FNS Documents & Resources

This final rule implements those nondiscretionary provisions pertaining to increased limits for civil money penalties for trafficking in benefit redemption instruments and for selling firearms, ammunition, explosives, or controlled substances for benefit redemption instruments. The intended effect of this rule is to raise the amounts of civil money penalties paid by authorized firms for the types of violations specified.

This document contains a correction to the final regulation (59 FR 5697) published on Feb. 8, 1994. The regulations concerned certain provisions of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act Amendments of 1991 that dealt with disabled persons in group homes and income exclusions for Plans for Achieving Self-Support.

The Maryland demonstration was the first statewide roll-out of an electronic benefit transfer (EBT) system involving multiple programs on a single card. The goal was to confirm that a large- scale, multi-program EBT system is technically feasible and determine whether such a system can achieve cost-neutrality government-wide while maintaining high quality service for recipients. The test involved food stamps plus five cash-benefit programs: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Bonus Child Support for AFDC Recipients, Disability Assistance Loan Program, Non-Public Assistance Child Support, and Public Assistance for Adults. All parts of Maryland, both urban and rural, were converted to EBT.

This rule proposes to amend Food Stamp Program regulations to implement section 13914 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act), which amended section 5(k)(2)(F) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to require that the full value of any public or general assistance housing payments made to a third party on behalf of a household residing in transitional housing for the homeless be excluded from the household's income for food stamp purposes.

This action places into final form an interim Food Stamp Program rule published on June 7, 1989. The interim rulemaking implemented Food Stamp Program provisions contained in the Hunger Prevention Act of 1988.

The objectives of the demonstration were to determine the technological feasibility of offline EBT; whether it would be accepted by stakeholder groups; and whether it would be cost-effective.

This final rule expands the food stamp eligibility of certain blind and disabled individuals residing in group homes and excludes income of an SSI recipient necessary for the fulfillment of a Plan for Achieving Self Support (PASS).

This rule proposes to freeze the performance-based grants at the level the state agencies received in fiscal year 1993, for two years from promulgation of this rule in final form.

A fundamental issue in the design of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) is the form benefits should take. Advocates of the current coupon system argue that coupons are a direct and inexpensive way to ensure that food stamp benefits are used to purchase food. Coupon advocates contend that, despite some evidence of fraud and benefit diversion under the current system, food stamps are used largely to purchase food. In addition, they contend that coupons give household food budgets some measure of protection against other demands on limited household resources. Advocates of cashing out the FSP argue that the current system limits the food-purchasing choices of recipients and places a stigma on participation. Moreover, they cite the cumbersome nature and cost of coupon issuance, transaction, and redemption.

A fundamental issue in the design of the Food Stamp Program is the form the benefits take. From the inception of pilot programs in the early 1960s to the contemporary program, the vehicle of choice has been the food stamp coupon, a voucher that can be redeemed for food at authorized retailers. For nearly that same period analyses have considered the relative merits of cash--or, in practice, checks--as an alternative. Advocates of the current coupon system argue that coupons are a direct and inexpensive way to ensure that food stamp benefits are used to purchase food, that the unauthorized use of food stamps is relatively limited despite some evidence of fraud and benefit diversion, and that coupons provide some measure of protection to food budgets from other demands on limited household resources. Advocates of cash benefits argue that the current system limits the purchasing choices of participants; places a stigma on participation; does not prevent the diversion of benefits (as evidenced by the existence of illegal trafficking); and entails excessive costs for coupon production, issuance, transaction, and redemption.