Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, far more people have had trouble affording enough food to eat, or what scholars and activists call “food insecurity.” That has been true among all communities – and has lingered among economically vulnerable communities like racial minorities and immigrants, groups that often rely on public assistance to pull their families out of deep poverty. Nevertheless, House Republicans are proposing severe cuts to the nation’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the food stamp program. That comes as Congress debates both this year’s SNAP funding and renewal of the government’s five-year farm bill, which is one of the legislative vehicles that authorizes and funds SNAP.
But exactly who will get that assistance varies from one state to another, since state governments distribute that assistance – and help design exactly how their own SNAP programs work. That means that differences in states’ legislative politics, someone who might have gotten food assistance in, say, Massachusetts might not receive it in Texas or Mississippi. What’s more, fear and social stigma have reduced the number of eligible recipients who sign up to receive these benefits.
Here’s how the SNAP program works
In 2017, almost a third of all American children aged zero to 11 were participating a SNAP-funded program. During the first year of the pandemic, 41% of participating SNAP households included children, 29% included an elderly housemember and 22% of households included someone with a disability.
However, the criteria and policies related to SNAP applications, eligibility, and enrollment can vary from state to state, given the flexibility granted to states by federal regulations. As part of the Clinton-era push to “end welfare as we know it,” two laws passed in 1996 – the Farm Bill and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) – broadened states’ authority to set policy for “qualified” immigrants and narrowed state power to make policy for “unqualified” immigrants, a large majority of who are people of color.
While the federal government pays all SNAP administrative costs at the national level and about half the administrative costs at the state level, states administer the SNAP program and pay the other half of their administrative costs.
Why is there such variation among state SNAP programs?
The U.S. federal system divides power between the federal and subnational (i.e., state, local, and tribal) governments, giving states power to enact health, education, and public safety policies, and in some instances, to spend federal money as they see fit. States are free to refuse federal money for unemployment, education, or welfare benefits. Scholars have argued that, since the mid-2010s, there’s been a movement away from what’s called “cooperative federalism” and towards a more polarized political relationship between states and the federal government. Political scientists Anne Daguerre and Tim Conlan argued in 2021 that the U.S. has moved toward what they call “fend for yourself” federalism, in which a “hyper-partisan, polarized, variegated model of federalism is resulting in increasingly diverse patterns of state implementation of national policies,” which is “accelerating the fraying and fragmentation of America’s welfare state.”
States can choose among various policy options, discussed below, that can affect eligibility and participation. If states want more inclusive programs, they can create their own separate food assistance programs for residents ineligible for federal participation in SNAP. And if states want a program that does not include all the immigrants authorized under federal law, they can pass generally restrictive immigration state legislation.
States can also limit access through what’s called “administrative burden,” imposing a head-spinning array of complex and onerous requirements that directly or indirectly limit access to SNAP benefits, as listed below.
Asset limits. States can place limits on who qualifies for benefits based on an individual’s or family’s total amount of income from all sources to qualify for benefits, including earnings, unemployment insurance, cash benefits, and child support. In addition, states can place limits on what assets the individual or family might own, which can include savings, cars, retirement accounts, or any real estate. For example, Illinois and Indiana have a $5,000 asset limit, which does not count the worth of a vehicle. Nebraska has a $25,000 liquid asset limit, meaning this limit applies to liquid resources like funds in bank accounts. Two studies found that when states excluded vehicles from the asset limit, more families participated. Still other studies find that when the asset limit is increased, a small percentage of participants accumulate more in assets.
Categorical eligibility. States may define households as categorically eligible for SNAP if they are eligible for other types of non-cash assistance, like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), formerly known as welfare, a federally funded, state-run program that allows states to offer a variety of assistance, like monthly cash assistance payments or work training to employment assistance. Under this approach, if you are eligible for TANF, the state concludes that you are also eligible for SNAP. Forty-four states have established what the USDA calls broad-based categorical eligibility that includes SNAP access.
Automatic or streamlined enrollment. States can automatically enroll or streamline the application process for SNAP recipients. Some states have implemented joint or streamlined processes to apply for assistance from several programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF using one application. In 2021, only six states had some kind of automatic enrollment or streamlined application for SNAP.
Outreach. States vary in how they share information about eligibility. Some advertise widely in pamphlets, brochures, notices on the TANF application, flyers about referral services or resource guides. States also make it easier or harder to complete the applications; some require applicants to come to an office in person, while others permit applications online or by mail. Several scholars argue that better outreach efforts are needed to let food-insecure, eligible immigrants and Latinos know they could qualify for SNAP.
Certification periods. All SNAP program households are assigned a certification period, or how long the recipient is certified before they need to reapply, which may include a face-to-face interview. States can assign certification periods at their discretion. Texas requires recertification after 3 months; New York offers recertification every 6 or 12 months; and Massachusetts certifies SNAP for 12 or 36 months. States also vary how SNAP recertification applications must be submitted, whether in person, by mail or via the internet.
The pandemic affected food insecurity and SNAP eligibility
In the first year of the pandemic, fiscal year 2019-2020, almost four million more individuals began receiving SNAP benefits. The federal government increased its investments in food assistance. The 2020 Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act gave $150 billion in direct assistance for state and local governments. This money was given to states to spend at their discretion. In most states, a portion of it went to food security in various ways. Some such funds were routed through state, local, non-profit, and tribal food assistance programs. And in 2021 Congress passed the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act, giving $350 billion in what it called “Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds” to states, counties, cities, and tribal governments. California used $203 million in CARES Act funding for food support programs; Minnesota spent $10 million to expand food access to families and children and another $11 million to fund meals for seniors. Nearly half of states used ARP money towards some kind of food assistance.
However, some states have a long history of under-resourcing social programs and diverting or refusing funds from such programs. Other states may lack the resources like money, people, or organizational frameworks to adequately deliver assistance to food insecure residents during emergencies like the pandemic and its aftermath. Often those two groups overlap; states that underfund their SNAP programs may also be less prepared to deliver that assistance. That lack of resources can end up making it harder for marginalized groups to get assistance, including families that don’t speak English well, recent immigrants who are eligible, citizen children of immigrant parents, and those without the time or means to even apply.
As scholars investigate the effectiveness and reach of state assistance post-covid and through the inflation that has followed, they will want to understand how state policies affected these benefits programs.
Image: (cc) USDA