Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico
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.
[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.
[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.
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).
[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] 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).
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.
[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.
[54] Furthermore, the USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) has performed regular audits to assure compliance and identify areas for improvement.
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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
