Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

Last updated

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico
Agency overview
FormedAugust 13, 1981;42 years ago (1981-08-13)
Preceding agency
Jurisdiction executive branch
Headquarters San Juan, Puerto Rico
Parent department U.S. Department of Agriculture
Puerto Rico Department of Family Affairs
Parent agency Administration for the Socioeconomic Development of the Family
Key documents
Website servicios.adsef.pr.gov/views/programa/programaAsistenciaNutricional.aspx

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico (NAP) — Spanish : Programa de Asistencia Nutricional (PAN) popularly known in Puerto Rico as Cupones (English: Food Stamps)— is a federal assistance nutritional program provided by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) solely to Puerto Rico. In 2021, over $2 billion USD was appropriated as a block grant for NAP to assist over 1 million impoverished residents of Puerto Rico. [1] [2] It is based on, though not part of, the USDA's national Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) which in 2018 provided $64 billion in nutritional assistance to 42 million people in the 50 U.S. states, D.C., Guam and the US Virgin Islands. [3] [4]

Contents

Since its inception in 1982, the program has been providing low-income families, living in Puerto Rico, with cash for food purchases. [5] It is a collaborative effort between the USDA and the island's government, where the former provides annual federal appropriations for the Puerto Rican government to distribute individually among eligible participants. Although the methods of providing such benefits have changed over the years, the program's basic objective of helping low-income families meet their nutritional needs has remained constant.

It has received criticism especially when federal reviews and assessments revealed deficiencies in its operations and management, [6] requiring the implementation of various changes, including increased scrutiny. It has also attracted both criticism and advocacy from Puerto Rico and the United States over its effectiveness in helping poor families, and its impact on Puerto Rico's social classes and economy. [7]

History

Food stamps have been issued in the United States since World War II, but the program did not include Puerto Rico until the early 1970s, when U.S. Public Laws 91-671 of January 11, 1971 and 93-86 of November 1, 1974 partially extended the Food Stamp Program to U.S. territories. The Food Stamp program was later expanded to provide full coverage and benefits to Puerto Rico and other territories under Section 19 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977. [8]

By 1977, the Food Stamp Program in Puerto Rico was larger, in terms of both the percentage of the population participating and expenditures, than any of the programs operating in the 50 U.S. States, with 56% of the Puerto Rican population participating in the program. [9] [10] In total, it accounted for approximately 8 percent of the national program's beneficiaries, and its operations and benefits awarded accounted for 8 percent of the national program's total federal expenditures. [10]

To address these issues, the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) eliminated Puerto Rico from the national Food Stamp program and created the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) for Puerto Rico as a block grant to provide more administrative flexibility to the Commonwealth while reducing Federal expenditures. [11] [12] [13] After a year of studies and design, it commenced operations on July 1, 1982 with an annual appropriation of $825 million. [11] [14] [15] The new block grant program differed significantly from the former Food Stamp program in three major ways. [16] First, the new NAP program was designed to distribute the benefits through physical checks, ensuring that the benefit would be payable only to the beneficiary while at the same time reducing administrative costs, [5] since the former physical vouchers (cupones in Spanish) were subject to storage and accountability problems, theft, counterfeiting and even trafficking. [5] [17] Second, the benefits were no longer restricted to vouchers redeemable only for food, but were provided in cash. The beneficiary could then elect to purchase a product or select services other than food. [18] Third, the overall assistance provided to Puerto Rico was limited to an annual block appropriation, requiring the Puerto Rican government to adjust its program management to allocate the funds. [19] Between 1982 and 1986, the U.S. Congress awarded $825 million annually in block grants for the NAP program, and since then the appropriations have steadily increased by an estimated 3% to 4% to compensate for inflation. [20] In 1989, the $852.7 million NAP payments to island residents made up almost 20% of all US federal money transfers to Puerto Rico that year. [21] It has surpassed $1 billion annually since the early 1990s, and increased 30% from 1993 to 2002. [22] Since fiscal year 2006, the appropriation has reached over $1.5 billion annually. [2] NAP appropriations were $1.9 billion in Fiscal Year 2020, [23] and more than $2 billion in Fiscal Year 2021. [24]

Participation rate

Over the years there had been a gradual decline in participation in NAP. While the participation rate in the previous Food Stamp program was estimated at 56% (more than 1.5 million island residents), [10] [25] by 1994, participation in the NAP program had decreased to 1.3 million residents, [26] and by 2006 it had decreased to just over 1 million. [1] In contrast, the Puerto Rican population had steadily increased throughout those same periods. [25] [26] [27]

However, the participation rate increased to 1.3 million in 2018, which was 40% of Puerto Rico's population. Perhaps as a consequence of Hurricane Maria in 2017 and the prolonged recession in Puerto Rico (which began in 2006), NAP had become fundamental in addressing poverty in Puerto Rico. [28]

In 2018, more than 800,000 seniors living in Puerto Rico and over half of Puerto Rico's children, [29] were receiving nutritional assistance through NAP. [30]

Criticism

Since its creation, the program received much criticism both within and outside Puerto Rico. Critics argue that, since the program provides non-taxable income without any employment requirements, recipients receive free money without incentives for work, which hinders the economic output and development of the island, [7] [31] especially when Puerto Rico's employment participation and unemployment rates have been consistently inferior to U.S. national levels, [32] while the average aid provided in Puerto Rico has exceeded the U.S. national average ($94 versus $74.79, respectively; 2001 estimate). [22] Because of this, Puerto Rico has been called the "welfare island". [7] People from the Dominican Republic do many of the jobs in Puerto Rico that pay too little to attract the locals. [7] However, proponents of the program argue that Puerto Rico's social condition is in far worse shape than any of the 50 U.S. states. [33] Approximately half of the island's population lives below the U.S. Federal poverty guidelines, [1] [34] [35] and many have difficulties in meeting their nutritional needs due to increasing inflation and economic stagnation in the island. Furthermore, the relation between the NAP benefits and the low employment participation and high unemployment rates has not been studied, and there is no consensus on their actual causes. [36]

After Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, NAP received some extra funding [37] but in 2021, the non-voting Puerto Rico representative in the United States House of Representatives, Jenniffer González, and others, stated people in Puerto Rico would be better off if Puerto Rico were participating in SNAP, an entitlement program, versus NAP, a block grant program. [38] González sought to have Puerto Rico participate in SNAP (what the U.S. states, D.C., Guam and the US Virgin Islands have for nutritional assistance) [29] rather than NAP, with its cap and more stringent eligibility requirements. [39] [40]

Program administration

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), a component of the USDA, provides the funds to the Government of Puerto Rico's Department of Family Affairs to operate the program through an annual block grant, which covers the full cost of the benefits to participants, as well as fifty percent (50%) of the costs required to administer the program (the remaining 50% must be provided by the government of Puerto Rico). [41] [42] Although federal regulations require Puerto Rico to pay the benefits during the year for which the annual block grant was awarded, since 2002 the federal government has allowed Puerto Rico to use 2% of an annual surplus for benefits in future years. [43]

As a condition of receiving the grant, the P.R. Department of the Family must submit an annual plan of operation to the FNS, which describes how it will distribute the funds assigned as nutrition assistance to qualifying persons. This includes identifying the island population which is eligible for the NAP benefits (i.e., family income limits, family status limits, etc.), establishing the process in which individual participants are selected, and the process of determining the benefit amount for each participant. [44] The plan of operation is reviewed and approved by the FNS before funds are disbursed.

The Puerto Rico Department of the Family currently provides the benefits to each participating family through a debit card, which replaced the physical checks in the early 2000s. The monthly benefit is deposited through an electronic benefit transfer (EBT) system into a government-designated personal bank account, which can be accessed at any time with the debit card to withdraw cash or to make food purchases from authorized retailers. [45] Since September 2001, 75% of each family's monthly benefit has been designated exclusively for making direct food and grocery purchases, while the remaining 25% can be withdrawn as a cash benefit. [45] [46] The EBT debit card system has improved the program's payment accuracy rate to 96.4% in 2003, 4 years ahead of its 2007 goal of 95% accuracy. [47]

FNS and Puerto Rican representatives inspect a marketplace in San Juan. Both entities meet periodically to discuss the program. FNS and Puerto Rico representatives.PNG
FNS and Puerto Rican representatives inspect a marketplace in San Juan. Both entities meet periodically to discuss the program.

The FNS also requires the government of Puerto Rico to submit financial and performance reports on a regular basis, including quarterly Federal Cash Transactions Reports, quarterly and annual Financial Status Reports, and monthly Program Participation and Benefits Reports. [48] [49] These reports provide details on the program's obligations and actual expenditures, and help the FNS monitor the use of program funds and reconcile the program's budget with actual expenditures. [50]

Management assessment

In a collaborative effort by the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and various other Federal agencies, the NAP program was assessed in 2005 and given a 44% and 40% score (out of a possible 100%) in its Program Management and Program Results/Accountability performance indicators, respectively, stating that "the program's financial management practices need improvement." [1] [6] The assessment revealed that Puerto Rico's government has not established short-term goals, objectives, and targets to evaluate the program's performance and results, that the program's oversight has been lax in previous years, and that the program's impact and results in Puerto Rico's society have not been evaluated in recent years. [51] The financial management and oversight concerns were later emphasized when, on March 15, 2007, a U.S. investigative task force uncovered a $30 million fraud scheme involving 31 participants, including retailers and beneficiaries, who were withdrawing the funds as cash from the benefits designated exclusively for food purchases, and charging the customers a 20% to 25% fee for the transaction. [52]

The Puerto Rico departments of the Family, Education, and Health have since combined efforts to create a 5-year strategic plan to improve the program's long-term performance and financial management. [53] The Family Department has recently implemented a quality control-like program titled Measure of Efforts and Results System, which evaluates the quality and promptitude of services while reviewing various eligibility elements, to improve customer services and program management. [54] The Department has also agreed to switch from a biennial audit to an annual Single Audit, and subject the program to periodic audits by its Administration for Socio-Economic Development, to detect and correct problems more quickly. [54] Furthermore, the USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has performed regular audits to assure compliance and identify areas for improvement. [50]

Regardless of deficiencies, the federal government's assessment revealed that the current NAP program is actually an improvement over the former Food Stamp program provided in Puerto Rico. In its 2005 assessment report, it concluded: [25]

The [Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico] block grant is successful in two respects compared to the Food Stamp Program that it replaced and consistent with its legislative origins: First, it substantially reduced Federal costs (by more than $500 million a year) compared to the Food Stamp Program it replaced. Second, it substantially reduced the percentage of the Commonwealth's population that receives assistance, from 56 percent in 1981 to 26 percent in 2004.

Program benefits

Under the NAP, participating families receive monthly cash benefits to supplement their incomes which must be used at locations certified by the government, [55] to purchase foods for preparation and consumption at home. [56] In order to qualify for the program, potential beneficiaries must meet several conditions, listed as follows: [57]

The amount of a family's monthly benefit payment depends on that family's specific characteristics and financial circumstances, as well as the overall amount of program funds available for distribution. It is the Puerto Rico government's responsibility to establish the eligibility requirements and benefit levels for participation in the program. [44] The benefits are revised annually every October 1 to consider the nutritional needs of Puerto Rico's impoverished population, analyze the impact of inflation in Puerto Rico, and plan the distribution of available funds accordingly. [44]

Impact

Average nutrition assistance
benefits in the U.S.
LocationAverage Monthly
Benefits (2003) [58]
Median Household
Income (2000)
50 States $84$41,994 [59]
American Samoa $103$18,219 [60]
Washington, D.C. $92$40,127 [61]
Guam $186$39,317 [62]
Northern Mariana Is. $79$22,898 [63]
Puerto Rico $103$14,412 [64]
U.S. Virgin Islands $119$24,704 [65]

Since the program started in 1982, only three formal studies over the nutritional impact of the benefits provided to each family have been publicly released, in 1985, 1993, and 1996, respectively. [66] All studies were designed to analyze the impact of the program with respect to the previous food stamps program, focusing on changes in household nutrient availability, while the 1985 and 1993 studies also focused on changes in household food expenditures (the amount of money households spent on acquiring food). [67]

The first and most widely recognized study, [68] published by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. in 1985, found that the NAP program increased household food expenditures for beneficiaries when compared to non-participating families, just as its predecessor did. [69] It also found that the program had the same relevant impact on increasing household food expenditures as the previous food stamp program, [69] however this has been contested by subsequent studies performed on the national food stamp program, which found that "stamp" or "coupon"-type benefits are more effective at increasing food expenditures than direct "cash" benefits. [70] The 1993 study, which also researched the impact on household expenditures, formed a completely different conclusion: that the average beneficiaries under the NAP program spent $5 less per week on food than non-participating families, considering if both would have the same amount of resources available. [71] Nevertheless, this conclusion has also been questioned by subsequent research, attributing this result on the author's determination of the population sample. [71]

All studies revealed minor improvements in household nutrient availability, with the 1985 study revealing an improvement of vitamin and mineral consumption over non-participating families and the 1993 study partially confirming these results. [72] The most extensive study on nutrient availability was published in 1996, which concluded that nutrition did not change significantly after the implementation of the NAP program for all beneficiaries, however most improvements were noted for very low-income beneficiaries versus their non-participating equivalents. [73]

Although these three studies have been used by the federal government and other entities to understand the impact of the NAP program's benefits, the data used by the authors dates back to the periods between 1977 and 1984, providing limited relevant information for the current program of today. [74] Additionally, subsequent research and analysis have revealed insufficiencies in the methodology applied by the authors of all three publications, thereby casting doubt on whether a definitive conclusion of the program's overall impact has been established. [75] A 2004 report published by USDA's Economic Research Service evaluated the reliability and relevancy of these studies, concluding that they are not sufficient to determine the program's current impact and performance, and stating: [75]

The available information on the nutrition-related impacts of the NAP (in Puerto Rico) must be considered to be both limited and dated ... Any serious understanding of current impacts of the NAP on participants' nutrition and health status will clearly require new research. The existing national survey of health and nutrition status does not include Puerto Rico or the Pacific Islands. Consequently, a specialized data collection will be required to address questions about the nutrition- and health-related impacts of the NAP.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Secretary of Agriculture</span> Head of the US Department of Agriculture

The United States secretary of agriculture is the head of the United States Department of Agriculture. The position carries similar responsibilities to those of agriculture ministers in other governments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Department of Agriculture</span> Department of the US government

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is an executive department of the United States federal government that aims to meet the needs of commercial farming and livestock food production, promotes agricultural trade and production, works to assure food safety, protects natural resources, fosters rural communities and works to end hunger in the United States and internationally. It is headed by the secretary of agriculture, who reports directly to the president of the United States and is a member of the president's Cabinet. The current secretary is Tom Vilsack, who has served since February 24, 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program</span> United States government food assistance program

In the United States, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, is a federal government program that provides food-purchasing assistance for low- and no-income people to help them maintain adequate nutrition and health. It is a federal aid program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), though benefits are distributed by specific departments of U.S. states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electronic benefit transfer</span> Form of U.S. state assistance

Electronic benefit transfer (EBT) is an electronic system that allows state welfare departments to issue benefits via a magnetically encoded payment card used in the United States. It reached nationwide operations in 2004. The average monthly EBT payout is $230 per participant as of 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food and Nutrition Service</span> U.S. federal anti-hunger agency

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The FNS is the federal agency responsible for administering the nation’s domestic nutrition assistance programs. The service helps to address the issue of hunger in the United States.

The basic needs approach is one of the major approaches to the measurement of absolute poverty in developing countries globally. It works to define the absolute minimum resources necessary for long-term physical well-being, usually in terms of consumption goods. The poverty line is then defined as the amount of income required to satisfy the needs of the people. The "basic needs" approach was introduced by the International Labour Organization's World Employment Conference in 1976. "Perhaps the high point of the WEP was the World Employment Conference of 1976, which proposed the satisfaction of basic human needs as the overriding objective of national and international development policy. The basic needs approach to development was endorsed by governments and workers' and employers' organizations from all over the world. It influenced the programmes and policies of major multilateral and bilateral development agencies, and was the precursor to the human development approach."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">WIC program</span> U.S. federal government program

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is an American federal assistance program of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for healthcare and nutrition of low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and children under the age of five as part of child nutrition programs. Their mission is to be a partner with other services that are key to childhood and family well-being. WIC serves 53% of all infants born in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food policy</span> Area of public policy

Food policy is the area of public policy concerning how food is produced, processed, distributed, purchased, or provided. Food policies are designed to influence the operation of the food and agriculture system balanced with ensuring human health needs. This often includes decision-making around production and processing techniques, marketing, availability, utilization, and consumption of food, in the interest of meeting or furthering social objectives. Food policy can be promulgated on any level, from local to global, and by a government agency, business, or organization. Food policymakers engage in activities such as regulation of food-related industries, establishing eligibility standards for food assistance programs for the poor, ensuring safety of the food supply, food labeling, and even the qualifications of a product to be considered organic.

In the United States, federal assistance, also known as federal aid, federal benefits, or federal funds, is defined as any federal program, project, service, or activity provided by the federal government that directly assists domestic governments, organizations, or individuals in the areas of education, health, public safety, public welfare, and public works, among others.

Public welfare in Puerto Rico is a system of nutrition assistance, public health, education, and subsidized public housing, among others, provided to the impoverished population of the island.

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) is a type of United States federal assistance provided by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to states in order to provide a daily subsidized food service for an estimated 3.3 million children and 120,000 elderly or mentally or physically impaired adults in non-residential, day-care settings. It is a branch within the Policy and Program Development Division of the Child nutrition programs, along with the School Programs Branch, which runs the National School Lunch Program. The program is commonly referred to as the Child Care, Child Care Food, Adult Care, or Adult Care Food Program, and is often operating in conjunction with other child and adult day-care programs, such as the Head Start. Its federal identification number, or CFDA number, is 10.558. Section 17 of the National School Lunch Act, and USDA issues the program regulations under 7 CFR part 226.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ketchup as a vegetable</span> American political controversy circa 1981

The ketchup as a vegetable controversy stemmed from proposed regulations of school lunches by the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in 1981, early in the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The regulations were intended to provide meal planning flexibility to local school lunch administrators coping with cuts to the National School Lunch Program enacted by the Omnibus Reconciliation Acts of 1980 and 1981. The proposed changes allowed administrators to meet nutritional requirements by crediting food items not explicitly listed. While ketchup was not mentioned in the original regulations, pickle relish was used as an example of an item that could count as a vegetable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Food stamp challenge</span>

A food stamp challenge or SNAP challenge is a trend in the United States popularized by politicians, religious groups, community activists and food pantries, in which a family of means chooses to purchase food using only the monetary equivalent of what a family that size would receive in the US federal government Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), colloquially called food stamps. In 2015, this amounted to US$194.00 per person per month, or $6.37 per day.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is a program that evolved out of surplus commodity donation efforts begun by the USDA in late 1981 to dispose of surplus foods held by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). This program was explicitly authorized by the Congress in 1983 when funding was provided to assist states with the costs involved in storing and distributing the commodities. The program originally was entitled the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program when authorized under the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983. The program was renamed to The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) in 1990.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Special Milk Program</span> U.S. federal aid program

In the United States, the Special Milk Program, sometimes known as the School Milk Program, offers federal reimbursements for milk served to children in an eligible participating outlet, which includes schools, child care institutions, settlement houses, homeless shelters, or summer camps. This federal aid program is administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).

Nutrition Assistance Grants are the Federal programs in Puerto Rico and American Samoa that provide food assistance through block grant funds in lieu of food stamps, and to the Northern Marianas under a covenant governing U.S. relations with that jurisdiction.

The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) allows Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) to operate a food distribution program as an alternative to the Food Stamp Program for those living on or near an Indian reservation. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), an agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, administers FDPIR at the Federal level, and is locally operated through ITOs or State agencies(SAs). Eligibility for benefits is similar to the food stamp (SNAP) program, and funds are drawn from food stamp appropriations. Food Distribution Program Nutrition Education (FDPIR) grants are also awarded to participating FDPIR ITOs. These grants are awarded to support nutrition education activities that are culturally relevant, promoting healthy food choices, and promoting physical activity among participants.

Harvard Law defines poverty law as, "the legal statutes, regulations and cases that apply particularly to the financially poor in his or her day to day life". In a commonsense understanding and in practice, the goal of poverty law is to protect the disadvantaged poor from unfair treatment by the law. Poverty law often overlaps with federal benefits and welfare policies. Pertinent federal government benefits include Medicaid; cash public assistance ; and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program, previously known as the food stamps program. Poverty law frequently involves questions of administrative law, civil rights law, constitutional law, employment law, and health law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">School meal programs in the United States</span> Overview of school meal programs in the United States of America

In the United States, school meals are provided either at no cost or at a government-subsidized price, to students from low-income families. These free or subsidized meals have the potential to increase household food security, which can improve children's health and expand their educational opportunities. A study of a free school meal program in the United States found that providing free meals to elementary and middle school children in areas characterized by high food insecurity led to increased school discipline among the students.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">CalFresh</span>

CalFresh is the California implementation of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program, which provides financial assistance for purchasing food to low-income California residents.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine , Question 1.2.
  2. 1 2 OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine Statistics Table Introduction.
  3. ↑ "GAO-19-167" (PDF). gao.gov. U.S. Government Accountability Office. p. 1. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 27, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  4. ↑ OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine Questions 1.3, 2.6, and 4.4.
  5. 1 2 3 FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 286, par. 6.
  6. 1 2 OMB NAP assessment summary Archived 2006-09-24 at the Wayback Machine .
  7. 1 2 3 4 Trouble on Welfare Island, The Economist, May 25, 2006.
  8. ↑ OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine Section 1, Question 1.1.
  9. ↑ GAO 1978, Report No. CED-78-84.
  10. 1 2 3 FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 286, par. 3.
  11. 1 2 FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 286, par. 4.
  12. ↑ OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine Section 3, Question 3.1.
  13. ↑ OMB A-133 Comp. Suppl., p. 4-10.566-2, par. 5.
  14. ↑ OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine Section 2, Question 2.6.
  15. ↑ FNS Newsroom: Fact Sheets Archived 2008-07-05 at the Wayback Machine .
  16. ↑ GAO 1992, Report No. GAO/RCED-92-114.
  17. ↑ OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine , Section 1, Question 1.4.
  18. ↑ FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 286, par. 7.
  19. ↑ FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 286, par. 8.
  20. ↑ FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 286, par. 9.
  21. ↑ Monge, J.T. (1980). Historia constitucional de Puerto Rico. Historia constitucional de Puerto Rico (in Spanish). Editorial Universitaria. p. 10. ISBN   978-0-8477-0208-4. Archived from the original on July 31, 2021. Retrieved July 30, 2021.
  22. 1 2 Albanese, Lorelei (August 14, 2003). "Uncle Sam's billions". Caribbean Business. Archived from the original on September 28, 2007. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  23. ↑ Keith-Jennings, Brynne (November 30, 2020). "Introduction to Puerto Rico's Nutrition Assistance Program". cbpp. Archived from the original on April 28, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  24. ↑ "NAP State Plan of Operations for Puerto Rico". USDA-FNS. October 28, 2020. Archived from the original on May 27, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  25. 1 2 3 OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine , Question 4.4.
  26. 1 2 FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 287, par. 1.
  27. ↑ Puerto Rico Archived January 28, 2021, at the Wayback Machine . The World Factbook . Central Intelligence Agency.
  28. ↑ "A Brief Overview of the Nutrition Assistance Program". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (in Spanish). June 11, 2020. Archived from the original on March 4, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  29. 1 2 "The Nutrition Assistance Program Helps Over Half of Puerto Rico's Children". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. June 11, 2020. Archived from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  30. ↑ "Puerto Rico's Nutrition Assistance Program Helps Seniors". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. June 11, 2020. Archived from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  31. ↑ Report No. GAO-06-541, Chapter 3, p. 70, par. 3.
  32. ↑ Report No. GAO-06-541, Chapter 3, p. 69, Figure 22.
  33. ↑ Report No. GAO-06-541, Chapter 3, p. 48, par. 1–3.
  34. ↑ 2000 U.S. Census.
  35. ↑ Welcome to Puerto Rico: Economy Archived January 17, 2019, at the Wayback Machine .
  36. ↑ Report No. GAO-06-541, Chapter 3, p. 70, par. 1.
  37. ↑ "Summary of Nutrition Assistance Program - Puerto Rico (NAP)" (PDF). USDA. USDA. March 18, 2021. Retrieved August 19, 2021.
  38. ↑ "Why this disaster relief bill is stuck on a debate over Puerto Rico food stamps". PBS NewsHour. March 28, 2019. Archived from the original on July 4, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  39. ↑ Garofalo, Giovanna (July 31, 2021). "The Case for SNAP in Puerto Rico". The Weekly Journal. Archived from the original on July 31, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  40. ↑ "Without more federal funds, 1.4 million Puerto Ricans will face food aid cuts, study finds". CBS News. February 6, 2019. Archived from the original on July 29, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  41. ↑ OMB A-133 Comp. Suppl., p. 4-10.566-1, par. 2.
  42. ↑ Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, section 285.2(a).
  43. ↑ OMB A-133 Comp. Suppl., p. 4-10.566-4, Sec. H: Per. of Avail., par. 2.
  44. 1 2 3 OMB A-133 Comp. Suppl., p. 4-10.566-1, par. 3.
  45. 1 2 OMB A-133 Comp. Suppl., p. 4-10.566-1, par. 4–5.
  46. ↑ OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine , Questions 3.2, 3.4 and 3.7.
  47. ↑ OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine , Questions 4.3.
  48. ↑ OMB A-133 Comp. Suppl., p. 4-10.566-4, Sec. L: Reporting.
  49. ↑ OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine , Sec. 3, Question 3.BF2.
  50. 1 2 OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine , Question 3.BF1.
  51. ↑ OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine . ; Questions 3.1, 3.7, and 4.5.
  52. ↑ $30 Million Fraud Scheme in Puerto Rico, U.S. Dept. of Justice.
  53. ↑ OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine , Question 2.8.
  54. 1 2 OMB NAP assessment detail Archived 2012-09-15 at the Wayback Machine , Questions 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.7.
  55. ↑ "ADSEF Comercios certificados del PAN" [Stores certified for PAN](PDF). adsef.pr.gov. Archived (PDF) from the original on June 25, 2021. Retrieved July 30, 2021.
  56. ↑ OMB A-133 Comp. Suppl., p. 4-10.566-1, par. 4.
  57. 1 2 Benefits Report Archived 2008-03-04 at the Wayback Machine , GovBenefits.gov.
  58. ↑ Report No. GAO-06-541, Appendix VII, p. 176, Table 31: Comparison of the Food Stamp and Nutrition Assistance Programs.
  59. ↑ "Fact Finder United States (2000), Fact sheet". U.S. Census. Archived from the original on March 5, 2008. Retrieved October 2, 2007.
  60. ↑ "Population and Housing Profile: 2000; American Samoa, p. 4" (PDF). U.S. Census. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 14, 2003. Retrieved October 2, 2007.
  61. ↑ "Fact Finder District of Columbia (2000), Fact sheet". U.S. Census. Archived from the original on March 5, 2008. Retrieved October 2, 2007.
  62. ↑ "2004 Guam Yearbook, p. 25" (PDF). Bureau of Statistics and Plans Office of Governor, Guam. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 29, 2005. Retrieved October 2, 2007.
  63. ↑ "Population and Housing Profile: 2000; Northern Mariana Islands, p. 4" (PDF). U.S. Census. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 22, 2004. Retrieved October 2, 2007.
  64. ↑ "Fact Finder Puerto Rico (2000), Fact sheet". U.S. Census. Archived from the original on February 12, 2020. Retrieved October 2, 2007.
  65. ↑ "Population and Housing Profile: 2000; U.S. Virgin Islands, p. 4" (PDF). U.S. Census. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 19, 2003. Retrieved October 2, 2007.
  66. ↑ FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 287.
  67. ↑ FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 288.
  68. ↑ FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 287, par. 2.
  69. 1 2 FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 289, par. 1.
  70. ↑ FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 289, par. 2.
  71. 1 2 FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 289, par. 4–5.
  72. ↑ FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 290, par. 2 and 7.
  73. ↑ FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 290, par. 5–6.
  74. ↑ FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 287, par. 3–4.
  75. 1 2 FANRR-19-3, Chapter 11, p. 290, par. 8 and p. 291.

Further reading


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.