Expert Q&A: Shaefer explains immediate hardships and loss of SNAP benefits

Millions of people will lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits Nov. 1, forcing them to make tough choices beyond putting food on their kitchen tables, according to a University of Michigan expert. 

SNAP is part of the overall family budget, which means individuals must decide how much to spend on food and other expenses such as rent and utilities, said Luke Shaefer, the Hermann and Amalie Kohn Professor of Social Justice and Social Policy and professor of public policy.

Shaefer also is the faculty director of Poverty Solutions, a university-wide initiative that aims to prevent and alleviate poverty through action-based research. He studies poverty and social welfare policy, with a focus on tax credits as a poverty reduction tool. 

What impact will the SNAP suspension have on grocery stores? 

When we think about the impact on local communities, a lot of people are focusing on what's going to happen to families as they face more food insecurity and hardship. But SNAP constitutes about $7.8 billion that's being spent in communities on a monthly basis. Where does that money get spent? It gets spent at grocery stores that take EBT cards—which is the vast majority of them—and it's a huge part of their revenue. So we're not just talking about families being impacted. Grocery stores will have to make decisions about how to make up for not having that money. They may lay people off, and that will ripple through the economy, too.

When we talk about the ripple effect, we must include children. What do you expect will happen to their school performance, attendance and long-term development?

When we think about kids and what happens when we suspend SNAP benefits, we already have evidence from the regular benefit cycle. We know that when SNAP benefits start to run low, behavioral challenges spike in schools and performance on tests goes down. We know that SNAP and the food it provides have a positive impact—especially for young children—and access to SNAP in childhood can improve health in adulthood. So if this were to go on for a month or two, we'd expect to see declines in school performance, possibly more absenteeism, and the long-term effects could last for years.

How long can food banks fill the gap?

We have to remember, we're talking about $7.8 billion not cycling through the economy or going toward people's food budgets. There's just no way food pantries can make up for that kind of change. I'd expect to see longer lines and a significant surge in demand, which will put a lot of pressure on our systems. It will only get worse with time, but even in the first month, food banks won't be able to fill that gap. This is a fundamental part of the safety net we're talking about.

Looking at the big picture, how would this shift, in terms of long-term poverty, impact the country?

The money from SNAP cycles through communities, and losing it could create major economic pressure—possibly even lead to recession or deeper hardship, especially in rural areas that depend heavily on SNAP benefits. So yes, it's possible that if this goes on long enough, it could contribute to a recession and widespread hardship. We've already talked about what it will do to children. This is a serious issue with serious consequences—both short and long term—for families and communities.