By: Amanda Ross

amr8469@psu.edu

Staff Writer

Several different advocacy groups are currently campaigning for an end to the interview requirement for SNAP benefits, more commonly known as food stamps. These groups argue that the interview is not only tedious, but can prevent people who would otherwise qualify from receiving assistance. The current SNAP program was established in 1978 by the Department of Agriculture as a renewal and reworking of the Food Stamps Act of 1964. SNAP sought to increase eligibility by establishing national standards for qualifications and eliminating the need to purchase food coupons, instead using USDA guidelines to provide a set amount of coupons and what could be bought with them. However, the procedure by which to allot benefits is left up to individual state agencies. In most states, this includes an annual in person or by call interview with a worker at the state agency. These interviews often draw criticism from those within the program, as applicants are unable to pick the time of their interview, nor are they given an estimate as to its length. This can cause conflicts with things such as jobs, school, and childcare. If the interviewee is not able to attend their interview in full, they will not be able to qualify for assistance. A significant portion of rejected applicants are rejected on the basis that they did not attend their interview rather than any lack of qualification. It is important to note that not only did the USDA originally defend the interview as a way to gather information on the applicant, but that they do not explicitly require it within the law. As well, a significant portion of those who accessed the program during the COVID-19 pandemic had their benefits automatically recertified. This was done as a way to combat hunger due to mass unemployment at the time, but it also proves the viability of instant recertification. As well, it is possible that the interview may not be removed but instead may simply just become more flexible. As of now, the USDA is currently reviewing the requirement.