U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Food Stamp/Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP) Receipt in the 

Past 12 Months for Households by State: 

2008 and 2009

American Community Survey Briefs

By 

Tracy A. Loveless 

ACSBR/09-8

Issued September 2010

The Food Stamp Act of 1977 defines this 

federally-funded program as one intended 

to “permit low-income households to 

obtain a more nutritious diet” (from 

Title XIII of Public Law 95-113, The Food 

Stamp Act of 1977, declaration of policy). 

Food purchasing power is increased 

by providing eligible households with 

coupons or cards that can be used to 

purchase food. The Food and Nutrition 

Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) administers the Food 

Stamp Program through state and local 

welfare offices. The Food Stamp Program 

is the major national income support 

program to which all low-income and 

low-resource households, regardless of 

household characteristics, are eligible. 

The questions on participation in the Food 

Stamp Program were designed to identify 

households in which one or more of the 

current members received food stamps 

during the past 12 months. 

In 2008, the Food Stamp Program was 

renamed the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP). 

IntroductIon

This report presents data on food 

stamp/SNAP receipt for the past 12 

months at the national and state 

levels based on the 2008 and 2009 

American Community Surveys 

(ACS). The data in this report are 

for households, not individuals. If 

any person living at the sample 

address at the time of the interview 

received food stamps/SNAP, the 

household is included in the count. 

Respondents were asked to report 

any spells of food stamp/SNAP 

receipt for the past 12 months.

Food Stamp/Snap 

receIpt In 2009

In 2009, the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was 

signed into law as a direct result 

of the economic downturn. The 

ARRA provided increased food 

stamp/SNAP benefits to low-income 

families. 

In 2009, 11.7 million households 

reported receiving food stamp/

SNAP benefits during the past 12 

months. Among the states with the 

highest food stamp/SNAP participation were Louisiana (17.4 percent), 

Tennessee (15.3 percent), and 

Kentucky (15.1 percent).1 

1Tennessee’s and Kentucky’s 2009 ACS 

food stamp/SNAP participation rates were not 

statistically different from Mississippi’s (15.0 

percent) or Maine’s (14.5 percent). Tennessee 

and Kentucky were not statistically different 

from each other.

Although not statistically different when compared with some other states, states with the 

lowest food stamp/SNAP participation rates 

included Colorado (6.1 percent), New Jersey (5.5 

percent), and Wyoming (5.2 percent).
2 U.S. Census Bureau

Food Stamp/Snap 

receIpt In 2008 and 2009

In 2009, 10.3 percent of all households reported receipt of food 

stamps/SNAP, a 19.8 percent 

increase over the 2008 figure of 

8.6 percent. No states experienced 

a decline in food stamps/SNAP 

receipt between 2008 and 2009. 

Forty-six states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico experienced an increase in food stamp/

SNAP receipt. The only states that 

did not experience a statistically 

significant increase were Hawaii, 

Maine, Montana, and North Dakota.

Although not statistically different 

from several other states, the food 

stamp/SNAP receipt increased by 

32.4 percent in Florida, 32.2 percent in New Hampshire, and 31.3 

percent in Nevada between 2008 

and 2009. 

Altogether, there were eight states 

in which the increase in food 

stamp/SNAP receipt was larger 

than the national increase of 19.8 

percent, and eleven states with 

increases that were smaller than 

the national increase (Figure 2).

Source and accuracy

Data presented in this report are 

based on people and households that 

responded to the ACS in 2008 and 

2009. The resulting estimates are 

representative of the entire population. All comparisons presented in 

this report have taken sampling error 

into account and are significant at the 

90 percent confidence level unless 

otherwise noted. Due to rounding, 

some details may not sum to totals. 

For information on sampling and 

estimation methods, confidentiality 

protection, and sampling and nonsampling errors, please see the “2009 

ACS Accuracy of the Data” document 

located at <www.census.gov/acs 

/www/Downloads/data 

_documentation/Accuracy/ACS 

_Accuracy_of_Data_2009.pdf>.

MT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

SD

ND

MO

WA

FL

IL IN

WI NY

PA

MI

OH

IA

ME

MA

CT 

AZ

NV

TX

CA CO

WY

UT

ID

NE

OK

GA

AR

AL

NC

MS

LA

TN

KY

VA

SC

WV

RI 

DE 

MD 

DC 

NJ 

Figure 1.

Percentage Receiving Food Stamps/Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance (SNAP) for Households by State 

and Puerto Rico: 2009 

VT

HI

NH

2009 United States Index 0.469

Percentage

15.0 or more

10.0 to 14.9

0.0 to 9.9

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009, Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2009. 

PR
U.S. Census Bureau 3

What IS the amerIcan 

communIty Survey?

The American Community 

Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey 

designed to provide communities 

with reliable and timely demographic, social, economic, and 

housing data for the nation, states, 

congressional districts, counties, 

places, and other localities every 

year. It has an annual sample size 

of about 3 million addresses across 

the United States and Puerto Rico 

and includes both housing units 

and group quarters (e.g., nursing 

facilities and prisons). The ACS is 

conducted in every county throughout the nation, and every municipio 

in Puerto Rico, where it is called 

the Puerto Rico Community Survey. 

Beginning in 2006, ACS data for 

2005 were released for geographic 

areas with populations of 65,000 

and greater. For information on the 

ACS sample design and other topics, visit <www.census.gov/acs 

/www>.

MT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

SD

ND

MO

WA

FL

WI

IL IN

NY

PA

MI

OH

IA

ME

MA

CT 

AZ

NV

TX

CA CO

WY

UT

ID

NE

OK

GA

AR

AL

NC

MS

LA

TN

KY

VA

SC

WV

RI 

DE 

MD 

DC 

NJ 

Figure 2.

Percent Change in Food Stamp/Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance (SNAP) Receipt for Households by State and 

Puerto Rico: 2008 and 2009 

VT

HI

NH

2009 United States Index 0.469

Percentage

30.0 or more increase

20.0 to 29.9 increase

10.0 to 19.9 increase

5.0 to 9.9 increase

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Surveys, 2008 and 2009, Puerto Rico Community Surveys, 2008 and 2009. 

PR
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Food Stamp/Supplemental nutrition assistance program (Snap) receipt in the past 12 

months for households by State and puerto rico: 2008 and 2009

Area

Food stamp/SNAP receipt in 2008 Food stamp/SNAP receipt in 2009 Change in food stamp/SNAP receipt

Estimate

Margin 

of error1

(±)

Percentage

Margin 

of error1

(±) Estimate

Margin 

of error1

(±)

Percentage

Margin 

of error1 

(±) Estimate

Margin 

of error1

(±)

Percentage

Margin 

of error1

(±)

 United States . . . 9,770,597 49,238 8 .6 0 .1 11,707,519 48,656 10 .3 0 .1 1,936,922 69,223 *19 .8 0 .8

Alabama . . . . . . . . . 186,630 6,756 10 .3 0 .4 235,122 7,393 12 .7 0 .4 48,492 10,015 *26 .0 6 .0

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . 18,825 1,815 7 .9 0 .8 23,699 2,465 10 .0 1 .0 4,874 3,061 *25 .9 17 .9

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . 186,071 8,165 8 .2 0 .4 244,136 9,376 10 .7 0 .4 58,065 12,433 *31 .2 7 .7

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . 140,865 5,668 12 .6 0 .5 157,428 5,591 14 .0 0 .5 16,563 7,962 *11 .8 6 .0

California . . . . . . . . . 624,731 12,717 5 .1 0 .1 754,865 13,278 6 .2 0 .1 130,134 18,386 *20 .8 3 .3

Colorado . . . . . . . . . 95,111 5,109 5 .0 0 .3 116,941 5,077 6 .1 0 .3 21,830 7,203 *23 .0 8 .5

Connecticut . . . . . . . 87,102 4,342 6 .6 0 .3 107,127 4,818 8 .1 0 .4 20,025 6,486 *23 .0 8 .3

Delaware . . . . . . . . . 24,322 2,269 7 .4 0 .7 30,371 2,804 9 .3 0 .9 6,049 3,607 *24 .9 16 .4

District of Columbia . . 27,032 2,188 10 .8 0 .9 32,032 2,737 12 .8 1 .1 5,000 3,505 *18 .5 13 .9

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . 504,043 12,589 7 .1 0 .2 667,567 13,808 9 .6 0 .2 163,524 18,685 *32 .4 4 .3

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . 320,790 9,125 9 .2 0 .3 378,962 8,892 10 .9 0 .2 58,172 12,741 *18 .1 4 .4

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . 31,443 2,688 7 .2 0 .6 34,900 3,005 7 .8 0 .7 3,457 4,032 11 .0 13 .5

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,218 3,610 7 .6 0 .6 49,288 3,365 8 .8 0 .6 6,070 4,935 *14 .0 12 .3

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . 416,101 9,487 8 .7 0 .2 486,801 10,413 10 .2 0 .2 70,700 14,086 *17 .0 3 .7

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . 226,864 7,639 9 .1 0 .3 267,661 8,452 10 .8 0 .3 40,797 11,392 *18 .0 5 .4

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,115 4,585 8 .8 0 .4 123,219 5,166 10 .0 0 .4 16,104 6,908 *15 .0 6 .9

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . 78,258 4,192 7 .0 0 .4 91,291 3,873 8 .3 0 .3 13,033 5,707 *16 .7 8 .0

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . 230,001 7,352 13 .6 0 .4 255,794 6,607 15 .1 0 .4 25,793 9,884 *11 .2 4 .6

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . 264,816 7,863 16 .3 0 .5 293,164 8,739 17 .4 0 .5 28,348 11,756 *10 .7 4 .7

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . 73,984 3,725 13 .6 0 .7 78,873 4,202 14 .5 0 .8 4,889 5,616 6 .6 7 .8

Maryland . . . . . . . . . 114,870 5,947 5 .5 0 .3 147,415 5,156 7 .0 0 .3 32,545 7,871 *28 .3 8 .0

Massachusetts . . . . . 191,055 6,347 7 .7 0 .3 233,115 7,834 9 .4 0 .3 42,060 10,083 *22 .0 5 .8

Michigan . . . . . . . . . 465,280 7,882 12 .2 0 .2 555,220 11,569 14 .5 0 .3 89,940 13,998 *19 .3 3 .2

Minnesota . . . . . . . . 114,501 4,499 5 .5 0 .2 131,783 5,803 6 .3 0 .3 17,282 7,343 *15 .1 6 .8

Mississippi . . . . . . . . 144,994 5,437 13 .2 0 .5 164,624 6,259 15 .0 0 .6 19,630 8,290 *13 .5 6 .1

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . 260,372 7,236 11 .2 0 .3 293,576 7,316 12 .5 0 .3 33,204 10,290 *12 .8 4 .2

Montana . . . . . . . . . . 30,432 2,454 8 .1 0 .6 32,887 2,497 8 .8 0 .7 2,455 3,501 8 .1 12 .0

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . 46,895 3,290 6 .7 0 .5 58,665 4,203 8 .2 0 .6 11,770 5,337 *25 .1 12 .5

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . 49,855 3,780 5 .2 0 .4 65,473 4,578 6 .8 0 .5 15,618 5,937 *31 .3 13 .5

New Hampshire . . . . 26,652 2,735 5 .3 0 .5 35,223 2,786 7 .0 0 .5 8,571 3,904 *32 .2 17 .1

New Jersey . . . . . . . 150,029 5,640 4 .8 0 .2 174,459 7,059 5 .5 0 .2 24,430 9,035 *16 .3 6 .4

New Mexico . . . . . . . 66,800 3,776 9 .0 0 .5 79,217 4,267 10 .7 0 .6 12,417 5,698 *18 .6 9 .3

New York . . . . . . . . . 754,459 15,087 10 .6 0 .2 891,528 14,154 12 .4 0 .2 137,069 20,687 *18 .2 3 .0

North Carolina . . . . . 343,177 9,370 9 .5 0 .3 401,614 10,150 11 .0 0 .3 58,437 13,814 *17 .0 4 .4

North Dakota . . . . . . 19,628 2,044 7 .1 0 .7 21,168 1,953 7 .6 0 .7 1,540 2,827 7 .8 15 .0

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448,544 8,996 9 .9 0 .2 569,270 10,381 12 .6 0 .2 120,726 13,737 *26 .9 3 .4

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . 153,347 6,231 10 .9 0 .4 172,416 5,857 12 .1 0 .4 19,069 8,551 *12 .4 6 .0

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . 172,176 6,884 11 .7 0 .5 215,791 6,686 14 .5 0 .4 43,615 9,596 *25 .3 6 .3

Pennsylvania . . . . . . 440,743 9,088 9 .0 0 .2 477,892 8,088 9 .7 0 .2 37,149 12,166 *8 .4 2 .9

Rhode Island . . . . . . 31,478 2,873 7 .9 0 .7 40,499 3,277 10 .0 0 .8 9,021 4,358 *28 .7 15 .7

South Carolina . . . . . 183,087 6,987 10 .8 0 .4 214,770 7,924 12 .4 0 .4 31,683 10,564 *17 .3 6 .2

South Dakota . . . . . . 26,809 2,328 8 .4 0 .7 30,705 2,768 9 .7 0 .8 3,896 3,617 *14 .5 14 .3

Tennessee . . . . . . . . 311,518 7,894 12 .8 0 .3 375,597 9,373 15 .3 0 .4 64,079 12,254 *20 .6 4 .3

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . 798,173 14,044 9 .5 0 .2 979,499 13,447 11 .5 0 .2 181,326 19,444 *22 .7 2 .7

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,124 3,314 5 .6 0 .4 62,314 3,714 7 .2 0 .4 14,190 4,977 *29 .5 11 .8

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . 21,845 1,842 8 .7 0 .7 28,433 1,982 11 .3 0 .8 6,588 2,706 *30 .2 14 .2

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 194,281 7,634 6 .6 0 .3 232,617 6,911 7 .8 0 .2 38,336 10,298 *19 .7 5 .9

Washington . . . . . . . 221,475 7,459 8 .7 0 .3 282,907 8,024 11 .1 0 .3 61,432 10,955 *27 .7 5 .6

West Virginia . . . . . . 96,909 4,521 12 .9 0 .6 106,391 4,809 14 .2 0 .6 9,482 6,600 *9 .8 7 .1

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . 147,187 5,285 6 .5 0 .2 192,121 5,720 8 .5 0 .3 44,934 7,788 *30 .5 6 .1

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . 8,580 1,380 4 .1 0 .7 11,089 1,735 5 .2 0 .8 2,509 2,217 *29 .2 29 .0

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . 392,827 7,766 33 .1 0 .6 415,075 6,823 35 .1 0 .5 22,248 10,338 *5 .7 2 .7

* Statistically different at the 90 percent confidence level .

1 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability . A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability . The larger the margin of error 

in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate . When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent 

confidence interval .

Sources: U .S . Census Bureau, American Community Surveys, 2008 and 2009, Puerto Rico Community Surveys, 2008 and 2009 .