Population Health

This Working Group Call will examine the rise of state waivers restricting the type of food that can be purchased with SNAP benefits, how retailers are navigating these changes, and what we might learn from the evaluations. To date, USDA has approved food restriction waivers in 22 states and incentivized waiver applications by tying them to increased funding for the Rural Health Transformation Program. USDA claims that these waivers are meant to “restore nutritional value in SNAP.” However, five SNAP recipients in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia sued the department in March, challenging these restrictions as harmful, unlawful, and burdensome.

Speakers from the National Governors Association, the National Grocers Association, and the University of Illinois Chicago will discuss the state-level decision-making process to apply for a waiver, the impact of these waivers on retailer participation in SNAP, and the public and private evaluation methods being used to assess whether the restrictions have any meaningful impact on nutrition for participants. The Center for Science in the Public Interest will also share strategic thinking about how they are exploring opportunities to engage in this continuously evolving political climate.

Our upcoming Working Group Call will focus on data collection opportunities following USDA’s decision to terminate the Economic Research Service’s (ERS) Household Food Security Survey. For more than 30 years, this survey provided the nation’s most consistent measure of food security, shaping our collective understanding of the drivers of food insecurity and informing key food and nutrition policy decisions. No existing data source offers the same level of insight, and its loss will make it harder to assess the impacts of H.R. 1’s SNAP cuts. Experts from the Capital Area Food Bank, Healthy Eating Research, and the Urban Institute will discuss why continued data collection—using consistent methods and metrics—matters and how funders can support this work. 

H.R. 1’s unprecedented requirement that states pay for a share of SNAP benefits based on their payment error rates will impose a massive financial burden on state budgets, forcing them to choose between cutting other programs and services, reducing SNAP eligibility, or even stopping participation in SNAP entirely.

To mitigate this threat, the Aspen Institute’s Financial Security Program and Social Finance have partnered to develop a proposal to help states effectively implement H.R. 1 and reduce some of the coverage losses and fiscal impacts. The concept, based on a successful model that supported states during Medicaid Unwinding, is to deploy small teams of digital services and process design experts directly to states or counties (depending on the type of SNAP administration).

Our Working Group Call focused on strategic communications opportunities. Elizabeth Wenk, Principal and Managing Director, and Nick Seaver, Senior Vice President and Co-Director of Training Programs at Burness, shared new insights from message testing about SNAP that highlights messaging that moves audiences, insights on which arguments resonate and counter opponents, and how different groups respond to these messages. The State Innovation Exchange (SiX) Food, Agriculture, and Rural Economies team shared what they are hearing from state legislators advocating for SNAP, and how funders can support state policymakers’ efforts to protect the program.

Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems Funders and Grantmakers In Health are forming a funder Working Group for a coordinated, strategic response to the SNAP cuts in H.R. 1. The Working Group comes as an actionable response to insights shared by field leaders in a SNAP-focused webinar earlier in October.

Recognizing the far-reaching implications of SNAP for food security, health, and economic equity, this Working Group will serve as an information hub and a strategic coordination space, designed to help funders act quickly, effectively, and in alignment with one another. We will organize three Working Group meetings to start and then assess next steps.

The second Working Group call will explore how funders can support training and technical assistance for state agencies navigating significant and sudden changes in how SNAP operates, including assessing the factors influencing error rates and technology solutions to reduce them. Tim Shaw, Director of the Benefits Transformation Initiative at the Aspen Institute’s Financial Security Program, will also provide a status update on state action and responses to H.R. 1 requirements.

Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems Funders and Grantmakers In Health are forming a funder Working Group for a coordinated, strategic response to the SNAP cuts in H.R. 1. The Working Group comes as an actionable response to insights shared by field leaders in a SNAP-focused webinar earlier in October.

Recognizing the far-reaching implications of SNAP for food security, health, and economic equity, this Working Group will serve as an information hub and a strategic coordination space, designed to help funders act quickly, effectively, and in alignment with one another. We will organize three Working Group meetings to start and then assess next steps.

The first call focused on opportunities for funders to support and engage in policy advocacy to protect SNAP on a federal and state level. In addition to connecting with peers, funders heard from Joel Berg, CEO of Hunger Free America, who provided a policy landscape update from D.C., and Joey Hentzler, Program Manager at MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, who shared about MAZON’s policy engagement and rapid response funding.

As H.R. 1 begins to reshape the landscape of safety programs, charitable foundations face a pivotal moment. The legislation delivers sweeping tax cuts to corporations and high-income earners—while dramatically reducing funding for essential programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These cuts threaten the well-being of millions of families, children, and seniors, and shift the financial burden to already overstretched state and local governments.

Now more than ever, philanthropic organizations must act swiftly and strategically to mitigate harm. A key opportunity lies in supporting states as they navigate urgent administrative and implementation challenges—ensuring vulnerable populations don’t fall through the cracks.