When it comes to feeding their families, millions of Americans depend on SNAP. Interviews are required as part of the program, however some participants find the bureaucratic process to be more onerous than others. Legal and student advocacy organizations are requesting that the USDA remove this requirement, claiming that it prevents people from receiving food aid that is desperately needed.
The crux of their argument? While the purpose of the interview is to ascertain eligibility and address applicant inquiries, it frequently becomes a maze for individuals who are most in need. As someone who has experienced this difficulty directly, Aviana Kimani is well-equipped to discuss it. She dropped out of the program since the interview was too much of a hassle while she was already juggling job, school, and a move. Hers isn’t an unusual tale. In 2021, researchers in California discovered that 31% of SNAP applicants in Los Angeles County were unsuccessful because they did not attend their scheduled interviews, while just 6% were rejected because they were not eligible.
Some people think the epidemic is a good reason to get rid of the requirement. The program’s potential was demonstrated when SNAP membership skyrocketed after limits were relaxed, such as interview requirements, removing bureaucratic hurdles. The numbers don’t lie: while the recession of 2008 caused food insecurity to surge, levels of hunger stayed relatively constant during the pandemic. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities’ Ty Jones-Cox says that the loosening of SNAP requirements is directly responsible for this stability.
It was anticipated that there would be an increase in hunger when the COVID-19 epidemic began. There were certain regulatory changes and changes to SNAP that made it easier for families to get benefits during that time, she said.
However, the USDA is still watchful. Their formal position? Interviews play a vital role in confirming eligibility and offering program details. The interview requirement was carried over from the food stamp program, which is the program’s predecessor, according to their historical logic.
Is the possible loss of program integrity worth the potential gain in access and less bureaucracy? That is the crux of the dispute. The answer, according to advocates, is an emphatic yes. Aaron Ament, president of the Student Defense Organization, agrees and stresses the difficulties students have while trying to balance employment, school, and SNAP interviews.
