The American Food Stamp Program Should Continue to Be Funded by World Food Program - Term Paper Example

? Report-Revised Version al Affiliation) Address: Address: Department: With the utmost respect it is my pleasure to present this paper titled ‘‘Report- Revised Version”. While undertaking this assignment I have tried my best to create a sensible, relevant and meaningful report and tried to defend my enthymeme as much as I can. I have gathered all the up-dated information required for writing this report and tried to use that information as intelligently as possible to prepare a report worth the time and effort spent on it. I hope that it will provide a relevant perspective on the importance of the existence and continuity of the US government’s food stamp program, and why the WFP should continue funding it. The paper provides offers an insightful look into the program, how it works and how it has performed since its inception decades ago, and its completion has been aided by (among other things) the support and commitment I received from the faculty shown to me by the faculty and my professor. Other important sources and contacts also provided me with great in-depth understanding of the scenarios and information. I will be available to answer any question for clarification. Yours Sincerely, Table of Contents 1.0……… Introduction 2.0……… Problem Statement 3.0……… Method Used 4.0……… Findings 5.0……… Analysis 6.0……… Conclusion 7.0……… References 8.0……… Appendices Enthymeme Before I introduce or discuss anything, I would like to state the enthymeme/thesis of this paper. This will form the foundation for all my arguments, statements and insinuations throughout the paper. The enthymeme therefore reads as follows: The American food stamp program should continue and the World Food Program should continue supporting and funding it. Executive Summary Over the years, there have been arguments and debates over whether WFP should continue channeling funds towards the Food Stamp Program. Some have been misdirected, while others are logical and credible. So far, the program is the United States’ most important anti-hunger initiative. More than 75 percent of the beneficiaries come from households with children, with about a third of them being elderly people or the disabled.  In contrast with other means-tested initiatives that are specific to certain groups of low-income families/individuals, almost all low-income households can benefit from the program. This paper will attempt to explore and divulge the benefits of the program and why it deserves to be funded long-term; all this while the aim will be to defend and support the enthymeme that has been stated above. 1.0 Introduction According to Ohls & Beebout (2009), the food stamp program is an initiative of the American government that was initiated in 1989. Since then it has become a central component of America’s public assistance system that serves over 30 million participants of low income families and has outlays of over $25 billion. It is primarily meant to offer some form of assistance to low income families and low income households on the sole basis that they require financial aid to have meals and eat irrespective of age, race, creed, sex and disability (Ohls & Beebout, 2009). It is also viewed as the cornerstone of almost all nutrition aid programs initiated by the federal government, as well as being the core line of defense against poor nutrition, hunger and if necessary, starvation. The program helps s lower-income families acquire a variety of food products at retail (Slomba, 2008). It is also referred to (officially) as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and there are two key aspects that are examined in order to determine one’s eligibility. These are assets and income (Ronald, 2007). The other criterion applied is the gross income redline, which is set at a certain percentage of the poverty level (usually 130%). In 2009, federal taxpayers contributed $56 billion towards the program, more than three times the $18 billion it cost them in 2000. Also in 2009, a household of four was guaranteed a maximum monthly stipend of $668. Currently, the number of beneficiaries is almost 30 million, marking a huge rise since the 17 million recorded in the year 2000. Although the American government is the major funder of the program, the World Food Program (WFP) also contributes towards the sustainability and continuity of the program (Nilsen, 2011). 2.0 Problem Statement According to Dunn, (2010), the Food Stamp Program has been with us for almost five decades now, and during that period it has proved its worth not just to the beneficiaries, but also the government and other donors like the WFP. Almost four years after the recession, levels of hunger are still high in America. The financial and economic crisis that gripped the country in 2008 resulted in a sudden increase in hunger in the country. Due to layoffs, salary cuts and increased prices of goods, more families, households and individuals were forced to survive on tight budgets and as a result they were forced to participate in the food program. The government was forced to increase the amount of funds dedicated towards supporting the program, and this led to an outcry from sections of the media, independent organizations and politicians. This outcry was laced with monetary undertones that were aimed at discrediting the logic behind the program. Surprisingly, however, there was little offered in terms of feasible and practical alternatives (Richardson, 2011). This paper primarily focuses on providing credible reasons why the food stamp program should continue and why the WFP should not shy away from continuing to fund it. 3.0 Method Used A variety of research techniques and methods were employed in order to acquire credible data and information pertaining to a number of factors. These factors include, among others, the levels of hunger in the United States, the effectiveness of the program in general and the opinion of a broad section of individuals drawn from the government, communities, community based organizations (CBOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the beneficiaries themselves. The techniques used were sampling, questionnaires, interviews. Samples groups and individuals were drawn and selected from communities and the government. Since this was a quantitative study/research, the sampling process provided room for the drawing of inferences and conclusions about the performance of the larger groups (the population). During the sampling process, all the major sampling techniques were applied. These include simple random sampling, stratified sampling, cluster sampling and systematic sampling. Questionnaires were used to obtain answers to the various research questions connected to the study conducted on the food stamp program. The questions were both closed and open-ended, and concentrated on getting the persons filling them to offer detailed, relevant and precise answers in relation to the program. Structured and unstructured interviews were employed in the gathering and collection of information from government officials, beneficiaries of the program and independent organizations (CBOs & NGOs). These interviews were either mailed to the interviewees or conducted personally (one-on-one). 4.0 Findings According to the latest statistics forming part of the government report that was released in December 2011, there is reason to worry (Richardson, 2011). In 2011, 18.2 million households, 15.5 percent of households (about one in seven), were food insecure. These are the highest figures ever recorded in America (Nilsen, 2011). In 2011, approximately a third of food-insecure households (5.4 percent of all American households) had extremely low food security (compared with 4.1 percent in 2007). In such households, some people had their food intake reduced and were compelled to suffer a disruption in their usual eating patterns. This was mainly as a result of the food insecurity in their respective households (Richardson, 2011). The following is a summary of those statistics as released by the United States Census Bureau: In 2011, 47.5 million people were in poverty (compared to 37.3 million in 2007). This was the fourth consecutive yearly rise in hunger levels, and was the highest since poverty rates were first published 52 years ago (Richardson, 2011).  In 2011, the poverty rate for minors increased from 20.9 percent to 22.5 percent (Dunn, 2010). 49.9 million people lack medical insurance (Nilsen, 2011). Below is a graphic illustration depicting how the beneficiaries of the program are distributed across the United States. Very High High Moderate Low Very Low 5.0 Analysis Looking at the above statistics, it is clear why there is a need for WFP to continue funding the program. Although some people argue that so much has already been invested in the program, it is wise to recognize that times and things have also changed. The statistics above point to a bleak outlook of the general situation in terms of hunger in the United States, and it would be ignorant to present arguments that would worsen the current conditions instead of providing remedies. In fact, before the recession in 2008, things were much better compared to what is depicted above. In addition to this, the program has been found to bring other benefits apart from just nutritional assistance. These include health benefits as well as community enhancement for the creation of a better future for the younger generations (Ronald, 2007). 6.0 Conclusion In conclusion, I would like to say that the food stamp program has proved to be a vital aspect in fighting hunger in United States. I consider it to be important in driving the nation and keeping the population healthy and capable. There have been setbacks and hurdles along the way, and it has been disputed and dismissed by a multitude of people since it was initiated. The most important thing, however, is that its positives far outweigh its negatives. In rural America, for example, it has been established that the program is critical in sustaining populations that are more susceptible to hunger due to unpredictable weather patterns as well as inaccessibility to better income generating opportunities (Ohls & Beebout, 2009). In addition to this, other people who reside in informal settlements and cannot afford to take care of themselves (at least nutritionally) have benefited immensely from the program. I would like to state with conviction that I believe in the food stamp program and I support the idea of the WFP extending its financial support to the American government so as to keep it alive, just as it should be. References Brown, K. (2009). Food Stamp Program: Options for Delivering Financial Incentives. London: Macmillan Publishers. Dunn, C.M. (2010). Food stamps: what they are, how they work, how to get them. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin. Nilsen, S.R. (2011). Food Stamp Program: States Have Made Progress Reducing Payments. New York: Alfred Knopf. Ohls, J. C., & Beebout, H. (2009). Design tradeoffs, policy, and impact of the food stamp programs: a mathematica policy research study. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. Richardson, J. (2011). Food Stamps: appropriations, ceilings, benefit reductions and programs. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Ronald, F.K. (2007). Budgeting entitlements: the politics of food stamps. New York: McGraw Hill. Slomba, T.E. (2008). Food Stamp Program: Characteristics of Households Affected by Hunger. London: Randall Press. Read More