic food and nutrition assistance programs in fiscal year 2008. The five largest food assistance programs--Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the National School Lunch Program; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); the Child and Adult Care Food Program; and the School Breakfast Program--accounted for 95 percent of total spending on the 18 programs. Since 1995 SNAP spending has fluctuated while spending on the other large programs has remained relatively stable. Economic conditions--such as unemployment or poverty--and other factors can affect spending on some programs, particularly SNAP. Research suggests that participation in 7 of the programs we reviewed--including WIC, the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, and SNAP--is associated with positive health and nutrition outcomes consistent with programs' goals, such as raising the level of nutrition among low-income households, safeguarding the health and wellbeing of the nation's children, and strengthening the agricultural economy. However, little is known about the effectiveness of the remaining 11 programs because they have not been well studied. Federal food assistance is provided through a decentralized system that involves multiple federal, state, and local organizations. The complex network of 18 food assistance programs emerged piecemeal over the past several decades to meet various needs. Agency officials and local providers told us that the multiple food assistance programs help to increase access to food for vulnerable or target populations. However, the 18 food assistance programs show signs of program overlap, which can create unnecessary work and lead to inefficient use of resources. For example, some of the programs provide comparable benefits to similar target populations. Further, overlapping eligibility requirements create duplicative work for both service providers and applicants. Consolidating programs, however, entails difficult trade-offs. Such actions could improve efficiency and save administrative dollars but could also make it more difficult to achieve the goals of targeting service to specific populations, such as pregnant women, children, and the elderly.