The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest anti-hunger program in the United States. Indeed, the program contributed to the grocery budgets of an average of 41 million low income people in the United States each month in 2024, and almost half of all children in the United States utilize SNAP at some point by the time they turn 20. SNAP fills an especially important nutritional gap for vulnerable populations, including those employed in low-wage jobs, disabled people on a fixed income and low-income seniors. Although it is primarily a federally funded program, eligibility and benefit amounts vary by state and can change based on decisions by elected officials, often influenced by news coverage and public opinion.
Considering the importance of media coverage to SNAP’s success, is this coverage fair and comprehensive? Researchers at Drexel University’s Dornsife School of Public Health set out to answer this question, recently publishing an article in the journal Health Affairs Scholar that analyzed 84 news stories from 1997 through 2022 about a key measure of SNAP eligibility: the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA).
PRWORA policies ban those with felony drug-related convictions from receiving SNAP benefits. These policies change periodically from state to state – currently, 28 states and Washington D.C. opt out of this ban, 21 others have a partial ban, and South Carolina maintains the full PRWORA ban – making news coverage a potentially influential factor in the nutrition program’s impact. Authors Bengucan Gunen, a doctoral student, and Ann C Klassen, PhD, a research professor, both at the Dornsife School of Public Health, shared their insights about the strengths of these news stories and opportunities where public health experts can better inform reporters about SNAP for the public’s benefit.
What were the main takeaways in your research about the way news coverage portrays SNAP restrictions for those with felony drug-related convictions?
Klassen: We found that local news covered this issue consistently, in local papers across the U.S. and throughout the 25-year time period we looked at. This helps to raise public awareness of the importance of state-level SNAP policies because many people may not realize these determine who in their state can have access to this federal benefit. Also, we were surprised and pleased to see that most coverage was sympathetic towards individuals who face SNAP restrictions due to prior drug-related convictions and their families. Our article’s title, “A Life Sentence of Hunger” comes from an editorial in The Philadelphia Inquirer. So, from an advocacy standpoint, this media focus is a good start.
Gunen: We noticed a lot of the coverage occurred after bills were introduced and often focused on policymakers rather than the people directly affected. Even though media has the power to shape public discussions, its power wasn’t utilized effectively to advocate for those who couldn’t access SNAP or their communities. For example, news coverage rarely spelled out how denying SNAP to one family member can drive household food insecurity and disadvantage small retailers who may count on SNAP spending to stay in business.
In states where SNAP benefits are restricted, some individuals face a lifelong barrier to benefits. News stories can present the issue as a hurdle when someone leaves prison, but it can be a permanent restriction that trails them, and their families, for life.
How can news coverage about PRWORA infuse better analysis of nutrition and health policy in reporting?
Bengucan: In my opinion, as researchers and advocates, we often don’t do a great job highlighting the broader public health and economic impact of SNAP. This is a multi-billion-dollar nutrition assistance program that helps retailers sustain grocery businesses in hard-pressed communities and helps households have more disposable income left over for other necessities.
News stories could include findings from nutrition science and public-health research on how SNAP participation decreases food insecurity or how diet-related diseases impose a significant financial burden on government programs like Medicaid. This gives readers the context they need to judge the stakes of limiting access to SNAP.
In addition, advocates and journalists should seek out voices beyond the usual policy advocates: clinicians who treat the downstream impacts of food insecurity, grocery owners in high-SNAP zip codes and, most crucially, people currently shut out of benefits.
How can public health researchers more effectively inform reporters about fairer framing of SNAP restrictions?
Gunen: We can do a better job by participating in media interviews, writing op-eds and contributing to policy reports accessible to the public. I noticed that findings from studies published in peer-reviewed journals are not often included in local news media. One major barrier is that academic research often sits behind paywalls. That’s why we made sure our article was open access, making our findings freely available to reporters and the public.
How can news coverage more effectively talk about the broader community impact of SNAP?
Gunen: I think there’s an opportunity to humanize even the most stigmatized issues. By sharing real stories and emphasizing the struggles of families and individuals, we can reframe politically charged conversations away from vague assumptions about fraud and toward genuine compassion and understanding. Highlighting the real-life consequences faced by actual people can shift the conversation toward fairness and empathy.
Klassen: In addition, when the economic benefits are presented, they can be very persuasive. SNAP benefits bring federal dollars directly into states, and most audiences, public or legislative, see that as positive.
How can the way the news covers SNAP restrictions shape public opinion and influence policy?
Gunen: Most people rely on local news coverage to get updates on legislative action and policy changes. When coverage frames SNAP restrictions thoughtfully and compassionately, it shapes how the public understands these policies, influencing broader opinions and ultimately, policy decisions.
What does the data show about the impact of SNAP on health, recidivism and other measures?
Gunen: People with drug-related felony convictions often face steep obstacles in finding work, securing housing and accessing public assistance. SNAP addresses food insecurity, supports adequate nutrition during re-entry and substance-use recovery, and frees up limited household income for other essentials. Cutting off benefits after release, however, is linked to higher odds of illegal activity and subsequent arrest.
Existing data clearly shows that SNAP reduces food insecurity, allows families to stretch household budgets further and helps prevent diet-related chronic diseases. Importantly, policies restricting SNAP access due to felony convictions overlook the fact that food benefits are usually shared within households. Limiting access can negatively impact everyone living in a household, including children or household members who haven’t committed a crime.
Klassen: There is evidence from what we call “natural experiments,” where state SNAP policies have changed at different timepoints, and we see an immediate impact on incarceration rates and related costs. But beyond the short-term costs, those of us in public health can build evidence to raise awareness of the long-term societal-level costs of restricting access to a healthful diet across adulthood and older age. Especially for individuals who have struggled with substance use and have increased risk for many chronic diseases, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Reporters interested in talking with Klassen or Gunen should contact Greg Richter, assistant director, News and Media Relations, at 215-895-2614 or gdr33@drexel.edu.
