During the COVID-19 pandemic, US social safety net programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP, Pandemic-EBT, and the Child Tax Credit, were temporarily expanded or created to combat rising food, housing, and economic insecurity among families. A recent study examined the experiences of California families with low income as the programs were expanded then retracted. Researchers conducted qualitative interviews between January and June 2023 with caregivers of young children from the ACCESS study. They found that pandemic-era expansions of safety net programs reduced caregivers' perceived stress and enhanced perceptions of food and housing security. Further, the study identified that while all supports were greatly appreciated, those that were predictable and consistent were more consistently beneficial. For example, predictable supports like SNAP were universally appreciated, while infrequent or unpredictable supports, such as stimulus checks, were appreciated but also created anxiety for a number of families due to their uncertainty. The termination of Pandemic-EBT and retraction of the expanded SNAP benefits exacerbated food insecurity, forcing families to make less healthy choices. Finally, families experienced administrative burdens, such as excessive paperwork, long wait times, poor communication, and embarrassment and stress when seeking and receiving safety net supports. Findings suggest that state and federal policies should prioritize stable and accessible support to reduce stress, food insecurity, and poverty. The study was conducted by Wendi Gosliner at the Nutrition Policy Institute along with colleagues Nicole Fernández-Viña and Lia C.H. Fernald with the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, and Rita Hamad and Kaitlyn E. Jackson with the Harvard School of Public Health. It was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Tipping Point Foundation, UC Office of the President, and the Berkeley Population Center at UC Berkeley.
