What Hunger Action Month Means to Me This Year

Every September, Hunger Action Month asks something simple: pay attention. Notice hunger, talk about it, and take action to help. As someone who went to school to become a dietitian and has spent my career since in anti-hunger policy and the SNAP program, I think about hunger every day – and not just what people are experiencing today, but how decisions being made right now, in Congress, in federal agencies, in state and local offices, will shape hunger in months and years from now.

This September also includes the Jewish High Holidays. I'll have the privilege of fasting by choice this Yom Kippur, to reflect on the year behind me and the one ahead. But I know that for many people, and many parents, skipping meals isn't a once-a-year event, and it’s not an actual choice.

From History to Present Day

The SNAP program was first conceptualized in 1939 during the Great Depression, when just under half the population was in poverty. In 1946, the National School Lunch Act passed because about a third of young men recruited to the military were rejected due to severe malnutrition. By 1974, the Food Stamp Act had become a nationwide program. In the decades since, SNAP has become the third-largest force reducing poverty in this country, behind only Social Security and the Earned Income Tax Credit. And, we know that the leading cause of hunger is poverty. People who fall into the lowest quintile of income in the US spend one third of their pre-tax income on food, versus 6.5 percent of those in the higher 20 percent of income.

Between May 2025 and May 2026, 5.7 million fewer people are receiving SNAP, a 13.5 percent decline in participation according to the latest federal data. Some of that is people who are no longer eligible due to changed policy, and some of that is people whose circumstances have genuinely changed: increased earnings, stable employment, successfully moving off the program - which is the ultimate goal. What we don't have, however, is a clear picture of how much of that decline is people who are still eligible but no longer receiving benefits – whether that’s because they assumed they no longer qualified, lost interest in reapplying for a smaller benefit, or because it's gotten harder to apply for and keep SNAP in their state.

Balancing Access and Accuracy

For years, I and many others have said that payment accuracy and program access can unfortunately be at odds. States have real flexibility in how people interact with the program – simplifying applications and recertification to help people connect and stay connected, and help caseworkers deliver timely decisions. But any simplification carries risk. For example, when a state accepts self-attestation at an interview rather than requiring hard proof, they know a Quality Control reviewer will check the underlying documentation later. So, they're weighing the odds that a reviewer finds something the caseworker missed, or the applicant answered incorrectly. That calculation has only gotten harder now that the cost isn't just a QC penalty – it’s now a benefit cost share, and potentially the program itself for that state.

This has led some states to tighten requirements such as verifying household composition at application. Changes like this are not only more work for the applicant, but also for the caseworker. Some states have seen SNAP participation fall by more than 20 percent within the past year. None of this reflects a lack of effort. States are navigating a genuinely impossible tradeoff, made harder by real financial consequences now attached to getting it wrong, and many are actively working to course-correct, trying to figure out what's actually needed to improve accuracy, and what the right balance is for the people who remain eligible.

What I Keep Asking Myself

When I led a focus group with state leaders earlier this summer, one thing rang clear. Yes, payment accuracy and the correct deployment of taxpayer dollars matter enormously. But there are people out there who've lost benefits and are still eligible – and once we've lost them, it's incredibly hard to get them back. So, how do we make sure we don't lose them in the first place?

I'm not going to proclaim that SteadyIQ's consent-based verification singularly solves the problem of eligible applicants losing benefits. But what we are trying to do is help states find solutions that prioritize access AND accuracy AND timeliness, while reducing caseworker burden in the long run. When states can get accurate, complete data at the start – without pending cases and chasing unclear information – and while giving clients confidence they're sharing correct information so they won't face penalties later, it's a win-win-win. And, we work to fit within state budgets, because we know those are only getting tighter and we want to help make sure you can keep delivering for families.

This Hunger Action Month, I'm sitting with that question from the focus group – how do we make sure eligible people don't fall through the cracks – in both my work and outside of it. If you're looking for where to start, reach out to a local pantry or school, make a cash donation, or just take a moment to think about how today's actions ripple into tomorrow's hunger.

Pablo Neruda once wrote, "For now I ask no more than the justice of eating." For now, I wish you and your community that same justice – and the simple pleasure of it, too.