Bill Overview
Title: SNAP Theft Protection Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish criteria for state agencies to identify Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits stolen by identity theft or typical skimming practices and provide for the reissuance of stolen SNAP benefits to households that meet such criteria. USDA must periodically review and modify its regulations to take into account evolving technology and the threat landscape to better protect against theft.
Sponsors: Rep. Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [D-MD-2]
Target Audience
Population: People receiving SNAP benefits globally
Estimated Size: 41000000
- SNAP provides assistance to low-income individuals and families, so the target population includes those currently receiving SNAP benefits.
- Identity theft and skimming practices affect individuals whose personal information or SNAP benefits have been compromised.
- The USDA's measures will primarily impact those who are victims of SNAP benefit theft.
- Global estimates of SNAP beneficiaries can give an upper limit on those potentially impacted by improved theft protections.
Reasoning
- The SNAP Theft Protection Act is primarily targeted toward SNAP beneficiaries who are victims of benefit theft or who are at risk of theft.
- The allocation of funds is constrained, and not all SNAP beneficiaries will benefit directly, but those who do will experience significant positive impacts on their financial security and wellbeing.
- We will consider individuals across different demographics including age, gender, occupation, and geographic location to better simulate the range of potential impacts.
- The duration of impact is considered to be long-term for those directly benefited, as the restoration of benefits can alleviate ongoing financial strain.
- We expect high-impact cases to be less common but highly significant for those individuals, whereas low and medium impacts may be more common due to preventive benefits.
Simulated Interviews
Retail worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely heavily on SNAP benefits to feed my children and myself.
- I've had issues in the past with unauthorized transactions on my EBT card.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Disabled, unemployed (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've had my benefits stolen before, it's devastating.
- Anything to protect my benefits is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know there are protections against theft because it happened to some of my friends.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired (Rural Ohio)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I live on a fixed income, so losing any amount of SNAP benefits due to theft would be difficult.
- This policy seems very necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Construction worker (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've heard of skimming practices, and it worries me.
- More protection makes me feel more secure about my benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Chef (Chicago, IL)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My situation makes me dependent on SNAP right now.
- Knowing it's protected helps me sleep at night.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Recent Graduate (Seattle, WA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't have experience with stolen benefits, but I'm glad to know there's a safety net.
- Hopefully, this increases confidence in the system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Taxi Driver (New York, NY)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Losing benefits to theft would be catastrophic for my family.
- I'm relieved that my benefits will be better protected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Nurse (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm aware of theft risks but haven't experienced them.
- It's good to hear protection is increasing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Freelancer in tech industry (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Technology has changed so much about financial safety, and it's a relief to see SNAP is not being left behind.
- Preventive protections are crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)
Year 3: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)
Year 5: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 10: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Year 100: $400000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $500000000)
Key Considerations
- The balance between technological infrastructure cost and fraud reduction is crucial for efficiency.
- Successful implementation requires collaboration between federal, state, and local agencies.
- The adaptability of security measures to evolving technological threats is a continuous challenge.
- Long-term ROI must factor in both direct economic benefits and qualitative improvements in household stability.