The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is one of the most responsive federal programs to economic downturns, as evidence by the increases in SNAP use between 2007 and 2009. Nationally, more than one in ten households relies on SNAP benefits, and the rate is even higher in rural areas, with more than 13 percent of households reporting use. This brief examines the trends in SNAP use across the United States since the recession began in 2007 and considers the impact of legislation in the Congress on those who rely on SNAP to make ends meet

Bean, Jessica A.

Mattingly, Marybeth J.

English

UNH Scholars' Repository

Carseyi n s t i t u t eissue Brief No. 20winter 2011		 Key	Findings• nationally, more than one in ten households relies on SnAP benefits, and the rate is even higher in rural areas, with more than 13 percent of households reporting use. • Across rural and suburban areas and central cit-ies, the number of households using SnAP has increased since the beginning of the recession in 2007. • Single-parent households are more likely to rely on SnAP than are households with married parents. • Use is higher among single-mother households than single-father households; this gap is particu-larly wide in rural areas.• in rural areas, SnAP use is highest among black households (30.8 percent), compared with 21.4 percent among rural Hispanic households, and 11.3 percent among rural white households. • Despite higher use in rural areas, fewer than half of rural households (46.5 percent) with incomes below the poverty line are enrolled in SnAP. Use is even lower in poor central city and suburban households (42.4 percent and 37.8 percent, respectively).More	Than	One	in	ten	american	Households		relies	on	supplemental	nutrition	assistance	Program	BenefitsJ e s s i C a 	 a . 	 B e an 	 and 	Mary B e tH 	 J . 	 Ma t t i ng l ythe	supplemental	nutrition	assistance	Program	(snaP)	is	one	of	the	most	critical	income	supports	for	vulner-able	families	nationwide.		each	month,	snaP	(for-merly	known	as	food	stamps)	helps	ensure	access	to	nutri-tious	foods	for	more	than	40	million	people,	49	percent	of	whom	are	children.1	although	any	person	who	meets	income	requirements	is	eligible	to	apply,	use	of	snaP	is	unevenly	distributed	throughout	the	population.	The	sharp	increase	in	snaP	use	since	the	recession	began	in	2007	has	considerably	widened	these	gaps	in	use	between	groups	and	places.	using	data	from	the	2007	and	2009	american	Community	survey	(aCs),	we	examine	differences	in	snaP	use	by	region,	place	type,	poverty	status,	family	structure,	and	race-ethnicity.	We	also	describe	changes	in	use	since	the	onset	of	the	recession.nationwide,	about	one	in	ten	households	receives	snaP	benefits,	an	increase	of	33	percent	since	before	the	recession	began	in	2007	(see	Figure	1).	in	2009,	snaP	use	was	lowest	in	the	West,	with	less	than	8	percent	of	residents	reporting	assistance,	and	highest	in	the	south,	at	11.4	percent.	rural	households	are	most	likely	to	rely	on	snaP,	regardless	of	region,	with	13.2	percent	of	rural	households	receiving	ben-efits	in	2009	compared	with	12.7	percent	in	central	cities	and	7.7	percent	in	suburban	areas.	among	all	rural	areas,	snaP	use	is	highest	in	the	south,	with	15.8	percent	of	households	reporting	benefit	receipt.	This	high	rate	of	assistance	mirrors	2009	trends	in	child	poverty;	the	rural	south	also	has	the	highest	rate	of	child	and	young	child	poverty,	with	one-third	of	children	under	age	6	living	below	the	poverty	line.2	lone-parent	families	have	particularly	high	rates	of	snaP	receipt,	with	nearly	two	in	five	single-mother	house-holds,	and	more	than	one	in	five	single-father	households,	REVISED  February 2011*Figure 1: SNAP receipt by place type1reporting	snaP	use.	This	compares	with	fewer	than	one	in	ten	married	couples	with	children	(see	table	1).	For	all	fami-ly	types,	snaP	use	has	significantly	increased	since	2007,	but	particularly	so	for	single	fathers,	despite	higher	overall	use	among	single	mothers	at	both	times.	These	trends	align	with	poverty	trends	as	the	highest	rates	of	poverty	are	also	among	lone	parents	and	in	particular	among	single	mothers.3	These	high	rates	of	snaP	use	are	not	tied	to	employment,	as	71.8	percent	of	single-mother	snaP	recipients	nationwide	re-ported	living	in	a	household	with	at	least	one	working	adult.	instead,	this	disproportionate	reliance	on	snaP	by	single	mothers	may	be	related	to	the	lower	earnings	of	women,	and	to	the	fact	that	women	typically	bear	the	most	responsibility	for	the	care	of	children.4	snaP	use	is	particularly	high	among	households	with	a	non-white	householder,	with	nearly	one-quarter	of	black	households	(23.7	percent)	and	17	percent	of	Hispanic	house-holds	reporting	snaP	benefits.	This	compares	with	only	7.9	percent	of	white	households.	The	racial-ethnic	trends	in	snaP	receipt	persist	across	all	regions	and	all	places	(see	table	2).	These	racial-ethnic	trends	are	evident	in	the	2007	data	as	well,	and	appear	to	have	accelerated	with	the	reces-sion;	snaP	use	among	nonwhite	households	grew	at	about	twice	the	rate	of	use	among	white	households	between	2007	and	2009.	as	with	lone-parent	households,	use	of	snaP	among	non-white	households	mirrors	overall	poverty	trends;	nonwhite	poverty	is	disproportionately	higher	than	white	poverty,	particularly	in	rural	areas.5	Correspondingly,	snaP	receipt	is	highest	in	rural	areas,	particularly	among	nonwhites,	with	30.8	percent	of	black	rural	households	and	21.4	percent	of	Hispanic	rural	households	relying	on	snaP	(compared	to	11.3	percent	of	rural	white	households).	For	whites	and	His-panics,	snaP	use	is	higher	in	the	rural	south	than	any	other	rural	region;	for	blacks,	use	in	the	rural	Midwest	is	equally	high	(more	than	30	percent	in	each	case).	although	snaP	provides	necessary	support	for	millions	of	households,	there	are	many	more	people	who	might	benefit	from	assistance	who	are	not	yet	enrolled.	to	be	eligible	for	snaP,	households	must	have	a	gross	monthly	income	equal	to	or	below	130	percent	of	the	federal	poverty	line	(130	percent	is	currently	$2,389	per	month	for	a	family	of	four).6		although	the	eligibility	guidelines	allow	for	those	02468101214TOTAL US CENTRAL CITY SUBURBAN RURAL2007 2009P e r c e n t1. All place differences are statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level.Table 1: Percent Receiving Food Stamps1The change since 2007 is a percentage point change. Note: An asterisk indicates a significant increase since 2007 (p<0.05).MARRIED COUPLESEstimated PercentageMargin of ErrorChange1 Since 2007Estimated PercentageMargin of ErrorChange1 Since 2007Estimated PercentageMargin of ErrorChange1 Since 2007Estimated PercentageMargin of ErrorChange1 Since 2007US 8.9 +/-0.11 3.0* 10.7 +/-0.23 3.3* 6.9 +/-0.15 2.7* 12.9 +/-0.35 3.3*NORTHEAST 6.4 +/-0.26 2.0* 12.3 +/-0.72 3.6* 3.9 +/-0.26 1.4* 9.4 +/-0.82 2.1*MIDWEST 8.8 +/-0.24 2.9* 12.2 +/-0.53 3.7* 6.5 +/-0.26 2.6* 11.1 +/-0.50 3.0*SOUTH 10.5 +/-0.20 3.2* 11.0 +/-0.43 3.1* 8.6 +/-0.21 3.2* 15.4 +/-0.56 3.6*WEST 8.6 +/-0.25 3.3* 9.0 +/-0.39 3.2* 7.6 +/-0.33 3.2* 12.0 +/-0.82 3.8*SINGLE FATHERSUS 22.0 +/-0.43 7.0* 24.3 +/-0.94 7.1* 18.2 +/-0.75 6.5* 27.6 +/-1.17 7.6*NORTHEAST 20.5 +/-1.27 6.0* 28.1 +/-2.38 8.1* 14.7 +/-1.60 4.2* 25.4 +/-3.45 8.1*MIDWEST 24.2 +/-0.99 6.9* 29.0 +/-1.90 7.0* 19.5 +/-1.47 7.2* 26.8 +/-1.97 6.1*SOUTH 23.2 +/-0.90 7.3* 23.1 +/-1.79 5.5* 20.4 +/-1.46 7.6* 29.8 +/-1.79 8.6*WEST 19.2 +/-0.81 7.3* 20.9 +/-1.53 8.7* 16.5 +/-1.18 6.1* 24.7 +/-3.08 7.4*SINGLE MOTHERSUS 38.4 +/-0.29 6.5* 43.2 +/-0.53 6.9* 30.8 +/-0.4 6.5* 46.9 +/-0.76 4.9*NORTHEAST 36.3 +/-0.62 6.1* 46.9 +/-1.04 7.5* 26.5 +/-0.85 6.0* 37.9 +/-2.02 1.2*MIDWEST 43.1 +/-0.64 6.9* 50.8 +/-1.04 7.3* 34.4 +/-0.92 6.9* 45.1 +/-1.23 5.2*SOUTH 40.4 +/-0.53 6.8* 43.8 +/-0.67 6.9* 32.7 +/-0.81 7.2* 50.6 +/-1.11 5.2*WEST 31.1 +/-0.73 5.5* 32.1 +/-1.08 5.6* 27.8 +/-1.02 5.5* 41.4 +/-2.39 5.0*ALL PLACE TYPES CENTRAL CITY SUBURBAN RURAL		 2	 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t eslightly	above	the	poverty	line	to	apply	for	benefits,	snaP	enrollment	is	quite	low	even	among	households	with	income	below	the	poverty	line	(see	table	3).	nationwide,	only	41.6	percent	of	those	living	below	the	poverty	line	reported	receiv-ing	snaP	benefits	in	2009.	a	u.s.	department	of	agriculture	report	found	that,	among	those	who	were	eligible	but	not	enrolled,	more	than	70	percent	cited	not	knowing	they	were	eligible	as	a	reason	for	nonparticipation.	Other	reasons	for	not	applying	includ-ed	the	belief	that	their	household	did	not	need	food	stamps,	and	disliking	the	idea	of	relying	on	the	government	for	help.7	Perhaps	owing	to	growing	need	brought	on	by	the	recession,	or	increased	media	attention	on	federal	assistance	during	the	recession,	the	percentage	of	poor	households	receiving	snaP	benefits	has	increased	by	5	percentage	points	since	2007	(up	from	36.6	percent).	use	among	the	poor	is	par-ticularly	low	in	suburban	areas	(37.8	percent),	and	slightly	higher	in	rural	areas	(46.5	percent).	snaP	use	among	the	poor	also	varies	regionally,	with	less	than	one-third	of	poor	Westerners	(32.4	percent),	and	nearly	one-half	of	poor	Mid-western	and	northeastern	residents	(45.6	and	45.4	percent,	respectively)	reporting	using	snaP.	snaP	is	one	of	the	most	responsive	federal	programs	to	economic	downturns,	as	evidence	by	the	increases	in	snaP	use	between	2007	and	2009.	With	an	average	monthly	benefit	per	household	of	$275.52,	snaP	can	significantly	in-crease	a	household’s	purchasing	power.8	Benefits	are	usually	redeemed	quickly,	with	80	percent	spent	within	two	weeks	Table 2: Percent Receiving Food Stamps1The change since 2007 is a percentage point change. Note: An asterisk indicates a significant increase since 2007 (p<0.05).Table 3: Percent Below Poverty Line Receiving Food Stamps1The change since 2007 is a percentage point change. Note: An asterisk indicates a significant increase since 2007 (p<0.05).WHITEEstimated PercentageMargin of ErrorChange1 Since 2007Estimated PercentageMargin of ErrorChange1 Since 2007Estimated PercentageMargin of ErrorChange1 Since 2007Estimated PercentageMargin of ErrorChange1 Since 2007US 7.9 +/-0.05 2.2* 8.5 +/-0.10 2.3* 6.4 +/-0.07 2.1* 11.3 +/-0.14 2.4*NORTHEAST 7.2 +/-0.11 1.8* 11.2 +/-0.27 2.4* 5.1 +/-0.13 1.5* 10.7 +/-0.37 1.9*MIDWEST 8.4 +/-0.11 2.2* 9.6 +/-0.27 2.2* 6.6 +/-0.16 2.1* 10.6 +/-0.20 2.3*SOUTH 8.6 +/-0.08 2.4* 7.9 +/-0.17 2.2* 7.2 +/-0.11 2.4* 12.6 +/-0.23 2.7*WEST 7.0 +/-0.11 2.3* 7.1 +/-0.18 2.3* 6.2 +/-0.17 2.3* 9.7 +/-0.17 2.4*BLACKUS 23.7 +/-0.20 5.0* 26.4 +/-0.26 5.5* 17.6 +/-0.34 4.4* 30.8 +/-0.79 4.0*NORTHEAST 22.1 +/-0.53 5.0* 25.4 +/-0.61 5.6* 15.6 +/-0.97 4.0* 22.5 +/-5.87 -2.3MIDWEST 30.9 +/-0.54 6.0* 34.0 +/-0.67 6.5* 23.3 +/-0.96 4.7* 33.7 +/-3.44 4.5*SOUTH 23.0 +/-0.28 4.7* 24.8 +/-0.41 5.0* 17.4 +/-0.45 4.5* 31.0 +/-0.81 4.1*WEST 16.0 +/-0.60 4.7* 17.7 +/-0.80 5.2* 13.4 +/-0.90 3.9* 11.2 +/-4.05 2.1*HISPANICUS 17.3 +/-0.18 4.7* 19.4 +/-0.24 4.6* 14.3 +/-0.32 4.6* 21.4 +/-0.84 4.8*NORTHEAST 26.0 +/-0.54 5.7* 33.1 +/-0.72 6.9* 15.8 +/-0.69 4.3* 19.2 +/-3.50 0.7*MIDWEST 18.3 +/-0.65 5.7* 20.5 +/-0.88 5.4* 15.4 +/-1.18 6.6* 19.4 +/-2.00 4.3*SOUTH 17.6 +/-0.30 4.5* 18.1 +/-0.45 3.9* 15.6 +/-0.46 4.8* 24.1 +/-1.22 5.8*WEST 13.5 +/-0.32 4.2* 13.9 +/-0.41 4.2* 12.5 +/-0.43 4.2* 18.6 +/-1.40 4.1*ALL PLACE TYPES CENTRAL CITY SUBURBAN RURALEstimated PercentageMargin of ErrorChange1 Since 2007Estimated PercentageMargin of ErrorChange1 Since 2007Estimated PercentageMargin of ErrorChange1 Since 2007Estimated PercentageMargin of ErrorChange1 Since 2007US 41.6 +/-0.23 5.0* 42.4 +/-0.32 4.4* 37.8 +/-0.38 6.0* 46.5 +/-0.55 4.9*NORTHEAST 45.4 +/-0.54 5.4* 51.8 +/-0.84 4.6* 37.5 +/-1.00 6.1* 46.2 +/-1.39 4.0*MIDWEST 45.6 +/-0.43 4.8* 48.6 +/-0.81 4.1* 42.0 +/-0.78 5.0* 45.1 +/-0.80 4.7*SOUTH 42.4 +/-0.45 5.0* 41.2 +/-0.63 3.8* 38.9 +/-0.57 6.3* 48.6 +/-0.83 5.0*WEST 32.4 +/-0.45 5.0* 31.0 +/-0.64 4.7* 31.7 +/-0.84 5.5* 40.4 +/-1.00 5.2*RURALSUBURBANCENTRAL CITYALL PLACE TYPES	 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t e 	 3of	receipt,	and	97	percent	spent	within	a	month.9	in	addition	to	quick	turnaround,	snaP	benefits	spur	economic	activity,	with	every	$5.00	in	snaP	generating	an	estimated	$9.20	in	“total	community	spending.”10	The	2009	american	recovery	and	reinvestment	act	(arra)	increased	snaP	benefits	beginning	in	april	2009,	and	during	the	recent	recession,	snaP	participation	increased	nationwide.11	This	increase	in	participation	is	likely	due	to	the	combination	of	expanded	eligibility	under	arra	and	increased	need	due	to	the	recession.12		despite	this	increased	reliance	on	snaP,	Congress	voted	in	early	december	to	end	the	arra	expanded	eligibility	before	the	2014	expiration	in	order	to	fund	an	increase	in	spend-ing	on	child	nutrition	programs.		given	that	48	percent	of	those	receiving	snaP	are	children,13	and	all	children	living	in	households	that	receive	snaP	are	likely	eligible	for	free	lunch,	after-school	meals,	and	summer	food	programs,	the	children	who	benefit	from	improved	child	nutrition	pro-grams	may	be	the	same	children	who	are	negatively	affected	by	cuts	to	snaP	benefits.14	dataThis	analysis	is	based	upon	u.s.	Census	Bureau	estimates	from	the	2007	and	2009	american	Community	survey	released	by	the	u.s.	Census	Bureau.15	tables	were	produced	by	aggregating	information	from	detailed	tables	available	on	american	FactFinder	(http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en).	These	estimates	are	meant	to	give	perspective	on	snaP	use,	but	because	they	are	based	on	survey	data,	use	caution	in	comparing	across	catego-ries,	as	the	margin	of	error	may	place	seemingly	disparate	numbers	within	sampling	error.16	all	differences	highlighted	in	this	brief	are	statistically	significant	at	the	5	percent	level	(p	<	0.05).		 4	 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t ee ndnOt e s1.	See USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nu-trition Assistance Program, “Frequently Asked Questions” (Washington, DC:  U.S. Department of Agriculture, n.d.), at http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/faqs.htm.2.	Marybeth J. Mattingly and Michelle L. Stransky, “Young Child Poverty in 2009: Rural Poverty Rate Jumps to Nearly 29 Percent in Second Year of Recession,” Issue Brief No. 17 (Durham, NH: Carsey Institute, University of New Hamp-shire, 2010).3.	Carsey Institute analysis of 2009 American Community Survey data; not shown. 4.	Kristin Smith, “Wives as Breadwinners: Wives’ Share of Family Earnings Hits Historic High during the Second Year of the Great Recession,” Fact Sheet No. 20 (Durham, NH: Carsey Institute, University of New Hampshire, 2010); Laura T. Kessler, “The Attachment Gap: Employment Discrimination Law, Women’s Cultural Caregiving, and the Limits of Economic Liberal Legal Theory,” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, vol. 371 (2001): 378-380.5.	Kessler, “The Attachment Gap.” 6.	USDA Food and Nutrition Service, “Frequently Asked Questions.” 7.	Michael Ponza et al.,“Customer Service in the Food Stamp Program: Final Report” (Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, 1999), available at www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/published/SNAP/FILES/ProgramOperations/fspcust.pdf.8.	USDA Food and Nutrition Service, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Average Monthly Ben-efit per Household” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010), available at www.fns.usda.gov/pd/19SNAPavg$HH.htm.9.	Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Introduction to the Food Stamp Program” (Washington, DC: CBPP, 2010); USDA Food and Nutrition Service, “The Stimulus Package and SNAP: How the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Affects SNAP Benefits and Policies” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009). 10.	USDA Food and Nutrition Service, “The Stimulus Pack-age and SNAP.”11.	see	also	Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Intro-duction to the Food Stamp Program.” 12. USDA Food and Nutrition Services, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Plan Update” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2010). 13.	usda	Food	and	nutrition	service,	“Characteristics	of	supplemental	nutrition	assistance	Program	Households:	Fiscal	year	2009	summary”	(Washington,	dC:	u.s.	depart-ment	of	agriculture,	2010),	available	at	http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/Files/Participation/2009Characteristicssummary.pdf.14.	Zoë Neuberger, “USDA Study Shows States Failing to Connect Many Needy Children to Free School Meals” (Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2009).  15.	See American Fact Finder, available at http://fact-finder.census.gov/servlet/DTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=ACS_2009_1YR_G00_&_lang=en&_ts=306335491183.16.	Refer to the Census Bureau’s published tables for detailed margins of error.a B Ou t 	 t H e 	 au tHOr sJess	Bean	is	a	vulnerable	families	research	associate	at	the	Carsey	institute.	(jessica.bean@unh.edu)Beth	Mattingly	is	director	of	research	on	vulnerable	families	at	the	Carsey	institute	and	research	assistant	professor	of	sociology	at	the	university	of	new	Hampshire.	(beth.mat-tingly@unh.edu)aC KnOWl ed gMen t sThe	authors	thank	Mil	duncan,	Curt	grimm,	terri	rippett,	laurel	lloyd	earnshaw,	amy	sterndale,	Kristin	smith,	Bar-bara	Wauchope,	and	andrew	schaefer	at	the	Carsey	insti-tute;	debbie	stein	at	the	Hatcher	group;	and	Barbara	ray	at	Hiredpen	for	comments	and	suggestions.		 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t e 	 5Building	knowledge	for	families	and	communitiesThe	Carsey	institute	conducts	policy	research	on	vulnerable		children,	youth,	and	families	and	on	sustainable	community		development.	We	give	policy	makers	and	practitioners	timely,		independent	resources	to	effect	change	in	their	communities.	This	work	was	supported	by	the	annie	e.	Casey	Foundation,	the	W.	K.	Kellogg	Foundation,	and	an	anonymous	donor.Huddleston	Hall73	Main	street	durham,	nH	03824(603)	862-2821www.carseyinstitute.unh.eduThis	piece	is	printed	on	Mohawk,	100%	recycled	paper,	which	is	manufactured	entirely	with	green-e	certified	wind-generated	electricity.			 6	 C a r s e y 	 i n s t i t u t e

More than one in ten American households relies on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&amp;context=carsey

More than one in ten American households relies on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNH Scholars' Repository