Abstract

Elderly adults (ages 60 or older) participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly 

the Food Stamp Program, at lower rates than other eligible people. This report provides State information on the 

characteristics of elderly SNAP participants and eligibles and elderly participation rates that can be used both in 

assessing the success of past efforts and when considering additional efforts to increase elderly SNAP participation. 

The report is based on analyses from a Survey of Income and Program Participation-based microsimulation model, 

SNAP Quality Control data files, the Current Population Survey, and other data. The report finds that the estimated 

elderly SNAP participation rate increased steadily from 25 percent in fiscal year (FY) 2002 to 34 percent in 

FY 2006. The highest elderly participation rates were found in Hawaii, Florida, Maine, New York, and Oregon. 

The States with the largest elderly participation rate increases were Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, 

and Washington.

By Karen Cunnyngham, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

State Trends in Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program 

Eligibility and Participation 

Among Elderly Individuals

Final Report

Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 64

November 2010

This study was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under a 

cooperative research agreement with USDA’s Economic Research Service 

(ERS) Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program (FANRP): agreement 

number 59-5000-8-0099 (ERS project representative: John Kirlin). The views 

expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of ERS or USDA.
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Cooperative Agreement Number:

59-5000-8-0099

Mathematica Reference Number:

06520

Submitted to:

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service

1800 M St., NW, Rm. N2176

Washington, DC 20036-5831

Project Officer: John Kirlin

Submitted by:

Mathematica Policy Research

600 Maryland Avenue, SW

Suite 550

Washington, DC 20024-2512

Telephone: (202) 484-9220

Facsimile: (202) 863-1763

Project Director: Karen Cunnyngham

State Trends in Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program 

Eligibility and Participation 

Among Elderly Individuals

Final Report

Karen Cunnyngham

Disclaimer: This study was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research under Cooperative 

Agreement Number 59-5000-8-0099 with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s)

Economic Research Service (ERS). Mathematica was responsible for reviewing the report. The 

views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of ERS or USDA. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Acknowledgments Mathematica Policy Research 

v 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This study was conducted under a cooperative research contract with the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Economic Research Service (ERS) Food Assistance and Nutrition Research 

Program (FANRP). The author would like to extend her gratitude to the many people who 

contributed to this research. In particular, I would like to thank John A. Kirlin, the ERS project 

officer, for his guidance and support throughout the project. I also received valuable input on 

methodology and presentation from Christine Kissmer, the project liaison from the USDA’s Food 

and Nutrition Service (FNS). 

Many people at Mathematica Policy Research made meaningful contributions to this research. 

Bruce Schechter and Kathy Bencio provided computer programming support, with assistance from 

Joel Smith and Daisy Ewell. Laura Castner reviewed the state estimates of elderly SNAP 

participation rates. Jackie Kauff reviewed a draft of this report as well as additional documents 

prepared in the course of this project, and Ronette Briefel reviewed the final report. Carole Trippe 

also reviewed portions of this report, Josh Leftin assisted with project management, Molly and Jim 

Cameron edited the report, and Donna Dorsey, Alfreda Holmes, and Lisa Walls were responsible 

for its production. 

Finally, valuable feedback and suggestions also were received from Dottie Rosenbaum, Center 

on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Elaine Waxman, Feeding America. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Contents Mathematica Policy Research 

vii

CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................xi

I INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................1

A. SNAP Participation Among Elderly Individuals ..........................................1

B. Efforts to Increase SNAP Participation Among Elderly 

Individuals ...............................................................................................3

C. Additional Existing Research on SNAP Participation and 

Eligibility ................................................................................................. 5

D. Research Objectives ................................................................................7

II METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................9

A. Characteristics of Elderly SNAP Participants ...........................................11

B. SNAP Eligibility Rates and Characteristics of Elderly Eligible 

Individuals .............................................................................................12

C. SNAP Participation Rates ........................................................................14

III FINDINGS .....................................................................................................19

A. Characteristics of Elderly SNAP Participants ...........................................21

1. Trends in National Number and Percentage of Elderly 

SNAP Participants ...........................................................................21

2. Trends in State Number and Percentage of Elderly 

SNAP Participants ...........................................................................22

3. Elderly SNAP Participants by Type of Eligibility ................................25

4. Characteristics of Elderly SNAP Participants ....................................29

B. Characteristics of Elderly Eligible Individuals..........................................38

1. Elderly Percentage of Eligible Population .........................................39

2. Characteristics of the Elderly Eligible Population .............................39

3. Characteristics of the Low-Income SNAP-Ineligible 

Elderly Population ...........................................................................51

C. Estimates of State Elderly SNAP Eligibility Rates .....................................55

1. Eligibility Rates for All Low-Income Elderly Individuals .....................55

2. Eligibility Rates for Subgroups of Low-Income Elderly 

Individuals ......................................................................................57
Contents Mathematica Policy Research 

III (continued)

viii

D. Estimates of State Elderly SNAP Participation Rates ................................59

1. Trend in National Elderly SNAP Participation Rates 

from FY 2002 to FY 2006................................................................60

2. Trends in State Elderly SNAP Participation Rates from 

FY 2002 to FY 2006 ........................................................................61

3. Comparisons of State Elderly Participation Rates Across 

States and to National Rates ...........................................................64

4. Trends in the Number of Elderly Eligibles and Participants 

from FY 2002 to FY 2006................................................................66

5. Effect of Changes in Numbers of Eligibles and Participants 

on Participation Rates .....................................................................68

6. Changes Between Consecutive Years in State Elderly Participation 

Rates and Number of Elderly Eligibles and Participants ...................69

IV SUMMARY ....................................................................................................73

REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................75

APPENDIX A: TABLES SHOWING CHARACTERISTICS OF ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS 

PARTICIPATING IN SNAP, FISCAL YEARS 2000 TO 2007 

APPENDIX B: TABLES SHOWING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS 

ELIGIBLE FOR SNAP, FISCAL YEAR 2009 

APPENDIX C: TABLES SHOWING NUMBER OF ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS BELOW 200 

PERCENT OF POVERTY, NUMBER ELIGIBLE FOR SNAP, AND SNAP 

ELIGIBILITY RATES BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 2009 

APPENDIX D: TABLES SHOWING ELDERLY SNAP PARTICIPATION RATES, RANKS, AND 

NUMBER OF ELDERLY PARTICIPANTS AND ELIGIBLES BY STATE, FISCAL 

YEARS 2002 THROUGH 2006
Tables Mathematica Policy Research 

ix

TABLES

II.1. State SSI Supplements Simulated in the MATH SIPP+ Model ..........................13

II.2. State Policies Regarding Expanded Categorical Eligibility and 

Vehicle Assets Simulated in the 2009 Baseline of the 2005 

MATH SIPP+ Model .......................................................................................15

III.1. Estimated National Average Monthly Number and Percentage of Elderly 

SNAP Participants, by Year ...........................................................................22

III.2. Change in Estimated Elderly SNAP Participation, FY 2000 Through 

FY 2007 .......................................................................................................23

III.3. Change in Estimated Percentage of SNAP Participants Age 60 or Older by 

State, FY 2000 to 2007 ................................................................................24

III.4. Percentage of Elderly Participants Eligible Through an SSI CAP and 

Percentage Receiving a Standard Medical Deduction, by State and Year ........26

III.5. Estimated Percentage of Elderly Non-SSI CAP SNAP Participants Who 

Would Fail the SNAP Net Income Test But Are Categorically Eligible, 

by State, Average FY 2000 – 2007................................................................27

III.6. National Characteristics of Elderly SNAP Participants, FY 2000 through FY 

2007............................................................................................................29

III.7. Percentage of Elderly Participants in One-Person SNAP Household, in 

Poverty, and Percentage with SSI in Poverty, by State, Average FY 2000 –

2007............................................................................................................30

III.8. Percentage of Elderly Participants in SNAP Households with SSI and Social 

Security Income and Average SSI and Social Security Amounts Among 

Elderly Households with Income Type, by State, FY 2007 .............................31

III.9. Percentage of Elderly Participants in SNAP Households with Shelter and 

Medical Deductions and Average Shelter Deduction Among Elderly SNAP 

Households with a Shelter Deduction, by State, FY 2007 ..............................32

III.10. Percentage of Elderly Participants in SNAP Households Receiving the 

Minimum Benefit or Less and Receiving the Maximum Benefit and Average 

Benefit for Elderly SNAP Households, by State, FY 2007 ................................33

III.11. Estimated Number of SNAP-Eligible Individuals and the Percentage Elderly, 

by State, FY 2009 .........................................................................................40

III.12. Percentage of Elderly Eligibles in One-Person SNAP Households, in Poverty, 

and with Medicaid, by State, FY 2009 ...........................................................41
Tables Mathematica Policy Research 

x 

III.13. Percentage of Elderly Eligibles in SNAP Households with SSI and Social 

Security Income and Average SSI and Social Security Amounts Among SNAP 

Households with Income Type, by State, FY 2009 .........................................44

III.14. Percentage of Elderly Eligibles in SNAP Households with Assets, with 

Shelter and Medical Deductions, and in Public Housing and Average 

Shelter Deduction Among Elderly Eligible SNAP Households with a Shelter 

Deduction, by State, FY 2009 .......................................................................46

III.15. Percentage of Elderly Eligibles in SNAP Households Qualifying for the 

Minimum Benefit or Less and Qualifying for the Maximum Benefit and 

Average Benefit for Elderly Eligible SNAP Households, by State, FY 2009 ......49

III.16. Elderly Percentage of Low-Income SNAP-Ineligible Individuals, FY 2009 ........51

III.17. Estimated Percentage of Elderly Ineligibles in One-Person SNAP Household, 

in Poverty, and with Countable Assets by State, FY 2009 ..............................53

III.18. Percentage of Elderly Ineligibles in SNAP Households with Medicaid, SSI, 

Social Security, and Excess Shelter Expenses by State, FY 2009 ....................54

III.19. Estimated Number and SNAP Eligibility Rate of Elderly Individuals with 

Income below 200 Percent of Poverty, by State, 2009 ...................................56

III.20. Estimated Number and SNAP Eligibility Rate of Elderly Individuals with SSI 

or in One-Person SNAP Households with Income below 200 Percent of 

Poverty, by State, 2009 ................................................................................58

III.21. National SNAP Participation Rates for Eligible Elderly Individuals and for All 

Eligible Individuals, FY 2002 to FY 2006 ......................................................60

III.22. Elderly SNAP Participation Rates by State, FY 2002 to FY 2006 .....................62

III.23. Trends in Estimated State Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, FY 2002 to 

FY 2006 .......................................................................................................63

III.24. Comparisons of Estimated Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, FY 2002 to 

FY 2006 .......................................................................................................65

III.25. Change in Estimated Number of Elderly SNAP Eligibles and Participants 

and Estimated Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, FY 2002 to FY 2006 ............67

III.26. Direction of Change in Estimated Number of Elderly SNAP Eligibles and 

Participants and Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, by Year, FY 2002 to 

FY 2006 .......................................................................................................71
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research 

xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the Food Stamp Program, 

helps low-income households achieve a healthy diet through benefits redeemable for food. 

Historically, elderly adults (age 60 or older) have participated in SNAP at lower rates than other 

eligible people. Policymakers concerned about unmet nutrition needs among elderly adults have 

taken steps to reduce barriers to participation and increase elderly SNAP participation levels. The 

research described in this report, conducted by Mathematica under a Cooperative Agreement with 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Economic Research Service (ERS), provides 

policymakers, researchers, and advocates with detailed information on the characteristics of elderly 

SNAP participants and eligibles and on elderly SNAP eligibility and participation rates across states 

and over time. These data can be of use both in assessing the success of past efforts and when 

considering additional efforts to increase elderly SNAP participation. 

In fiscal year (FY) 2008, a monthly average of 27.8 million people living in 12.5 million 

households received SNAP benefits, with an average monthly household benefit of $222. Nine 

percent of SNAP participants were elderly. The number of elderly SNAP participants, like the 

number of nonelderly participants, has increased steadily since 2001, reaching a monthly average of 

2.5 million in FY 2008. However, although an estimated 67 percent of all eligible individuals 

participated in SNAP in FY 2008, the estimated elderly SNAP participation rate was just 35 percent. 

The research presented here provides a rich source of data on elderly individuals’ eligibility for 

and participation in SNAP. Specifically, we used SNAP Quality Control (QC) data to tabulate 

characteristics of elderly SNAP participants for FY 2000 through FY 2007 by state, and a Survey of 

Income and Program Participation-based microsimulation model to tabulate characteristics of 

elderly individuals eligible for SNAP in FY 2009 by state. We used the same microsimulation model 

to estimate elderly eligibility rates by characteristics and state. Finally, we used Current Population 

Survey; SNAP QC; and other administrative, survey, and program data to estimate state SNAP 

participation rates for elderly individuals for FY 2002 through FY 2006. We used these estimates to 

examine the following research questions: 

What are the economic and demographic characteristics of elderly SNAP participants? 

Do the characteristics vary by state and year? 

What are the characteristics of elderly individuals who are eligible for SNAP? Do the 

characteristics vary by state? Do they differ from the characteristics of elderly 

participants and ineligible low-income elderly individuals? 

What percentage of the low-income elderly population is eligible for SNAP? Do SNAP 

eligibility rates vary across states? 

Do elderly SNAP participation rates vary across states and years? Do most states have a 

similar elderly participation rate trend? Are differences in rates between states or changes 

in rates between years due to differences in the number of eligibles or participants? 

What are the likely effects on SNAP eligibility, participation, and benefit levels of SSI 

CAPs and other state options and demonstration projects designed to increase elderly 

individuals’ eligibility for and participation in SNAP?

We found that the average monthly number of elderly SNAP participants increased by almost 

40 percent from FY 2000 to FY 2007. In most states, elderly participation fluctuated over time, but 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research 

xii 

generally increased from the earlier years of the study period to the later ones. While three states saw 

a decline in the number of elderly participants (Alabama, Colorado, and Hawaii), and others only a 

minimal increase (e.g., Montana and Arkansas), six experienced an increase in elderly participation of 

100 percent or more (Delaware, Massachusetts, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, and Texas). The 

percentage of SNAP participants that was elderly varied by state, from 5 percent or less in 

California, Alaska, and Utah to 16 percent or more in New York, Florida, and Hawaii. 

Nationally, on average from FY 2000 to FY 2007, 72 percent of elderly SNAP participants were 

in one-person SNAP households, 84 percent were in poverty, 58 percent were in households where 

someone received Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 67 percent qualified for an excess shelter 

expense deduction, 21 percent received the minimum SNAP benefit, and 12 percent received the 

maximum benefit. While some elderly participant characteristics, such as the percentage in oneperson SNAP households, remained relatively constant over time, others trended up or down during 

the study period. For instance, the percentage with a shelter deduction increased from 59 percent in 

the early years to 72 percent in FY 2007, and the percentage receiving the minimum benefit, while 

fluctuating somewhat, decreased from 27 percent in FY 2001 to 17 percent in FY 2007. Elderly 

SNAP participant characteristics also varied by state. For example, FY 2000 to FY 2007 average 

poverty rates among elderly participants varied from lows of 57 and 60 percent in Alaska and 

Wisconsin, respectively, to highs of 92 percent in both Hawaii and Mississippi. In addition, the 

percentage in FY 2007 with a shelter deduction ranged from 42 percent in Mississippi and 46 

percent in Texas and Alaska to 93 percent in Vermont and Maine and 94 percent in Illinois. 

An estimated 53 million individuals were eligible for SNAP in FY 2009, 16 percent of whom 

were age 60 or over. The average household benefit for which eligible elderly individuals qualified 

was $102. Among eligible elderly individuals nationally in FY 2009, 59 percent were in one-person 

SNAP households, 42 percent were in poverty, 17 percent were in households where someone 

received SSI, 56 percent qualified for an excess shelter expense deduction, 37 percent qualified for 

the minimum SNAP benefit, and 14 percent qualified for the maximum benefit. As with the 

characteristics of elderly SNAP participants, those of elderly SNAP eligibles varied by state. For 

example, poverty rates among elderly eligibles ranged from 26 percent in Delaware and 28 percent in 

Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin to 64 percent in the District of Columbia and 

65 percent in Hawaii and Mississippi. In all states but Alaska, the poverty rate among eligibles was 

considerably higher than among participants. In FY 2009, 28 percent of elderly eligibles qualified for 

a shelter deduction in South Carolina, the lowest percentage among states, while 94 percent qualified 

for shelter deduction in North Dakota, the highest percentage. In three-quarters of the states, the 

percentage of elderly eligibles qualifying for a shelter deduction was lower than that of elderly 

participants. 

In FY 2009, more than 16 million elderly individuals had income under 200 percent of poverty 

and an estimated 8.5 million, or 53 percent, were eligible for SNAP. State low-income elderly SNAP 

eligibility rates varied widely. Thirteen states had eligibility rates of 64 percent or more and 13 states 

had elderly eligibility rates of 36 percent or less. 

Nationally, the estimated elderly SNAP participation rate—the percentage of eligible elderly 

individuals participating in the program—increased steadily, from 25 percent in FY 2002 to 34 

percent in FY 2006. Although there was variation across states and between consecutive years, the 

change in elderly participation rates from FY 2002 to FY 2006 was also positive in every state. 

Hawaii’s elderly participation rate was higher than that of every other state in all five years, and 

Florida, Maine, New York, and Oregon had participation rates significantly higher than two-thirds 

of the states in all five years. 
Introduction Mathematica Policy Research 

1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Historically, elderly adults (age 60 or older) have participated in the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the Food Stamp Program, at lower rates than the general 

population. Policymakers concerned about unmet nutrition needs among such individuals have 

taken steps to reduce barriers to participation and increase elderly SNAP participation levels. The 

research described in this report, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research under a Cooperative 

Agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Economic Research Service (ERS), 

provides policymakers, researchers, and advocates with detailed information on the characteristics of 

elderly SNAP participants and eligibles and on elderly SNAP eligibility and participation rates across 

states and over time. Specifically, we tabulated state characteristics of elderly SNAP participants for 

fiscal year (FY) 2000 through FY 2007 and elderly individuals eligible for SNAP in FY 2009. We also 

estimated state elderly SNAP eligibility rates for FY 2009 and state SNAP participation rates for 

elderly individuals for FY 2002 through FY 2006.1 The data presented in this report can be of use 

both in assessing the success of past efforts and when considering additional efforts to increase 

elderly SNAP participation. 

In the remainder of this chapter, we provide some background information on elderly SNAP 

participation, efforts to increase elderly participation, existing research on SNAP participation and 

eligibility, and the objectives of the reported research. 

A. SNAP Participation Among Elderly Individuals 

SNAP, the largest food and nutrition assistance program administered by USDA’s Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS), helps low-income households achieve a healthy diet through benefits 

redeemable for food. In FY 2008, a monthly average of 27.8 million people living in 12.5 million 

 

1

 The different time periods examined reflect differences in the data available at the time this research was 

conducted. See Chapter II (Methodology) for more information. 
Introduction Mathematica Policy Research 

2 

SNAP households received SNAP benefits, with an average monthly household benefit of $222 

(Wolkwitz and Trippe 2009).2,3 Nine percent of SNAP participants were elderly, and 19 percent of 

participating SNAP households included at least one elderly member. 

The percentage of participating individuals that was elderly in FY 2008 varied by state, from 18 

percent in New York to 5 percent in Delaware and 2 percent in California. (California’s low elderly 

percentage is due to the ineligibility of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients in that state.)

Participating SNAP households with elderly members received an average monthly SNAP benefit of 

$94. This smaller average benefit for elderly SNAP households relative to all SNAP households 

reflects the smaller average size (1.3 members versus 2.2) of the former and their slightly higher 

average gross income ($762 versus $701 for all SNAP households). 

The total number of SNAP participants has been increasing steadily since 2001. The number of 

elderly SNAP participants has followed the same trend, increasing by more than 60 percent, from 

1.6 million in FY 2001 to 2.5 million in FY 2008 (Wolkwitz and Trippe 2009).

In FY 2007, the overall SNAP participation rate—the percentage of eligible individuals 

participating in the program—was 66 percent (Leftin and Wolkwitz 2009). Participation rates varied 

across states, from more than 90 percent in Maine and Missouri to under 50 percent in California 

and Wyoming (Cunnyngham and Castner 2009).4 Although an average of 2.5 million elderly adults 

received SNAP benefits each month in FY 2008, this population participates in SNAP at a lower 

 

2

 The participant estimates presented in Wolkwitz and Trippe (2009) and cited in this paragraph do not include 

ineligible individuals who received benefits in error or individuals who received only disaster SNAP benefits. 

3

 After Wolkwitz and Trippe (2009) was published, Missouri determined that it mistakenly over-reported the 

number of individuals participating in SNAP for FY 2003 through FY 2009, with the reporting error gradually increasing 

over time. Revised participant estimates will be published in Leftin et al, forthcoming. 

4

 Revised participation rate estimates incorporating corrected Missouri participant data had not been derived by the 

time the Cunnyngham and Castner report was published. The corrected 2007 Missouri participation rate is likely to be in 

the low 80s. Missouri’s corrected numbers were not received in time to be incorporated in this report. However, the 

effect of Missouri’s reporting error on the number of elderly SNAP participants in FY 2007 and prior years is likely to be 

small, as is the likely effect on elderly participation rate estimates presented later in this report. 
Introduction Mathematica Policy Research 

3 

rate than do all eligible people. In FY 2007, the SNAP participation rate among elderly individuals 

was only 35 percent, versus 73 percent for nonelderly individuals (Leftin 2010). 

Some policymakers and advocates have been concerned about the low rate of elderly 

participation in SNAP for several reasons. First, some evidence suggests that receipt of SNAP 

benefits increases both household food expenditures and overall financial well-being (LeBlanc et al. 

2006). Second, although rates of food security are higher among households with a member over 

age 65 (92 percent in 2008) than among all households (85 percent), 3 percent of households with an 

older member had very low food security in 2008 (Nord et al. 2009). In these households, the food 

intake of at least one member was reduced because the household lacked sufficient resources. 

Further evidence of possible unmet need comes from waiting lists for other food assistance 

programs, such as Meals-on-Wheels (Salmon and Bridges 2005). Finally, Lee and Frongillo (2001) 

found that food-insecure elderly people had a poorer nutritional and health status than food-secure 

elderly people. Given the potentially positive effect of SNAP benefits on the health and well-being 

of elderly participants, many policymakers are interested in increasing elderly SNAP participation. 

B. Efforts to Increase SNAP Participation Among Elderly Individuals 

Researchers have identified several factors that contribute to the low rate of SNAP participation 

by elderly individuals (Maryns 2008). Among these is a perception held by some that the SNAP 

application process, including income and expense verification, is too burdensome. Elderly 

individuals also may have inaccurate information about eligibility requirements and the level of 

benefits for which they are likely to qualify. 

Federal and state policymakers have undertaken a variety of efforts to address these deterrents, 

including the implementation of programs intended to facilitate elderly participation. An example is 

SSI Combined Application Projects (CAPs), which are state projects that streamline the application 

process for certain elderly individuals who also are receiving SSI. These partnerships between FNS 

and the Social Security Administration (SSA) use standard deduction or benefit amounts, require a 
Introduction Mathematica Policy Research 

4 

minimal amount of income and asset verification beyond that required for the SSI program, and 

often do not require a visit to the local SNAP office. By June 2009, 15 states had implemented CAPs 

and another 4 states had projects that were either approved but not yet implemented or pending 

approval (USDA 2009). Boussy et al. (2000) found that in South Carolina, one of the first states to 

implement an SSI CAP, SNAP participation rates among eligible SSI recipients increased during the 

first several years of the project. 

Other examples of initiatives intended to facilitate elderly participation are the Standard Medical 

Deduction, Simplified Application, and Simplified Elderly Reporting demonstration projects that 

some states have implemented or plan to implement. The Standard Medical Deduction 

demonstrations simplify the application process by applying a standard medical deduction for SNAP 

households with an elderly or disabled member who incurs monthly medical expenses of more than 

$35. In 2009, seven states—Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, 

and Wyoming—operated Standard Medical Deduction demonstrations. The Elderly/Disabled 

Simplified Application demonstrations reduce the burden of applying for SNAP benefits for 

qualifying SNAP households by waiving face-to-face interviews and some income verification 

requirements. In 2009, three states—Alabama, Florida, and South Carolina—operated Simplified 

Application demonstrations. Finally, the Simplified Elderly Reporting demonstrations aim to 

increase SNAP participation and reduce the administrative burden on the state agency by reducing 

the income reporting requirements for qualifying participating SNAP households. 

Between 2002 and 2004, USDA funded county-wide demonstration projects in six states to test 

several additional methods designed to increase SNAP participation among eligible elderly 

individuals. The methods included simplifying the application process, increasing elderly individuals’ 

understanding of SNAP, assisting with the application process, and providing commodities rather 

than standard SNAP benefits. Cody and Ohls (2005) found that most of the demonstration projects 

increased participation among the target populations. 
Introduction Mathematica Policy Research 

5 

Another strategy used to encourage elderly SNAP participation is increased outreach. FNS 

awards outreach grants in an effort to increase program participation among eligible households. 

The USDA (2008) prepared a report describing the 16 outreach projects that resulted from the 

nearly $2 million the agency awarded in 2004 and 2005. The report describes the projects’ goals and 

strategies and includes grantees’ self-evaluations of their project performances. Altogether, the 

grantees report prescreening more than 18,000 households and facilitating the submission of 12,000 

SNAP applications, 7,000 of which were known to have been approved. By November 2007, 23 

states had implemented formal outreach programs intended to increase participation in SNAP and 

other states were operating informal programs (USDA 2007). 

In 2009, FNS awarded a new set of outreach grants to six states, three of which are targeting 

outreach to the elderly. Two of the states—Ohio and Michigan—are making extensive use of 

community partners to provide SNAP application assistance at sites frequented by seniors. The 

third—Pennsylvania—is conducting data matching to identify seniors not enrolled in SNAP but 

enrolled in other assistance programs that have similar eligibility criteria (and thus imply eligibility 

for SNAP). A local nonprofit organization will conduct targeted outreach to this group and provide 

application assistance through its call center. This state also will apply waivers of face-to-face 

interviews and some income and expense verification requirements. The outreach strategies are 

being formally evaluated. 

C. Additional Existing Research on SNAP Participation and Eligibility 

In addition to the research already cited, many other recent reports have examined SNAP 

participation and eligibility. Mabli et al. (2009) examined the factors associated with the increase in 

SNAP participation between 2000 and 2006 and found that program outreach and policies that 

expand eligibility or reduce reporting requirements all increased the number of SNAP participants. 

Klerman and Danielson (2009) examined the extent to which changes in the economic climate and 

SNAP and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) policies affected SNAP caseload 
Introduction Mathematica Policy Research 

6 

trends from 1990 to 2004. Their research indicates that, among households not receiving TANF or 

SSI, both the economy and SNAP policies affected SNAP participation. The effect on households 

that received TANF or SSI is less clear. Ratcliffe et al. (2008) used data from the Survey of Income 

and Program Participation (SIPP) and data on state SNAP, TANF, minimum wage, and Earned 

Income Tax Credit policies to examine the effect of policies on program participation. They found 

that expanded categorical eligibility, vehicle exemption policies, and longer certification periods 

increased SNAP participation, while fingerprinting requirements lowered participation. Cody et al. 

(2007) examined variations across states in SNAP participation rates and found that demographic 

and policy differences between states explain some, but not all, of the differences in participation 

rates. 

Other researchers specifically examined elderly individuals’ low participation in SNAP. Wu 

(2009) used data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and other sources to examine the 

causes of low elderly SNAP participation rates and the implications for elderly well-being. She found 

that the lower average benefit for which elderly eligibles qualify, lack of information about SNAP 

eligibility, and a preference for other types of nutrition assistance, such as congregate dining, are all 

factors in the low elderly SNAP participation rates. Wu also determined that low SNAP 

participation, on average, did not negatively affect elderly nutritional well-being. 

Gabor et al. (2002) used focus groups to gather data from elderly individuals in Washington 

State on their views of SNAP. Among the reasons given for nonparticipation were the stigma 

associated with receiving assistance, the belief that the benefits would be too low to be worth the 

effort, and an application process perceived as overly complicated and intrusive. Wilde and Dagata 

(2002) found similar participation barriers among older individuals, as well as difficulties with 

transportation and the use of electronic benefit transfer cards. Using the Health and Retirement 

Study, Haider et al. (2003) found that measurement error, or inaccurate identification by researchers 
Introduction Mathematica Policy Research 

7 

of individuals eligible for SNAP, does not explain elderly individuals’ estimated low rates of 

participation in SNAP and that participation rates vary among age cohorts. 

D. Research Objectives 

The research presented in this report supplements existing research by providing a rich source 

of data on elderly individuals’ eligibility for and participation in SNAP. Combined with information 

on federal and state efforts to increase elderly SNAP participation and data on economic and 

demographic changes that affect states’ elderly populations, this research can increase policymakers’ 

understanding of the factors that influence elderly individuals’ SNAP participation decisions. 

The questions that guided this research are: 

What are the economic and demographic characteristics of elderly SNAP participants? 

Do the characteristics vary by state and year? 

What are the characteristics of elderly individuals who are eligible for SNAP? Do the 

characteristics vary by state? Do they differ from the characteristics of elderly 

participants and ineligible low-income elderly individuals? 

What percentage of the low-income elderly population is eligible for SNAP? Do SNAP 

eligibility rates vary across states? 

Do elderly SNAP participation rates vary across states and years? Do most states have a 

similar elderly participation rate trend? Are differences in rates between states or changes 

in rates between years due to differences in the number of eligibles or participants? 

What are the likely effects on SNAP eligibility, participation, and benefit levels of SSI 

CAPs and other state options and demonstration projects designed to increase elderly 

individuals’ eligibility for and participation in SNAP?

In the remainder of this report, we describe the methodology used to address these research 

questions (Chapter II) and present and summarize the findings (Chapters III and IV, respectively). 

Detailed tables with additional data are available in the appendices. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Methodology Mathematica Policy Research 

9 

II. METHODOLOGY 

We used SNAP Quality Control (QC) (formerly known as FSPQC) data to tabulate 

characteristics of elderly SNAP participants for FY 2000 through FY 2007 by state, and the 2009 

Baseline of the 2005 MATH® SIPP+ model to tabulate characteristics of elderly individuals eligible 

for SNAP in FY 2009 by state. We also used the MATH SIPP+ model to estimate eligibility rates by 

characteristics and state. Finally, we used Current Population Survey (CPS); SNAP QC; and other 

administrative, survey, and program data to estimate state SNAP participation rates for elderly 

individuals for FY 2002 through FY 2006. We chose to use data from different time periods so we 

could use the most recent data available when the research was conducted. We discuss this in more 

detail in the sections below. 

To be eligible for SNAP under the standard federal rules, most elderly SNAP households—

those with at least one elderly member—must have no more than $3,000 in countable assets and 

have net income under 100 percent of the federal poverty guideline.5 Pure public assistance 

households—those in which every member receives income from SSI, TANF, or General 

Assistance—are categorically eligible for SNAP, meaning that they are not subject to the asset or 

income tests. Some states have extended categorical eligibility to additional low-income households, 

exempting them from the federal SNAP asset test and, in some cases, the net income test. While 

two states (Maine and Maryland) have restricted the categorical eligibility expansion to households 

with children, others do not include demographic constraints. By the beginning of FY 2009, 13 

states had enacted expanded categorical eligibility policies to exempt all or almost all households 

from the federal SNAP asset test. 

 

5 Throughout this report, ―SNAP household‖ refers to those members of a dwelling unit who purchase and 

prepare food together and thus would be required to apply for SNAP as a unit. SNAP households often comprise all 

members of a dwelling unit, but occasionally a dwelling unit will form two or more SNAP households. A SNAP 

household, as defined in this report, is not necessarily eligible for or participating in SNAP. 
Methodology Mathematica Policy Research 

10

Under federal rules, countable assets include the value of most financial assets and some 

vehicles. Beginning in FY 2009, tax-preferred retirement and education savings were excluded from 

countable assets. States have the flexibility to align the rules by which vehicle assets are counted 

when determining SNAP eligibility to those in place for a state TANF-funded program as long as 

the alternate program rules are more generous than the federal rules. If a state chooses this option, 

the new vehicle rules apply to all SNAP applicants. By FY 2009, all states had implemented more 

generous policies that excluded some or all vehicle assets from countable assets. 

Net income is calculated by subtracting certain deductions from gross income. Every SNAP 

household is allowed a standard deduction, the amount of which is based on the household’s

geographic location and size. (In FY 2009, the standard deduction for SNAP households with one 

to three members was $144 in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, $203 in 

Hawaii, and $245 in Alaska.) In addition, SNAP households may deduct shelter costs that exceed 50 

percent of their countable income after subtracting all other deductions. Elderly SNAP households 

are not subject to a cap on this deduction. (In FY 2009, the excess shelter expense deduction for 

SNAP households without elderly or disabled members was capped at $446 in the 48 contiguous 

states and the District of Columbia, $601 in Hawaii, and $713 in Alaska.) SNAP households with 

elderly or disabled members also may deduct out-of-pocket medical expenses incurred by those 

members in excess of $35 per month. Finally, they may deduct 20 percent of SNAP household 

earnings; the cost of dependent care incurred while other household members work, seek 

employment, or attend school; and legally obligated child support expenses. SNAP benefit amounts 

are calculated by subtracting 30 percent of SNAP household net income from the maximum benefit, 

as determined by SNAP household size. 

Eligible one- and two-person SNAP households are guaranteed a minimum benefit. For 

decades, including most of the period covered by this research, the minimum benefit for small 

SNAP households was $10. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 increased the 
Methodology Mathematica Policy Research 

11

minimum benefit to 8 percent of the maximum benefit for a one-person household beginning in FY 

2009. Accordingly, the minimum benefit was $14 for the first half of FY 2009 and then increased to 

$16 as of April 2009 with the passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 

(ARRA). Although 18 percent of SNAP households with elderly members received the minimum 

benefit in 2008 (Wolkwitz and Trippe 2009), elderly SNAP households with significant shelter, 

medical, or other deductible expenses can qualify for benefits substantially larger than the minimum 

benefit. 

We used SNAP eligibility and benefit determination rules to simulate SNAP eligibility in both 

the CPS-based eligibility files and the MATH SIPP+ model. The SNAP QC data files provide 

information on SNAP households eligible for benefits based on the SNAP rules described above. 

The data and methodology used in the research are described briefly below. In each section, we 

provide references to documents with more details on methodology. 

A. Characteristics of Elderly SNAP Participants 

We used SNAP QC databases for FY 2000 through FY 2007 to tabulate economic and 

demographic characteristics of elderly SNAP participants over time and by state. These databases, 

which are representative at the state level, contain detailed demographic, economic, and SNAP 

eligibility information for an annual sample of more than 45,000 SNAP households. More recent 

files, such as the 2008 SNAP QC data file described in Wolkwitz and Ewell (2009), were not 

available when the research presented here was conducted. 

Five of the data files—for FY 2000 through FY 2004—differ slightly from the published SNAP 

QC data files for those years. Two weighting methodology updates were implemented for this 

research to make these consistent with the most recent data files. First, the published data files for 

FY 2000 through FY 2002 are weighted to match unadjusted administrative control totals. The files 

used for this research instead are weighted to match administrative control totals adjusted to remove 

SNAP households receiving disaster assistance benefits and ineligible SNAP households that 
Methodology Mathematica Policy Research 

12

received benefits in error. Benefit totals also were adjusted for benefits over- or under-issued to 

eligible SNAP households. Second, the published data files for FY 2000 through FY 2004 are 

weighted to match administrative totals for SNAP households only, whereas the data files used for 

this research are weighted to match administrative control totals for individuals and benefits as well 

as SNAP households. 

Technical documentation for the FY 2007 SNAP QC data file (Wolkwitz and Ewell 2008) and 

earlier SNAP QC data files is available at http://hostm142.mathematica-mpr.com/fns/ 

download.htm.

B. SNAP Eligibility Rates and Characteristics of Elderly Eligible Individuals 

We used the 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model to tabulate economic and 

demographic characteristics of elderly individuals eligible for SNAP and estimate SNAP eligibility 

rates—the percentage of the low-income elderly population eligible for SNAP. The MATH SIPP+ 

is a microsimulation model with two components: an underlying database and a series of computer 

programs. The database consists of individual household records that contain detailed information 

about household income, assets, expenses, and demographics. The computer programs, acting as 

―electronic caseworkers,‖ apply SNAP eligiblity rules to each household in the database to determine 

whether it would be eligible for the program and, if so, the benefit to which it would be entitled. The 

eligibility rules simulated include determining which members of a household or dwelling unit would 

be required to apply for SNAP as a unit, or ―SNAP household.‖ The model also predicts which 

eligible SNAP households would participate in SNAP. The predicted participant population is 

calibrated to match participant totals and characteristics from the SNAP QC data file. 

The MATH SIPP+ model is based on data from both the SIPP and the CPS Annual Social and 

Economic Supplement (ASEC). The SIPP was chosen to serve as the model’s underlying database 

because it contains the data on household income, assets, and expenses needed to determine SNAP 

eligiblity and benefit amounts. The SIPP sample is relatively small, however, and is not 
Methodology Mathematica Policy Research 

13

representative at the state level. To overcome these weaknesses, the MATH SIPP+ model also 

incorporates CPS ASEC data. While the CPS ASEC does not contain information on assets and 

expenses, it provides a larger sample than the SIPP and is representative at the state level. The CPS 

data are used to reweight the SIPP data in such a way that the MATH SIPP+ model can be used for 

state-level simulations. In brief, each SNAP household in the underlying SIPP database is assigned a 

set of state weights—one for each state—derived from the original SIPP weight and based on state 

demographic and economic household characteristics from the CPS ASEC. Through these state 

weights, the MATH SIPP+ model uses data on all SNAP households in the sample, regardless of 

their state of residence, to simulate SNAP eligibility in each state. 

The 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model uses September 2005 SIPP data, 2005 and 

2006 CPS ASEC data, and FY 2008 SNAP QC data. The model simulates SNAP in FY 20096 and 

SSI and TANF participation and benefits in 2005. The state SSI supplements simulated are listed in 

Table II.1. The SNAP simulation incorporates the SNAP policy changes included in ARRA and the 

Table II.1. State SSI Supplements Simulated in the MATH SIPP+ Model 

State Individual Couple State Individual Couple

Alaska 362 528 New Jersey 31 25

California 226 553 New York 87 104

Colorado 25 339 Oklahoma 48 96

Connecticut 168 277 Oregon 2 0

Idaho 52 20 Pennsylvania 27 44

Maine 10 15 Rhode Island 57 109

Massachusetts 129 202 South Dakota 15 15

Michigan 14 28 Utah 0 5

Minnesota 61 91 Vermont 52 99

Nebraska 9 5 Wisconsin 84 132

Nevada 36 74 Wyoming 10 26

New Hampshire 27 21

Source: State Assistance Programs for SSI Recipients, January 2005. 

 

6

 All 2009 parameters expressed in dollar amounts are deflated to 2005 dollars using a ratio derived from CPI-U 

data. 
Methodology Mathematica Policy Research 

14

state asset and categorical eligibility policies summarized in Table II.2. We chose to use the 2009 

Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model rather than an earlier version of the model (the 2006 

Baseline of the 2002 MATH SIPP+ model) to take advantage of more recent data and enhanced 

model development methodologies. The creation of the 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ 

model is described in Smith (2010). 

C. SNAP Participation Rates 

We estimated state SNAP participation rates for elderly individuals for FY 2002 through FY 

2006 employing the data and methodology used to estimate state participation rates for all eligible 

individuals and eligible working poor, as published in ―Reaching Those in Need: State Food Stamp 

Participation Rates in 2006‖ (Cunnyngham et al. 2008). More recent files, such as the 2007 eligibility 

file developed for ―Reaching Those in Need: State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

Participation Rates in 2007‖ (Cunnyngham and Castner 2009) were not available when the research 

presented here was conducted. 

The small area estimation methodology used to estimate state SNAP participation rates draws 

on data from the SNAP QC System, the CPS ASEC, the decennial census, and administrative 

records. It uses a shrinkage estimator to average direct sample estimates of elderly SNAP 

participation rates with predictions from a regression model. 

We used a small area estimation methodology to overcome the small sample sizes available in 

the CPS for most states. Direct state participation rate estimates based on small sample sizes are 

imprecise and result in large confidence intervals. The shrinkage estimator uses data for all states, 

several time periods, and multiple data sources, substantially improving the precision of our 

participation rate estimates. 

Direct Sample Estimates. To obtain direct sample participation rate estimates, we used SNAP 

QC data files to estimate the number of elderly SNAP participants in an average month of each fiscal 
Methodology Mathematica Policy Research 

15

Table II.2. State Policies Regarding Expanded Categorical Eligibility and Vehicle Assets Simulated 

in the 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ Model 

SNAP Households 

Exempt from 

Asset Testa

Vehicles Excluded 

from Asset Test

SNAP Households 

With Higher Gross 

Income Limita

SNAP Households 

Exempt from Net 

Income Testa

Alabama All

Alaska Most

Arizona Almost All All Almost All Almost All

Arkansas Some

California All

Colorado All

Connecticut All

Delaware All - All All

District of Columbia All

Florida Some

Georgia All - All

Hawaii All

Idaho Most

Illinois Some

Indiana All

Iowa Some

Kansas All

Kentucky All

Louisiana All

Maine Some Some Some Some

Maryland Some All Some Some

Massachusetts All -

Michigan All - All All

Minnesota Higher Limit for Most Most All

Mississippi All

Missouri All

Montana All

Nebraska Some

Nevada Some

New Hampshire Most

New Jersey All

New Mexico All

New York All - All

North Carolina Most

North Dakota All - All

Ohio All

Oklahoma Most

Oregon Almost All All Almost All Almost All

Pennsylvania All - All

Rhode Island Some

South Carolina All - All All

South Dakota Some

Tennessee All

Texas Higher Limit for Most Federal Rules Some

Utah All

Vermont Almost All Some Almost All Almost All

Virginia All

Washington All - All All

West Virginia All

Wisconsin All - All All

Wyoming Some

Source: Smith (2010). 

a

 By federal rule, states are not permitted to extend categorical eligibility to a very small number of SNAP 

households, including those with members who intentionally violate program rules. However, since these 

households are not identified in the SIPP, the MATH SIPP+ model does not simulate this rule. 
Methodology Mathematica Policy Research 

16

year and CPS-based SNAP eligibility files to estimate the number of elderly individuals eligible for 

SNAP in an average month of each fiscal year. 

The SNAP QC databases are edited versions of the data files generated by SNAP’s QC System. 

Three of the files we used differ slightly from the published SNAP QC data files. As described in 

Section II.A, we revised data files for FY 2002 through FY 2004 to be methodologically consistent 

with the more recent files. 

The CPS-based eligibility files were developed to produce the denominators of the participation 

rates presented in ―Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: 2000 

to 2006‖ (Wolkwitz 2008). Like the SNAP QC data files we used, these annual files are produced 

with a consistent methodology, allowing us to examine trends in SNAP eligibility levels and 

participation rates over time. 

To ensure consistency between the participant estimates (the participation rate numerator) and 

the eligibles estimates (the participation rate denominator), certain SNAP households were removed 

from the SNAP QC data file. Specifically, the CPS does not contain the information needed to 

identify SNAP households that would fail the SNAP income tests but are eligible through certain 

state categorical eligibility rules; for this reason, such households were dropped from the 

participation rate numerators. Just over one percent of eligible participants was removed from the 

FY 2006 participant estimates. 

Regression Predictions. To develop the regression predictions, we evaluated a large number 

of potential regression models. To create these models, we drew on a pool of predictors previously 

developed and used to estimate state SNAP participation rates for all eligible individuals and eligible 

working poor, and to estimate state numbers of children income eligible for WIC. We chose the 

regression model that seemed to possess the strongest predictive ability based on an examination of 

functions of the regression residuals, such as mean squared error. We also checked for and found no 

strong evidence of correctable model bias, or a persistent tendency to under- or over-predict the 
Methodology Mathematica Policy Research 

17

number of elderly eligibles for certain types of states categorized by, for example, region or 

racial/ethnic composition. The model included the following predictors (in addition to an intercept): 

The percentage of the population receiving SNAP benefits each year, according to 

program operations data from FNS and population estimates from the U.S. Census 

Bureau 

The percentage of the population age 65 and over receiving SSI each year, according to 

SSA and population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau 

The percentage of the population age 65 and over at or below 100 percent of the federal 

poverty level in 1999, according to Census 2000 

The percentage of families with related children under age 5 at or below 100 percent of 

the federal poverty level in 1999, according to Census 2000 

The median household income in 1999, according to Census 2000 

The percentage of the population over age 25 with a high school degree or higher in 

1999, according to Census 2000 

The percentage of the employed civilian population 16 years and over that was selfemployed in 1999, according to Census 2000 

The percentage of the population that was foreign-born and naturalized in 1999, 

according to Census 2000 

Shrinkage Estimation Methodology. After obtaining the direct sample estimates and the 

regression predictions, we used shrinkage estimation methods to combine them. The empirical 

Bayes shrinkage estimator jointly derived estimates of participation rates for elderly eligibles and all 

eligibles for all five years for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. It took into account the 

inter-year correlations in sampling and model errors, the correlation between estimates of elderly 

eligibles and all eligibles, and the correlation between estimates of elderly and all participants. We 

used the estimated participation rates to derive estimates of the numbers of elderly eligibles and all 

eligibles. After deriving the shrinkage estimates, we tested for statistically significant differences in 

numbers of eligibles and rates across states and over time. 

The national FY 2002 through FY 2004 estimates for elderly individuals differ slightly from 

estimates published in Leftin and Wolkwitz (2009) because we used revised SNAP QC data files for 

those years. The state estimates for all individuals jointly derived with the elderly state estimates for 
Methodology Mathematica Policy Research 

18

this research differ slightly from those published in Cunnyngham and Castner (2009) because we 

chose to use a different regression model for the estimates presented here—one with better 

predictive ability for the elderly estimates—and because we jointly estimated participation rates for 

five years, rather than the three used for the Cunnyngham and Castner estimates, as well as for 

elderly individuals and all individuals, rather than working poor individuals and all individuals. 

Because of the differences in estimated participation rates for all individuals, we limit our 

discussion in this report to the elderly state participation rate estimates. We present estimated 

national participation rates for elderly individuals and all individuals for comparison purposes, but 

these estimates are not intended to supplant the estimates published in Leftin and Wolkwitz (2009). 

The direct sample estimates, regression predictions, and other data used to derive the shrinkage 

participation rate estimates are available on request. More details on the methodology and data used 

to estimate state SNAP participation rates can be found in these three documents: 

1. Cunnyngham et al. (2009) describes the shrinkage estimation methodology and is 

available at http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/nutrition/ 

empbayes04-06rpt.pdf. 

2. Wolkwitz (2008) contains an appendix that describes the methodology used to develop 

the CPS-based eligibility and SNAP QC-based participant files from which the direct 

sample estimates were derived. This document is available at http://www.mathematicampr.com/publications/PDFs/fsptrends00-06.pdf. 

3. Wolkwitz and Ewell (2007) and similar reports provide technical documentation for 

SNAP QC data files and are available at http://hostm142.mathematicampr.com/fns/download.htm. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

19

III. FINDINGS 

In this chapter, we present and discuss the findings, including characteristics of elderly SNAP 

participants for FY 2000 through FY 2007, characteristics of elderly individuals eligible for SNAP in 

FY 2009, SNAP eligibility rates for elderly individuals for FY 2009, and SNAP participation rates for 

elderly individuals for FY 2002 through FY 2006. We also mention some apparent connections 

between state policies or characteristics and elderly SNAP eligibility and participation. However, a 

rigorous analysis of the correlation between various policy, economic, and demographic factors and 

state elderly participation and eligibility rates and characteristics of elderly eligibles and participants 

was beyond the scope of this research. 

The number and characteristics of SNAP-eligible individuals in a state can be influenced by 

state and federal eligibility policies, household economic circumstances, and state demographics. 

Differences in state policies, economies, and demographics may lead to differences across states in SNAP 

eligibility rates and the characteristics of the eligible population. Similarly, changes in policies, 

economic circumstances, or demographics can lead to changes in the number and characteristics of 

the eligible population in a state. For example, the number of SNAP eligibles in a state will tend to 

increase if the state adopts rules that exclude additional vehicles from the SNAP asset test. The 

number of eligibles also will increase if poverty rates rise, which means that more SNAP applicants 

will pass the gross income test, or if shelter or medical costs rise, which means that SNAP applicants 

are more likely to pass the net income test. Differences across states, such as in poverty rates or 

shelter or medical costs, may lead to state differences in the size and composition of the SNAP 

eligible population. The presence and size of state SSI supplements can also affect the number of 

SNAP eligibles: a smaller percentage of SSI recipients are likely to be eligible for SNAP in states 

with generous SSI supplements than in states with no SSI supplement. 

The number and characteristics of SNAP participants in a state are determined both by the 

number of eligible individuals and their participation decisions. Participation decisions can be 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

20

affected by outreach and education efforts, the application process, household perceptions of need, 

other programs that interact with SNAP, and SNAP benefit amounts. As with eligibles, changes in 

policies and practices, economic circumstances, or demographics can also lead to changes in the 

number and characteristics of the participant population in a state. For example, the number of 

SNAP eligibles who decide to participate in the program will tend to increase if a state increases 

outreach efforts or streamlines the application process through an SSI CAP, a Standard Medical 

Deduction, or other application process simplifications. An increase in the SNAP benefit amount 

for which an eligible SNAP household qualifies also will increase the likelihood that the SNAP 

household will choose to participate.7 Changes in SNAP benefit amounts can be the result of a 

change in household economic circumstances or size, or in federal or state policies affecting the 

benefit calculation. Examples of federal policies that increased SNAP benefits are the 13.6 percent 

increase in maximum benefit amounts and the associated increase in the minimum benefit included 

in ARRA, effective April 2009. 

Although relatively limited, states also have the ability to implement policies that affect benefit 

amounts. For instance, some states allow SNAP households whose heating costs are included in 

their rent to claim a higher Standard Utility Allowance (SUA) by conferring a small Low Income 

Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) benefit on them. A SNAP household that receives a 

LIHEAP benefit is eligible for a state’s heating and cooling SUA, which is higher than the nonheating and cooling SUA. 

We examine the characteristics of elderly SNAP participants by state and over time in Section 

III.A and the characteristics of the elderly SNAP-eligible population and the low-income SNAPineligible population by state in Section III.B. 

 

7 As mentioned in Chapter 2, throughout this report, ―SNAP household‖ refers to a group of individuals who 

would be required to apply for SNAP as a unit. A SNAP household is not necessarily comprised of everyone in a 

dwelling unit nor is it necessarily eligible for or participating in SNAP. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

21

Elderly SNAP participation rates—the percentage of the elderly eligible population participating 

in the program—are an important measure of how well the program is reaching its target population 

in each state. Elderly SNAP eligibility rates—the percentage of the low-income elderly population 

eligible for SNAP—also are an important tool for use in comparing SNAP eligibility and 

participation across states. We discuss state eligibility rates for the low-income elderly population 

and two subgroups (those with SSI and those in one-person SNAP households) in Section III.C. We 

discuss state elderly participation rates, the number of eligible individuals and participants, and 

differences in participation rates across states in Section III.D. 

A. Characteristics of Elderly SNAP Participants 

We used edited administrative data—SNAP QC data files—to examine the characteristics of 

elderly SNAP participants from FY 2000 through FY 2007. The participant tabulations presented 

here differ in two respects from tabulations presented in Wolkwitz and Leftin (2008) and earlier 

reports in the series on characteristics of SNAP participants. First, the research presented in this 

report relied on revised data files for FY 2000 through 2004, as described in the methodology 

chapter. Second, these tabulations exclude Guam and the Virgin Islands; our focus is on the 50 

states and the District of Columbia. Detailed tabulations of the characteristics of elderly SNAP 

participants are presented in Appendix A. 

1. Trends in National Number and Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants 

The average monthly number of elderly SNAP participants increased by almost 40 percent from 

FY 2000 to FY 2007 (Table III.1). After a slight initial drop, from 1.63 million in FY 2000 to 1.56

million in FY 2001, the average monthly number of elderly participants reached 2.26 million in FY 

2007. At the same time, the average monthly number of all SNAP participants grew from 16.88 

million in FY 2000 to 25.89 million in FY 2007, an increase of more than 50 percent. Much of the 

increase in overall participation occurred from FY 2002 through FY 2005, while the increase in 

elderly participation occurred primarily from FY 2003 through FY 2006. Because the increase in 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

22

total participation occurred earlier than that in elderly participation, the percentage of participants 

over age 60 dropped by almost 2 percentage points, from 10 percent in FY 2000 to 8 percent in FY 

2002, before rising to 9 percent in FY 2006. Further, because total participation increased more than 

elderly participation during this time period, the percentage of elderly SNAP participants remained 

one percentage point lower in FY 2007 than in FY 2000. 

Table III.1. Estimated National Average Monthly Number and Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants, 

by Year 

SNAP Participants Elderly SNAP Participants Percentage 

Elderly 

(Standard Error)

Number 

(000,000s)

Percent 

Change

Cumulative 

Change

Number 

(000,000s)

Percent 

Change

Cumulative 

Change

FY 2000 16.88 1.63 10 (0.4)

FY 2001 16.81 -0.4 -0.4 1.56 -4.0 -4.0 9 (0.3)

FY 2002 18.57 10.5 10.0 1.57 0.9 -3.2 8 (0.2)

FY 2003 20.74 11.7 22.9 1.69 7.2 3.8 8 (0.1)

FY 2004 23.29 12.3 38.0 1.92 13.6 17.9 8 (0.1)

FY 2005 24.84 6.7 47.2 2.04 6.6 25.7 8 (0.1)

FY 2006 25.55 2.9 51.4 2.23 8.9 36.9 9 (0.1)

FY 2007 25.89 1.3 53.4 2.26 1.7 39.1 9 (0.1)

Source: Revised FY 2000–FY 2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–FY 2007 SNAP QC data files. 

2. Trends in State Number and Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants 

In most states, elderly participation fluctuated over time but generally increased from the earlier 

years of the study period to the later ones (Table III.2). In two states (Georgia and Michigan), the 

number of elderly SNAP participants followed the national trend and increased or essentially held 

constant (change was less than one percentage point) each year from FY 2000 to FY 2007. In four 

other states (Delaware, Florida, Illinois, and Oregon), the number increased or held constant in 

every year except FY 2007. While two states saw a decline in the number of elderly participants from 

FY 2000 to FY 2007 (Alabama and Hawaii), and others only a minimal increase (e.g., Arkansas and 

Montana), six experienced an increase in elderly participation of more than 100 percent (Arizona, 

Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, Texas, and Washington). 

Following the national trend, the percentage of the SNAP population that was elderly declined 

over the study period in a majority of states (Table III.3). In about a quarter of the states, however, 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

23

Table III.2. Change in Estimated Elderly SNAP Participation, FY 2000 Through FY 2007 

Change in Estimated Number of Elderly SNAP Participants

Percent Change 

FY 2000–2007

Direction of Change

’00-01 ’01-‘02 ’02-‘03 ’03-‘04 ’04-‘05 ’05-‘06 ’06-‘07

United States 39       

Alabama -19       

Alaska 25    —   

Arizona 119       

Arkansas 3    —   

California 44       

Colorado 4       

Connecticut 37 —      

Delaware 148       

District of Columbia 40       

Florida 28   —    

Georgia 16 — — — —   

Hawaii -5    — — — 

Idaho 23  —     

Illinois 56  —     

Indiana 50  —     

Iowa 38       

Kansas 7   — —   

Kentucky 20      — 

Louisiana 34       

Maine 8    — —  

Maryland 16  —     

Massachusetts 139       

Michigan 53 —   —   

Minnesota 23       

Mississippi 13       

Missouri 28       

Montana 2       

Nebraska 18       

Nevada 98     —  

New Hampshire 8       

New Jersey 16       

New Mexico 13  —    — 

New York 28       

North Carolina 45       

North Dakota 54       

Ohio 41       

Oklahoma 10       

Oregon 106       

Pennsylvania 66       

Rhode Island 42 —      

South Carolina 33       

South Dakota 6       

Tennessee 42      — 

Texas 104       

Utah 15       

Vermont 10       

Virginia 23       

Washington 107      — 

West Virginia 23    —   

Wisconsin 41       

Wyoming 33       

Sources: Revised FY 2000–FY 2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–FY 2007 SNAP QC data files. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

24

Table III.3. Change in Estimated Percentage of SNAP Participants Age 60 or Older by State, FY 

2000 to 2007 

Percentage Point Change in Percentage

Elderly, FY 2000 to 2007 

Percentage Elderly, FY 2007

(Standard error)

United States -1 9 (0.1)

Alabama -4 6 (0.4)

Alaska -1 5 (0.7)

Arizona 0 6 (0.5)

Arkansas -3 7 (0.5)

California 0 2 (0.3)

Colorado -4 7 (0.5)

Connecticut 1 12 (0.7)

Delaware 1 6 (0.7)

District of Columbia 2 9 (0.8)

Florida -1 16 (0.8)

Georgia -3 7 (0.5)

Hawaii 3 16 (1.0)

Idaho -2 7 (0.6)

Illinois 0 7 (0.5)

Indiana -2 6 (0.5)

Iowa -2 6 (0.6)

Kansas -3 8 (0.6)

Kentucky -2 8 (0.5)

Louisiana 0 8 (0.5)

Maine -5 11 (0.7)

Maryland -2 9 (0.6)

Massachusetts 2 12 (0.8)

Michigan -2 7 (0.6)

Minnesota -1 9 (0.7)

Mississippi -3 8 (0.5)

Missouri -3 6 (0.7)

Montana -2 6 (0.7)

Nebraska -2 8 (0.6)

Nevada 0 12 (0.8)

New Hampshire -4 8 (0.9)

New Jersey 0 12 (0.7)

New Mexico -1 6 (0.5)

New York 1 17 (1.0)

North Carolina -3 10 (0.6)

North Dakota 0 10 (0.8)

Ohio -2 7 (0.4)

Oklahoma -4 7 (0.5)

Oregon 1 10 (0.7)

Pennsylvania 1 10 (0.7)

Rhode Island 3 11 (0.9)

South Carolina -3 8 (0.5)

South Dakota -2 7 (0.8)

Tennessee -2 9 (0.6)

Texas 1 9 (0.5)

Utah -2 5 (0.5)

Vermont -1 12 (1.1)

Virginia -3 11 (0.6)

Washington 1 10 (0.6)

West Virginia 1 9 (0.7)

Wisconsin -3 7 (0.5)

Wyoming 2 7 (1.0)

Sources: Revised FY 2000 – FY 2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005 – FY 2007 SNAP QC data files. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

25

the elderly percentage was higher in FY 2006 or FY 2007 than in any of the earlier years. The 

percentage of the SNAP population age 60 or over dropped by approximately four percentage 

points or more in Alabama, Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma while rising by three 

percentage points in Hawaii and Rhode Island. As with the number of elderly participants, the 

elderly percentage fluctuated over time at the state level more than at the national level. 

In FY 2007, the state elderly percentage of SNAP participants ranged from 5 percent or less in 

California, Alaska, and Utah to 16 percent or more in New York, Florida, and Hawaii. California’s 

low elderly percentage is likely due in large part to a state policy that makes SSI recipients ineligible 

for SNAP. In lieu of SNAP eligibility, SSI recipients receive an additional $10 as part of the state SSI 

supplement. Alaska’s and Utah’s low elderly percentages are likely due to the small elderly 

populations in those states (7 and 9 percent, respectively).8

 Conversely, the percentage of elderly 

Floridians is the largest among states and that of Hawaiians is among the largest (17 and 14 percent, 

respectively), contributing to those states’ high elderly percentage among participants. 

3. Elderly SNAP Participants by Type of Eligibility 

As mentioned previously, households can qualify for SNAP in several ways. The majority of 

participants are eligible because they pass the federal income and asset tests (with state vehicle rules 

applied). Some participants are not subject to, and would not pass, the income and/or asset tests but 

are either pure public assistance SNAP households or eligible under their state’s expanded 

categorical eligibility rules. An additional small number of elderly participants qualify for SNAP 

through SSI CAPs. States began implementing SSI CAPs in FY 2004; by FY 2007, 12 states had 

programs in place. 

Table III.4 shows the states that had implemented an SSI CAP by 2007 and the annual 

percentage of each state’s participant population that qualified for SNAP through the SSI CAP. The 

 

8

 Tabulation by state of the percentage of the population age 65 years and older in the 2006–2008 American 

Community Survey 3-year estimates, using the Census Bureau’s American FactFinder tool.
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

26

table also shows the three states with a standard medical deduction in FY 2007 and the percentage 

of each state’s participant population that received one. 

Table III.4. Percentage of Elderly Participants Eligible Through an SSI CAP and Percentage 

Receiving a Standard Medical Deduction, by State and Year 

Estimated Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

SSI CAP Participants

United States 10 11 10 13

Florida 7 20 23

Kentucky 14

Louisiana 10

Massachusetts 5 3 9

Mississippi 43 35 34 44

New York 42 44 36 30

North Carolina 4 3 29

Pennsylvania 6

South Carolina 28 16 31 10

Texas 32 33 20 32

Virginia 2

Washington 32 28 33 33

Received Standard Medical Deduction

United States 1

New Hampshire 31

Texas 14

Wyoming 20

Sources: Revised FY 2004 SNAP QC data file and FY 2005–FY 2007 SNAP QC data files. 

From FY 2004 through FY 2006, 10 to 11 percent of elderly participants nationally were eligible 

through an SSI CAP. In FY 2007, when the number of states with an SSI CAP increased from 8 to 

12 states, 13 percent of elderly SNAP participants were SSI CAP participants. In that year, 

Mississippi’s SSI CAP enrolled a full 44 percent of the state’s elderly SNAP participants. Two other 

states with relatively high percentages of SSI CAP participants among elderly participants—

New York (30 percent) and Florida (23 percent)—had the highest percentages of elderly participants 

among all participants. In FY 2007, only one percent of elderly SNAP households nationally 

received a Standard Medical Deduction. In New Hampshire, however, almost one-third of that 

state’s elderly participants received a Standard Medical Deduction. 

Table III.5 shows the FY 2000 through FY 2007 average percentage of elderly non-SSI CAP 

participants that would have failed the federal SNAP income tests but were pure public assistance or 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

27

Table III.5. Estimated Percentage of Elderly Non-SSI CAP SNAP Participants Who Would Fail the 

SNAP Net Income Test but Are Categorically Eligible, by State, Average FY 2000 – 2007

Elderly Non-SSI 

CAP Participants 

(Number in 000s)

Percentage Categorically Eligible FY Broad-Based 

Categorical Eligibility 

Implemented

Pure Public 

Assistance

Expanded Categorical 

Eligibility 

United States 1,746 1 1

Alabama 33 1 1 After 2007

Alaska 2 5 0 None

Arizona 22 * 1 2007

Arkansas 23 * 0 None

California 27 * 1 After 2007

Colorado 17 7 0 None

Connecticut 20 1 * After 2007

Delaware 3 1 6 2001

District of Columbia 6 0 1 After 2007

Florida 165 1 0 None

Georgia 59 1 1 After 2007

Hawaii 14 * 0 After 2007

Idaho 5 1 1 After 2007

Illinois 77 * 0 After 2007

Indiana 31 1 0 None

Iowa 11 1 * None

Kansas 13 * 0 None

Kentucky 42 1 0 After 2007

Louisiana 41 1 0 None

Maine 16 1 * 2001

Maryland 24 * * 2001

Massachusetts 32 1 1 2001

Michigan 66 1 5 2001

Minnesota 20 1 0 2006

Mississippi 24 1 0 None

Missouri 43 1 0 None

Montana 5 1 0 After 2007

Nebraska 8 * 0 None

Nevada 11 * * After 2007

New Hampshire 5 * 0 After 2007

New Jersey 43 * 0 After 2007

New Mexico 13 1 * After 2007

New York 190 1 * After 2007

North Carolina 61 1 1 After 2007

North Dakota 4 2 1 2001

Ohio 66 1 0 After 2007

Oklahoma 29 1 * After 2007

Oregon 33 1 8 None

Pennsylvania 84 1 0 After 2007

Rhode Island 6 1 1 After 2007

South Carolina 31 * * 2001

South Dakota 4 * 0 None

Tennessee 66 1 * After 2007

Texas 126 1 3 2002

Utah 6 1 0 None

Vermont 5 1 0 After 2007

Virginia 46 * 0 None

Washington 28 * 1 2004

West Virginia 21 1 0 After 2007

Wisconsin 21 2 6 2004

Wyoming 1 * 0 None

Sources: Revised FY 2000–FY 2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–FY 2007 SNAP QC data files. 

* Less than 0.5 percent. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

28

qualified through state expanded categorical eligibility policies. (SNAP participants who qualified 

through an SSI CAP are excluded from this table because the SNAP QC data files do not contain 

the information necessary to determine whether these households would pass the federal net income 

test.) Table III.5 also indicates when each state implemented a broad-based categorical eligibility 

policy. (Note that many states had narrowly focused categorical eligibility policies in place before a 

broad-based policy was implemented.) 

On average, from FY 2000 through FY 2007, only one percent of elderly participants would 

have failed the SNAP net income test but were eligible because they were in pure public assistance 

SNAP households, and another one percent would have failed the net income test but were eligible 

through state categorical eligibility rules. No elderly participants in the District of Columbia were 

eligible solely through their pure public assistance status and virtually none in another 17 states. The 

highest percentages of elderly participants eligible through their pure public assistance status were in 

Colorado and Alaska (seven and five percent, respectively.) The highest state percentages of elderly 

participants eligible solely through state categorical eligibility from FY 2000 through FY 2007 were 

in Oregon, Delaware, Wisconsin, and Michigan (eight, six, six, and five percent, respectively.) In half 

of the states during this time period, no elderly participants were eligible solely through state 

categorical eligibility rules, and in almost all other states, only one percent or less were. 

Many, although not all, of the states in which elderly SNAP participation increased at a higher 

than average rate from FY 2000 to FY 2007 had either implemented an SSI CAP, expanded 

categorical eligibility such that at least one percent of elderly SNAP participants were eligible only 

through that expansion, or both. For example, five of the six states in which elderly participation 

increased by 100 percent or more (Delaware, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, and Texas) had 

streamlined the application process, expanded eligibility, or both. Conversely, many, although not all, 

states in which elderly SNAP participation decreased from FY 2000 to FY 2007, or increased at a 

lower than average rate, did not have an SSI CAP or expanded categorical eligibility policies. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

29

4. Characteristics of Elderly SNAP Participants 

Table III.6 presents estimates of the national percentages of elderly SNAP participants with 

selected economic and demographic characteristics for FY 2000 through FY 2007 and an eight-year 

average. Tables III.7 through III.10 show these same characteristics by state. Table III.7 presents 

eight-year averages; the other tables include dollar amounts, which are less meaningful when 

averaged, and so present data for one year—FY 2007. The following paragraphs discuss results from 

these tables. 

Low-income elderly individuals in one-person SNAP households are of particular interest to 

policymakers. While some live with other people, the majority live alone. Because elderly individuals 

in one-person SNAP households generally do not share resources with other family members, their 

eligibility determination is usually relatively straightforward and they may be at higher risk for unmet 

nutrition needs. In addition, elderly one-person SNAP households are more likely than nonelderly 

one-person SNAP households to qualify for only a minimum benefit. Nationally, on average from 

FY2000 to FY 2007, 72 percent of elderly participants were in a one-person SNAP household. 

Table III.6. National Characteristics of Elderly SNAP Participants, FY 2000 Through FY 2007 

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

FY 

Average

Estimated Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants

One person 72 74 73 72 71 71 72 73 72

In poverty 85 85 85 84 83 84 82 82 84

With SSI in poverty 95 95 95 94 94 96 95 95 95

With SSI 60 62 60 57 58 56 55 56 58

With Social Security 68 68 68 68 67 67 68 70 68

With medical deduction 14 13 14 16 15 15 15 13 14

With shelter deduction 59 59 60 70 70 69 71 72 67

Benefit of $10 or Less 27 29 28 21 17 15 17 17 21

Maximum benefit 9 9 11 9 14 13 15 15 12

Estimated Average Dollar Amounts Among Elderly SNAP

Households with Income or Deduction Type

SSI 198 216 212 201 217 211 217 218

Social Security 355 357 374 385 393 414 431 447

Shelter deduction 214 225 251 214 255 254 286 308

Benefit 61 60 66 72 86 87 91 90

Sources: Revised FY 2000–FY 2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–FY 2007 SNAP QC data files. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

30

Table III.7. Percentage of Elderly Participants in One-Person SNAP Household, in Poverty, and 

Percentage with SSI in Poverty, by State, Average FY 2000–2007 

Estimated Percentage of Elderly Participants (Standard Error)

In One-Person SNAP 

Household In Poverty With SSI in Poverty

United States 72 (0.4) 84 (0.2) 95 (0.2)

Alabama 67 (1.5) 87 (1.1) 96 (0.8)

Alaska 55 (3.2) 57 (3.2) 48 (5.4)

Arizona 62 (1.9) 87 (1.2) 97 (0.8)

Arkansas 69 (1.3) 87 (0.9) 97 (0.6)

California 66 (3.6) 81 (2.7) -

a

Colorado 78 (1.4) 75 (1.4) 81 (1.9)

Connecticut 78 (1.3) 76 (1.3) 83 (1.5)

Delaware 76 (2.3) 76 (2.0) 94 (1.8)

District of Columbia 83 (1.7) 89 (1.2) 99 (0.6)

Florida 72 (1.0) 89 (0.6) 97 (0.5)

Georgia 72 (1.3) 84 (1.1) 96 (0.8)

Hawaii 68 (1.5) 92 (0.8) 98 (0.6)

Idaho 76 (2.0) 81 (1.5) 96 (1.2)

Illinois 73 (1.4) 82 (1.3) 90 (1.4)

Indiana 81 (1.3) 73 (1.3) 94 (1.1)

Iowa 76 (1.6) 79 (1.2) 95 (0.8)

Kansas 80 (1.4) 79 (1.1) 98 (0.6)

Kentucky 66 (1.3) 88 (0.9) 96 (0.6)

Louisiana 68 (1.5) 87 (1.1) 97 (0.7)

Maine 80 (1.2) 71 (1.4) 97 (0.7)

Maryland 72 (1.3) 87 (0.9) 96 (0.7)

Massachusetts 74 (1.5) 72 (1.5) 77 (1.7)

Michigan 77 (1.5) 73 (1.4) 93 (1.2)

Minnesota 75 (1.6) 85 (1.1) 92 (1.2)

Mississippi 74 (1.2) 92 (0.7) 98 (0.5)

Missouri 72 (2.0) 81 (1.5) 94 (1.4)

Montana 82 (1.8) 83 (1.6) 99 (0.4)

Nebraska 79 (1.5) 76 (1.4) 95 (0.9)

Nevada 79 (1.5) 84 (1.1) 97 (0.8)

New Hampshire 82 (2.1) 73 (2.0) 93 (2.3)

New Jersey 72 (1.3) 85 (0.9) 94 (0.9)

New Mexico 60 (1.5) 87 (0.9) 96 (0.7)

New York 73 (1.3) 87 (0.9) 96 (0.6)

North Carolina 73 (1.3) 80 (1.1) 95 (0.9)

North Dakota 76 (1.9) 72 (1.7) 93 (1.5)

Ohio 81 (1.2) 82 (1.0) 96 (0.7)

Oklahoma 75 (1.1) 88 (0.9) 97 (0.6)

Oregon 75 (1.6) 66 (1.5) 95 (1.1)

Pennsylvania 74 (1.4) 83 (1.0) 97 (0.7)

Rhode Island 80 (1.7) 84 (1.2) 96 (1.0)

South Carolina 73 (1.4) 88 (0.9) 98 (0.5)

South Dakota 71 (2.5) 78 (2.0) 96 (1.4)

Tennessee 69 (1.4) 79 (1.1) 95 (0.9)

Texas 65 (1.4) 89 (0.8) 97 (0.6)

Utah 76 (1.9) 87 (1.2) 97 (0.9)

Vermont 79 (2.1) 66 (2.0) 95 (1.3)

Virginia 75 (1.3) 86 (0.9) 97 (0.6)

Washington 71 (1.5) 87 (1.0) 97 (0.6)

West Virginia 67 (1.5) 85 (1.0) 97 (0.7)

Wisconsin 74 (1.5) 60 (1.6) 80 (1.9)

Wyoming 76 (3.1) 81 (2.4) 99 (0.9)

Source: FY 2007 SNAP QC data file. 

a In California, SSI recipients are ineligible for SNAP. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

31

Table III.8. Percentage of Elderly Participants in SNAP Households with SSI and Social Security Income 

and Average SSI and Social Security Amounts Among Elderly Households with Income Type, 

by State, FY 2007 

Estimated Percentage of Elderly Participants

(Standard Error)

Estimated Average Amounta

($)

With SSI With Social Security SSI Social Security

United States 56 (0.8) 70 (0.8) 218 447

Alabama 64 (4.4) 78 (3.7) 200 458

Alaska 32 (7.7) 76 (7.0) 123 557

Arizona 44 (4.8) 63 (4.5) 181 407

Arkansas 50 (4.1) 83 (3.0) 153 527

California 0

b 58 (8.8) 0b 453

Colorado 49 (4.1) 66 (3.8) 196 431

Connecticut 52 (3.9) 59 (3.7) 225 393

Delaware 36 (6.1) 79 (5.1) 122 574

District of Columbia 47 (5.1) 68 (4.4) 169 402

Florida 60 (3.2) 59 (3.0) 269 365

Georgia 45 (3.7) 82 (2.9) 137 523

Hawaii 60 (3.5) 56 (3.8) 267 355

Idaho 48 (5.1) 80 (4.5) 120 511

Illinois 60 (4.3) 59 (4.0) 264 412

Indiana 38 (4.2) 83 (3.0) 126 585

Iowa 49 (5.2) 77 (4.6) 140 526

Kansas 43 (4.1) 78 (3.4) 153 517

Kentucky 66 (3.6) 73 (3.4) 227 440

Louisiana 60 (3.5) 77 (3.0) 192 433

Maine 29 (3.7) 91 (2.0) 81 649

Maryland 64 (3.7) 52 (4.0) 290 333

Massachusetts 76 (3.2) 55 (3.6) 392 345

Michigan 37 (4.4) 81 (3.4) 121 614

Minnesota 71 (3.7) 47 (4.1) 383 306

Mississippi 66 (3.2) 84 (2.5) 190 463

Missouri 43 (5.4) 85 (3.5) 134 636

Montana 41 (6.0) 79 (5.1) 136 503

Nebraska 40 (4.6) 73 (4.2) 150 496

Nevada 59 (3.7) 64 (3.7) 249 415

New Hampshire 36 (6.0) 87 (3.9) 101 654

New Jersey 60 (3.6) 62 (3.7) 269 392

New Mexico 53 (3.9) 74 (3.6) 198 504

New York 70 (3.2) 58 (3.4) 334 356

North Carolina 50 (3.8) 83 (2.8) 138 527

North Dakota 35 (4.5) 86 (2.7) 101 606

Ohio 52 (2.9) 73 (2.7) 200 472

Oklahoma 59 (4.1) 72 (3.7) 198 431

Oregon 33 (3.5) 84 (2.6) 106 660

Pennsylvania 63 (3.9) 72 (3.6) 259 439

Rhode Island 65 (4.4) 62 (5.1) 289 428

South Carolina 51 (4.0) 78 (3.3) 186 481

South Dakota 34 (5.7) 90 (3.6) 86 624

Tennessee 40 (3.8) 84 (2.9) 122 573

Texas 65 (3.2) 75 (2.9) 189 399

Utah 57 (5.5) 65 (5.3) 242 378

Vermont 43 (5.3) 85 (3.8) 132 589

Virginia 54 (3.8) 68 (3.3) 212 434

Washington 62 (3.9) 51 (4.0) 287 359

West Virginia 54 (4.1) 77 (3.4) 214 480

Wisconsin 33 (4.0) 77 (3.4) 163 619

Wyoming 46 (7.9) 88 (4.7) 107 558

Source: FY 2007 SNAP QC data file. 

a

 Average amount among SNAP households with income type. 

b In California, SSI recipients are ineligible for SNAP. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

32

Table III.9. Percentage of Elderly Participants in SNAP Households with Shelter and Medical 

Deductions and Average Shelter Deduction Among Elderly SNAP Households with a Shelter 

Deduction, by State, FY 2007 

Estimated Percentage of Elderly Participants (Standard Error)

Average Shelter 

Deductiona With Medical Deduction With Shelter Deduction ($)

United States 13 (0.6) 72 (0.7) 308

Alabama 20 (3.6) 82 (3.7) 176

Alaska 9 (4.1) 46 (7.6) 363

Arizona 9 (2.7) 83 (3.6) 285

Arkansas 12 (2.7) 65 (3.8) 142

California 10 (5.0) 76 (8.2) 365

Colorado 9 (2.4) 79 (3.3) 372

Connecticut 3 (1.2) 79 (3.2) 418

Delaware 8 (3.3) 74 (5.5) 372

District of Columbia 8 (2.8) 60 (4.9) 235

Florida 3 (1.1) 85 (2.3) 282

Georgia 15 (3.2) 89 (2.6) 273

Hawaii 5 (1.4) 57 (3.5) 194

Idaho 14 (3.6) 81 (4.3) 236

Illinois 6 (1.9) 94 (1.8) 285

Indiana 23 (3.7) 82 (3.1) 309

Iowa 16 (4.0) 79 (4.1) 251

Kansas 20 (3.4) 76 (3.9) 206

Kentucky 19 (2.9) 69 (3.6) 203

Louisiana 26 (3.6) 70 (3.2) 203

Maine 10 (2.6) 93 (2.1) 302

Maryland 8 (1.9) 71 (3.7) 248

Massachusetts 6 (1.9) 83 (2.9) 367

Michigan 23 (3.8) 84 (3.2) 484

Minnesota 2 (1.0) 70 (3.8) 216

Mississippi 8 (2.0) 42 (3.5) 201

Missouri 32 (5.5) 59 (6.1) 186

Montana 17 (4.4) 75 (5.4) 287

Nebraska 19 (3.8) 70 (4.5) 201

Nevada 11 (2.7) 84 (3.2) 303

New Hampshire 31 (5.7) 81 (4.7) 354

New Jersey 5 (1.8) 85 (2.9) 388

New Mexico 6 (1.8) 64 (4.2) 201

New York 12 (2.4) 61 (3.1) 560

North Carolina 17 (2.9) 57 (3.7) 232

North Dakota 41 (4.9) 83 (3.6) 421

Ohio 15 (1.9) 76 (2.5) 314

Oklahoma 5 (2.3) 62 (4.0) 153

Oregon 37 (3.9) 82 (3.6) 277

Pennsylvania 14 (3.1) 81 (3.3) 346

Rhode Island 9 (2.8) 85 (3.5) 452

South Carolina 15 (2.6) 61 (3.9) 191

South Dakota 29 (5.9) 83 (4.5) 421

Tennessee 13 (2.6) 74 (3.5) 193

Texas 14 (2.4) 46 (3.4) 255

Utah 6 (2.3) 68 (5.5) 263

Vermont 29 (5.3) 93 (2.8) 466

Virginia 9 (2.2) 68 (3.7) 213

Washington 10 (2.3) 92 (2.3) 220

West Virginia 11 (2.3) 67 (3.9) 184

Wisconsin 30 (4.1) 70 (3.9) 225

Wyoming 20 (6.3) 78 (6.6) 261

Source: FY 2007 SNAP QC data file. 

a

 Average shelter deduction amount among SNAP households receiving a shelter deduction. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

33

Table III.10. Percentage of Elderly Participants in SNAP Households Receiving the Minimum Benefit or 

Less and Receiving the Maximum Benefit and Average Benefit for Elderly SNAP Households, 

by State, FY 2007 

Estimated Percentage of Elderly Participants (Standard Error)

Average 

With Minimum Benefit or Less With Maximum Benefit Benefit ($)

United States 17 (0.6) 15 (0.6) 90

Alabama 13 (3.0) 6 (2.0) 70

Alaska 39 (7.9) 10 (3.9) 170

Arizona 14 (3.1) 12 (3.1) 114

Arkansas 36 (4.0) 3 (1.1) 61

California 9 (5.3) 39 (8.9) 122

Colorado 31 (3.7) 11 (2.7) 86

Connecticut 17 (2.7) 19 (2.7) 102

Delaware 22 (5.2) 18 (4.8) 90

District of Columbia 22 (3.9) 13 (3.1) 78

Florida 11 (1.9) 10 (18) 92

Georgia 19 (3.3) 12 (2.4) 97

Hawaii 2 (0.8) 6 (1.6) 169

Idaho 25 (4.8) 6 (2.5) 75

Illinois 17 (3.4) 11 (2.6) 89

Indiana 18 (3.2) 9 (2.4) 79

Iowa 22 (4.0) 4 (2.4) 66

Kansas 27 (3.9) 5 (1.8) 61

Kentucky 13 (2.3) 6 (1.7) 78

Louisiana 11 (2.4) 9 (1.9) 82

Maine 24 (3.3) 4 (1.4) 70

Maryland 18 (2.7) 8 (2.0) 80

Massachusetts 21 (3.1) 10 (2.0) 76

Michigan 23 (4.2) 26 (4.0) 103

Minnesota 39 (4.2) 5 (1.9) 59

Mississippi 30 (3.1) 4 (1.1) 59

Missouri 31 (5.3) 3 (1.5) 58

Montana 24 (5.3) 10 (3.4) 81

Nebraska 35 (4.4) 6 (2.1) 62

Nevada 18 (3.1) 9 (2.1) 82

New Hampshire 24 (5.0) 12 (3.5) 67

New Jersey 12 (2.7) 20 (2.8) 112

New Mexico 20 (3.0) 5 (1.5) 78

New York 7 (1.4) 41 (3.4) 134

North Carolina 20 (3.1) 5 (1.6) 84

North Dakota 16 (3.7) 25 (3.7) 109

Ohio 23 (2.5) 12 (2.0) 79

Oklahoma 40 (3.6) 4 (1.6) 52

Oregon 30 (3.9) 8 (1.8) 70

Pennsylvania 12 (2.6) 14 (2.6) 98

Rhode Island 12 (2.8) 16 (3.5) 102

South Carolina 22 (3.1) 6 (1.8) 79

South Dakota 18 (4.5) 17 (4.4) 100

Tennessee 26 (3.5) 5 (1.6) 73

Texas 10 (1.9) 12 (2.3) 81

Utah 21 (4.2) 17 (4.0) 87

Vermont 16 (4.4) 27 (5.0) 103

Virginia 29 (3.3) 6 (1.5) 66

Washington 10 (2.3) 8 (2.2) 73

West Virginia 34 (3.7) 3 (1.2) 63

Wisconsin 53 (4.7) 5 (1.9) 54

Wyoming 20 (6.4) 4 (2.9) 73

Source: FY 2007 SNAP QC data file. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

34

The national percentage of elderly participants in one-person SNAP households varied from 71 

percent to 74 percent over time, with no clear trend. The percentage of elderly SNAP participants in 

one-person SNAP households also varied by state. The highest eight-year average percentage was in 

the District of Columbia (83 percent) and the lowest were in Alaska and New Mexico (55 and 60

percent, respectively). The high rate of one-person SNAP households among elderly participants in 

the District of Columbia may be due to the prevalence of people age 65 and older living alone in the 

District; that rate—50 percent—is higher than for any state.9 Conversely, Alaska has one of the 

lowest rates of people age 65 and older living alone (33 percent). 

Nationally, an average 84 percent of elderly SNAP participants were in poverty from FY 2000 

through FY 2007. The national elderly SNAP participant poverty rate trended down over time, 

dropping from 85 percent in FY 2000 to 82 percent in FY 2007, although the change was not 

statistically significant. Average poverty rates among elderly participants were lowest in Alaska, 

Wisconsin, Oregon, and Vermont (57, 60, 66, and 66 percent, respectively) and highest in 

Mississippi and Hawaii (92 percent in both).10 Wisconsin and Oregon have the highest percentages 

of elderly participants who would fail the SNAP net income test but are eligible through state 

expanded categorical eligibility rules, which may in part explain the relatively low poverty rate among 

those states’ elderly SNAP participants. In addition, Alaska has the lowest poverty rate among all 

elderly (5 percent) and Mississippi the highest (16 percent), which likely contribute to those states’ 

low and high poverty rates among elderly SNAP participants.11

 

9

 Tabulation by state of the percentage of the population age 65 years and older living alone in the 2006–2008 

American Community Survey 3-Year estimates, using the Census Bureau’s American FactFinder tool. 

10 Note that Alaska and Hawaii have higher poverty guidelines than do the 48 contiguous states and the District of 

Columbia (Wolkwitz and Ewell 2008). 

11 Tabulation by state of the percentage of the population age 65 years and older and in poverty in the 2006–2008 

American Community Survey 3-Year estimates, using the Census Bureau’s American FactFinder tool.
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

35

Average poverty rates were higher among elderly participants in SNAP households with SSI 

income than among all elderly participants, both nationally (95 percent, versus 84 percent) and in all 

states except Alaska. The average national SSI poverty rate held relatively constant over time but 

varied across states, from an average of 48 percent in Alaska to 99 percent in the District of 

Columbia, Montana, and Wyoming. The five states with the lowest average SSI poverty rates 

(Alaska, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Connecticut) had among the highest state SSI 

supplements.12

The difference between poverty rates within a state for all elderly participants and elderly 

participants with SSI also varied. In Alaska, the SSI poverty rate among elderly participants was 

9 percentage points lower than the all elderly participant poverty rate. In other states, the SSI 

poverty rate was higher than the all elderly poverty rate, from 5 percentage points in Massachusetts, 

a state with one of the lowest SSI poverty rates, to 29 percentage points in Oregon and Vermont, 

both states having among the lowest all elderly poverty rates.

The national percentage of elderly participants in SNAP households in which someone received 

SSI income varied from 62 percent in FY 2001 to 55 percent in FY 2006, averaging 58 percent for 

FY 2000 to FY 2007. The percentage with SSI in FY 2007 varied widely across states, from onethird or less in Maine, Alaska, Wisconsin, and Oregon to two-thirds or more in Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, New York, and Mississippi. (SSI recipients are ineligible for SNAP in California, so no 

SNAP participants receive SSI in that state.) Alaska, Wisconsin, and Oregon also had the lowest 

elderly poverty rates and Mississippi one of the highest. Massachusetts, New York, and Mississippi 

all had streamlined the SNAP application process for SSI recipients through SSI CAPs, which may 

have contributed to those states’ high percentages of SSI recipients among elderly SNAP 

participants. 

 

12 State SSI supplements are listed in Table II.1. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

36

The national percentage of elderly participants in SNAP households with Social Security 

income fluctuated over time between 67 percent and 70 percent and averaged 68 percent for 

FY 2000 to FY 2007. Across states, the percentage with Social Security in FY 2007 varied from 

47 percent in Minnesota to 91 percent in Maine. 

The national average SSI benefit among elderly SNAP households receiving SSI rose from $198

in FY 2000 to $218 in FY 2007, and the average Social Security benefit among those receiving Social 

Security rose from $355 in FY 2000 to $447 in FY 2007. In FY 2007, the average SSI benefit varied 

across states, from less than $100 in Maine and South Dakota to more than $300 in New York, 

Massachusetts, and Minnesota. The average Social Security benefit varied from under $350 in 

Maryland, Massachusetts, and Minnesota to over $650 in New Hampshire and Oregon. 

The national average percentage of elderly participants in SNAP households receiving a medical 

deduction ranged between 13 percent and 16 percent from FY 2000 to FY 2007. Across states, the 

percentage of elderly participants with a medical deduction in FY 2007 varied, from 2 percent in 

Minnesota to 41 percent in North Dakota. Minnesota had one of the highest percentages of elderly 

participants receiving SSI and thus likely also Medicaid, and North Dakota had one of the lowest. 

Medicaid often covers most medical expenses, including the Medicare Part B premium when 

applicable, which reduces out-of-pocket medical expenses. 

The percentage of elderly participants in SNAP households receiving a shelter deduction rose 

from 59 percent in FY 2000 to 72 percent in FY 2007, a statistically significant increase of 

13 percentage points. (To qualify for a shelter deduction, a SNAP household must have shelter costs 

greater than half of its income after all other deductions have been applied.) The state percentage 

with a shelter deduction in FY 2007 ranged from 42 percent in Mississippi and 46 percent in Texas 

and Alaska to 94 percent in Illinois and 93 percent in Vermont and Maine. 

The national average shelter deduction among participating elderly SNAP households receiving 

such a deduction varied from $214 in FY 2000 to $308 in FY 2007. In FY 2007, the average shelter 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

37

deduction varied across states, from $142 in Arkansas to $560 in New York. States with higher 

average shelter deductions tended to have higher than average SUAs. For instance, Arkansas had 

one of the lowest SUAs, while New York had one of the highest.13

On average, 21 percent of elderly participants were in SNAP households that received the 

minimum benefit ($10 from FY 2000 through FY 2007) or less. The percentage of elderly 

participants in SNAP households receiving the minimum benefit fluctuated somewhat over time, 

but dropped from around 28 percent in the earlier years to 17 percent in the later years. It also 

varied by state; in FY 2007, percentages ranged from 2 percent in Hawaii to 53 percent in 

Wisconsin. Hawaii’s rate was 5 percentage points lower than the rate in any other state; the next 

lowest percentages were 7 percent, in New York, and 9 percent, in California. Hawaii’s low 

percentage is likely due in large part to its higher maximum benefit and hence higher overall 

benefits. Wisconsin’s rate (53 percent) was 13 percentage points higher than the rate in any other 

state; the next highest percentages were 40 percent, in Oklahoma, and 39 percent, in Alaska and 

Minnesota. Wisconsin’s high percentage may be due in part to the relatively high percentage of 

elderly participants eligible solely through state categorical eligibility. 

From FY 2000 through FY 2007, the average percentage of elderly participants in households 

receiving the maximum benefit for their SNAP household size was 12 percent. The percentage 

fluctuated over time but rose from around 9 percent at the beginning of our study period to around 

15 percent at the end. Across states, the percentage in households receiving the maximum benefit in 

FY 2007 varied from 5 percent or less in 14 states to 39 percent in California and 41 percent in 

New York.14 Not surprisingly, New York and California also had among the lowest percentages of 

 

13 FY 2007 SUAs are listed in Table F.6 of Wolkwitz and Ewell (2008). 

14 The 14 states in which the percentage of elderly participants receiving the maximum benefit in FY 2007 was five 

percent or less were Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

38

elderly participants in households receiving the minimum benefit. Similarly, many of the states that 

had among the highest percentages of elderly participants receiving the minimum benefit also had 

among the lowest percentages receiving the maximum benefit. 

The average monthly SNAP benefit for SNAP households containing elderly participants rose 

from $61 in FY 2000 to $90 in FY 2007 and varied across states, from $52 and $54 respectively in 

Oklahoma and Wisconsin, to $169 and $170, respectively in Hawaii and Alaska. The high average 

benefits in Hawaii and Alaska are likely due in part to the higher maximum benefits in those states. 

The next highest average benefits were in New York and California ($134 and $122, respectively), 

reflecting the high percentage of elderly participants in those states receiving the maximum benefit. 

B. Characteristics of Elderly Eligible Individuals 

We used the MATH SIPP+ model to estimate the characteristics of elderly individuals eligible 

for SNAP in FY 2009. (These estimates of eligibles include both SNAP participants and 

nonparticipants.) We also examined the characteristics of low-income elderly individuals ineligible 

for SNAP to see how they differ from the characteristics of elderly eligibles overall. Detailed 

tabulations of the characteristics of elderly individuals eligible for SNAP are presented in 

Appendix B. 

The tabulations of elderly eligibles presented in this section are drawn from the same data 

source as the eligibility rate estimates presented in Section III.C and so can be compared directly. 

However, they differ in several ways from the estimates of elderly eligibles used to derive the 

participation rate estimates presented in III.D. First, the estimates discussed here are for FY 2009, 

while the participation rate denominator estimates are for FY 2002 through FY 2006 (the most 

recent data available when those estimates were derived). Several important programmatic changes 

affecting eligibility were enacted between these years, including provisions of the Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008 and ARRA. Second, the participation rate denominator estimates are based on 

CPS data and were derived through a combination of microsimulation and small area estimation 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

39

methodologies. The estimates presented in this section, on the other hand, are from a complex 

microsimulation model that uses the SIPP as an underlying database. While the 2009 Baseline of the 

MATH SIPP+ model simulates only one point in time, the weighting methodology employed by the 

model allows tabulations of smaller subgroups than are possible with the CPS-based estimates, 

hence our use of this model to examine characteristics of elderly eligibles and state eligibility rates.

Because of the differences between the elderly eligibles estimates presented in this section and 

Section III.C and those presented in III.D, they should not be compared directly. 

Similarly, the eligibles estimates presented in this section and the participant estimates presented 

in III.A should not be combined to estimate subgroup SNAP participation rates for several reasons, 

including the different data sources and program changes between FY 2007 and FY 2009. 

1. Elderly Percentage of Eligible Population 

An estimated 53 million individuals were eligible for SNAP in FY 2009, 16 percent of whom 

were age 60 or over, compared to 9 percent of all SNAP participants in FY 2007 (Table III.11). As 

with the participant population in FY 2007, California, Utah, and Alaska had the lowest elderly 

percentages among SNAP eligibles in FY 2009 (7, 8, and 9 percent respectively). The highest elderly 

percentages among SNAP eligibles were in Pennsylvania and New York (28 and 25 percent, 

respectively). New York also had the highest elderly percentage among participants and, as 

mentioned previously, one of the highest percentages of SSI CAP participants among elderly 

participants. Pennsylvania had one of the largest elderly percentages among all state residents, similar 

to Florida and Hawaii, which along with New York, had among the highest elderly percentages 

among participants. 

2. Characteristics of the Elderly Eligible Population 

The next series of tables displays the state percentages of elderly individuals eligible for SNAP 

with the socioeconomic characteristics discussed for elderly SNAP participants in III.A, as well as 

the percentages with Medicaid, with countable assets, and living in public housing. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

40

Table III.11. Estimated Number of SNAP-Eligible Individuals and the Percentage Elderly, by State, 

FY 2009

All Eligible 

Individuals 

(000s)

Percentage 

Elderly 

(Standard Error)

All Eligible 

Individuals 

(000s)

Percentage 

Elderly

(Standard Error)

United States 53,288 16 (0.8) Missouri 828 14 (0.8)

Alabama 888 14 (0.9) Montana 145 14 (0.6)

Alaska 122 9 (0.5) Nebraska 207 15 (0.9)

Arizona 1,754 16 (0.9) Nevada 336 15 (1.0)

Arkansas 522 15 (0.9) New Hampshire 101 21 (0.7)

California 5,176 7 (0.8) New Jersey 846 17 (1.0)

Colorado 586 12 (0.9) New Mexico 389 14 (1.2)

Connecticut 428 17 (0.8) New York 4,287 25 (1.0)

Delaware 191 21 (0.4) North Carolina 1,470 15 (0.9)

District of Columbia 113 15 (1.1) North Dakota 131 20 (0.5)

Florida 2,436 18 (1.0) Ohio 1,706 13 (0.6)

Georgia 1,966 21 (0.7) Oklahoma 609 15 (0.8)

Hawaii 188 20 (0.8) Oregon 988 18 (0.7)

Idaho 197 11 (0.7) Pennsylvania 2,490 28 (0.7)

Illinois 1,705 13 (0.8) Rhode Island 159 14 (0.8)

Indiana 959 12 (0.6) South Carolina 1,271 21 (0.6)

Iowa 361 14 (0.8) South Dakota 108 18 (0.9)

Kansas 354 14 (0.8) Tennessee 1,074 15 (0.9)

Kentucky 799 14 (0.9) Texas 6,004 12 (1.1)

Louisiana 894 15 (1.0) Utah 271 8 (0.5)

Maine 265 13 (0.6) Vermont 126 23 (0.6)

Maryland 900 12 (0.7) Virginia 846 16 (0.7)

Massachusetts 949 20 (0.6) Washington 1,467 19 (0.6)

Michigan 2,712 18 (0.6) West Virginia 334 19 (1.0)

Minnesota 539 22 (0.7) Wisconsin 1,363 20 (0.6)

Mississippi 665 15 (1.0) Wyoming 58 16 (0.8)

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 

Fifty-nine percent of eligible elderly individuals were in one-person SNAP households in 

FY 2009, compared to an average 72 percent of participants from FY 2000 to FY 2007 (Table 

III.12). The percentage of elderly eligibles in one-person SNAP households was highest in 

Connecticut and the District of Columbia (74 and 78 percent, respectively) and lowest in Arizona 

and South Carolina (50 and 51 percent, respectively). The District of Columbia also had the highest 

percentage among elderly participants. In all but two states—Alaska and California—the percentage 

of one-person SNAP households was lower among elderly eligibles in FY 2009 than the average 

percentage among elderly participants from FY 2000 to FY 2007. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

41

Table III.12. Percentage of Elderly Eligibles in One-Person SNAP Households, in Poverty, and with 

Medicaid, by State, FY 2009 

Estimated Percentage of Elderly Eligibles (Standard Error)

In One-Person Households In Poverty With SSI in Poverty With Medicaid

United States 59 (1.1) 42 (1.0) 87 (1.7) 33 (1.0)

Alabama 60 (1.6) 60 (1.5) 90 (1.8) 45 (1.5)

Alaska 68 (1.3) 55 (1.6) 73 (2.4) 32 (1.2)

Arizona 50 (1.3) 33 (1.1) 82 (4.5) 26 (1.0)

Arkansas 55 (1.6) 57 (1.5) 87 (2.2) 42 (1.5)

California 69 (2.7) 32 (2.5) -

a 32 (2.6)

Colorado 67 (1.7) 49 (1.5) 68 (3.4) 41 (1.6)

Connecticut 74 (1.4) 47 (1.6) 80 (2.8) 39 (1.4)

Delaware 56 (1.0) 26 (0.9) 83 (2.8) 22 (0.7)

District of Columbia 78 (1.7) 64 (1.3) 93 (2.4) 57 (1.8)

Florida 62 (1.6) 57 (1.4) 91 (1.5) 44 (1.7)

Georgia 56 (1.0) 30 (0.9) 85 (2.1) 27 (1.1)

Hawaii 55 (2.5) 65 (2.5) 95 (1.7) 43 (2.9)

Idaho 56 (1.5) 48 (1.4) 87 (2.7) 34 (1.6)

Illinois 67 (1.4) 56 (1.3) 92 (1.3) 43 (1.4)

Indiana 69 (1.7) 52 (1.3) 89 (2.3) 39 (1.3)

Iowa 59 (1.6) 55 (1.6) 90 (1.9) 34 (1.5)

Kansas 66 (1.4) 54 (1.5) 91 (1.7) 37 (1.5)

Kentucky 58 (1.9) 60 (1.7) 87 (2.2) 42 (1.6)

Louisiana 53 (1.7) 60 (1.5) 89 (2.1) 45 (1.9)

Maine 61 (1.6) 45 (1.6) 86 (2.5) 33 (1.3)

Maryland 62 (1.4) 59 (1.1) 92 (1.9) 45 (1.4)

Massachusetts 62 (1.3) 44 (1.2) 75 (3.1) 30 (1.0)

Michigan 56 (1.0) 28 (1.0) 81 (2.6) 19 (0.8)

Minnesota 62 (1.2) 30 (1.3) 82 (2.6) 24 (0.9)

Mississippi 55 (1.8) 65 (1.6) 89 (2.1) 47 (1.9)

Missouri 64 (1.4) 54 (1.4) 90 (1.9) 39 (1.4)

Montana 61 (1.8) 46 (1.8) 90 (2.4) 29 (1.5)

Nebraska 66 (1.6) 54 (1.7) 91 (1.8) 38 (1.6)

Nevada 61 (1.7) 56 (1.5) 91 (2.2) 45 (1.9)

New Hampshire 65 (1.5) 50 (1.5) 88 (2.9) 34 (1.7)

New Jersey 66 (1.6) 56 (1.4) 91 (1.6) 44 (1.5)

New Mexico 56 (2.7) 59 (1.9) 91 (2.2) 47 (2.5)

New York 58 (1.1) 35 (1.0) 86 (2.3) 29 (0.9)

North Carolina 63 (1.5) 61 (1.3) 92 (1.5) 46 (1.4)

North Dakota 60 (1.5) 37 (1.5) 90 (2.2) 21 (0.9)

Ohio 69 (1.3) 46 (1.4) 90 (1.7) 36 (1.2)

Oklahoma 61 (1.5) 56 (1.4) 90 (2.0) 41 (1.4)

Oregon 55 (1.1) 29 (1.0) 81 (3.9) 22 (0.7)

Pennsylvania 55 (0.9) 28 (1.0) 81 (2.5) 21 (0.7)

Rhode Island 71 (1.7) 52 (1.4) 88 (1.8) 43 (1.5)

South Carolina 51 (1.0) 36 (1.0) 86 (2.2) 27 (0.9)

South Dakota 63 (1.6) 48 (1.7) 88 (2.6) 34 (1.3)

Tennessee 59 (1.5) 58 (1.3) 89 (1.9) 44 (1.4)

Texas 54 (1.9) 44 (1.4) 86 (2.8) 42 (1.3)

Utah 56 (2.1) 51 (2.1) 89 (2.8) 33 (1.8)

Vermont 57 (1.2) 30 (1.1) 76 (3.2) 17 (0.8)

Virginia 62 (1.4) 56 (1.3) 90 (1.5) 44 (1.3)

Washington 57 (1.2) 28 (1.0) 82 (3.4) 20 (0.7)

West Virginia 53 (2.7) 56 (2.0) 83 (4.5) 38 (2.0)

Wisconsin 57 (1.1) 28 (1.0) 82 (3.7) 18 (0.7)

Wyoming 62 (1.7) 53 (1.7) 90 (2.2) 36 (1.7)

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model 

a In California, SSI recipients are ineligible for SNAP. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

42

Nationally, 42 percent of elderly eligibles had income below the federal poverty level, half as 

high as the 84 percent average poverty rate among elderly participants from FY 2000 to FY 2007. In 

almost all states, the poverty rate among eligibles was also considerably lower than among 

participants. The exception was Alaska, where the elderly eligible and participant poverty rates were 

within a few percentage points of each other (55 and 57 percent, respectively). Poverty rates for 

elderly eligibles were lowest in Delaware (26 percent) and Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, and 

Wisconsin (28 percent), states in which essentially all households are exempt from the SNAP asset 

and net income tests. These expanded categorical eligibility policies increase the number of eligible 

SNAP households with income above the poverty line and thus decrease the poverty rate among 

eligibles. Poverty rates for elderly eligibles were highest in Hawaii, Mississippi, and the District of 

Columbia (65, 65, and 64 percent, respectively). None of these states have expanded categorical 

eligibility to exempt non-pure public assistance SNAP households from the asset or net income 

tests. 

The national poverty rate among elderly participants in SNAP households with SSI was 87 

percent in FY 2009, lower than the average corresponding rate for elderly participants (95 percent), 

although the difference in participant and eligibles poverty rates was less pronounced among elderly 

SNAP households with SSI than among all elderly SNAP households. Poverty rates for elderly 

eligibles with SSI were lowest in Colorado, Alaska, and Massachusetts (68, 73, and 75 percent, 

respectively), all states with among the lowest SSI poverty rates among participants. Poverty rates for 

elderly eligibles with SSI were highest in Hawaii and the District of Columbia (95 and 93 percent, 

respectively), mirroring those states’ high poverty rates for all elderly eligibles. As with elderly 

participants, poverty rates were higher among elderly eligibles with SSI than among all elderly 

eligibles, both nationally and in all states. The difference between elderly eligibles poverty rates 

within a state varied, from under 20 percentage points in Alaska and Colorado to 55 or more 

percentage points in Delaware and Georgia. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

43

Nationally, 33 percent of elderly eligibles received Medicaid in FY 2009, with the percentage 

varying across states, from 17 percent in Vermont to 57 percent in the District of Columbia. Not 

surprisingly, the states with the lowest and highest poverty rates were among those with the lowest 

and highest percentage receipt of Medicaid, respectively. 

The national percentage of elderly eligibles in SNAP households in which someone received 

SSI income in FY 2009 (17 percent) was almost half the percentage of elderly eligibles that received 

Medicaid and much lower than the corresponding 56 percent of participants in FY 2007 (Table 

III.13). In all states, the percentage of eligibles with SSI in FY 2009 was lower than the 

corresponding percentage of participants in FY 2007—in some cases substantially lower. In five 

states (New York, Washington, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota), the difference was 

more than 50 percentage points. The percentage of elderly eligibles with SSI was lowest in Delaware 

and Wisconsin (each 7 percent) and North Dakota and Oregon (each 8 percent), all states with 

expanded categorical eligibility policies and relatively low rates of poverty and Medicaid receipt 

among elderly eligibles. The percentage of elderly eligibles with SSI was highest in Kentucky, 

Mississippi, New Mexico, and New Jersey (33, 31, 30, and 30 percent, respectively). These states had 

a high elderly eligible poverty rate, a high percentage receiving Medicaid, or both.

The national percentage of elderly eligibles in SNAP households with income from Social 

Security in FY 2009 was 80 percent, slightly higher than the corresponding percentage of 

participants in FY 2007. The range between the highest state percentage (85 percent in Wisconsin) 

and the lowest (72 percent in Utah) was just under 14 percentage points, relatively small compared 

to other characteristics we examined. 

Nationally, the FY 2009 average monthly Social Security income among eligible elderly SNAP 

households receiving Social Security income was $925. State averages ranged from $785 in the 

District of Columbia and Kentucky to $1,031 in Delaware and Georgia. The 10 states in which the 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

44

Table III.13. Percentage of Elderly Eligibles in SNAP Households with SSI and Social Security Income and 

Average SSI and Social Security Amounts Among SNAP Households with Income Type, by 

State, FY 2009 

Estimated Percentage of Elderly Eligibles 

(Standard Error)

Estimated Average Amounta($)

(Standard Error)

With SSI With Social Security SSI Social Security

United States 17 (0.7) 80 (1.0) 429 (15) 925 (10)

Alabama 28 (1.4) 79 (1.6) 378 (16) 807 (13)

Alaska 28 (1.1) 77 (1.1) 543 (20) 928 (14)

Arizona 9 (0.7) 82 (1.0) 464 (26) 988 (12)

Arkansas 27 (1.3) 77 (1.5) 411 (17) 815 (13)

California -

b 76 (2.5) -b 955 (21)

Colorado 21 (1.3) 76 (1.3) 470 (22) 832 (13)

Connecticut 18 (1.1) 77 (1.3) 523 (23) 865 (13)

Delaware 7 (0.4) 85 (0.8) 401 (18) 1,031 (9)

District of Columbia 28 (1.6) 77 (1.6) 398 (23) 785 (12)

Florida 28 (1.6) 75 (1.5) 421 (18) 802 (14)

Georgia 13 (0.6) 84 (0.7) 426 (14) 1,031 (9)

Hawaii 23 (1.9) 72 (2.3) 452 (30) 873 (26)

Idaho 16 (1.1) 75 (1.6) 484 (23) 859 (15)

Illinois 26 (1.2) 76 (1.3) 422 (15) 812 (12)

Indiana 14 (0.8) 79 (1.5) 393 (21) 838 (12)

Iowa 16 (1.1) 75 (1.7) 463 (19) 808 (16)

Kansas 16 (1.0) 76 (1.5) 433 (21) 829 (13)

Kentucky 33 (1.6) 76 (1.8) 427 (18) 785 (14)

Louisiana 28 (1.4) 76 (1.6) 417 (16) 812 (13)

Maine 17 (1.3) 79 (1.7) 432 (22) 893 (13)

Maryland 24 (1.3) 75 (1.4) 434 (19) 817 (13)

Massachusetts 23 (1.0) 76 (1.2) 473 (21) 863 (11)

Michigan 9 (0.6) 85 (0.7) 426 (17) 1,004 (9)

Minnesota 14 (0.9) 83 (1.0) 440 (18) 1,000 (13)

Mississippi 31 (1.8) 78 (1.7) 383 (16) 795 (18)

Missouri 20 (1.1) 79 (1.5) 393 (17) 820 (12)

Montana 13 (1.0) 78 (1.5) 448 (25) 880 (16)

Nebraska 15 (1.0) 77 (1.6) 423 (20) 818 (14)

Nevada 19 (1.6) 75 (1.4) 455 (27) 814 (15)

New Hampshire 11 (1.0) 78 (1.4) 486 (24) 858 (15)

New Jersey 30 (1.4) 75 (1.4) 424 (17) 818 (15)

New Mexico 30 (2.4) 75 (2.1) 437 (30) 790 (19)

New York 19 (0.8) 81 (0.9) 453 (16) 991 (10)

North Carolina 25 (1.3) 77 (1.4) 392 (17) 792 (12)

North Dakota 8 (0.6) 81 (1.2) 400 (19) 926 (12)

Ohio 18 (1.0) 80 (1.4) 399 (17) 865 (12)

Oklahoma 21 (1.2) 78 (1.5) 413 (20) 818 (12)

Oregon 8 (0.5) 83 (0.8) 439 (22) 1,010 (10)

Pennsylvania 10 (0.6) 84 (0.7) 438 (16) 1,020 (10)

Rhode Island 29 (1.3) 78 (1.4) 407 (21) 835 (13)

South Carolina 11 (0.7) 84 (0.8) 397 (17) 1,003 (10)

South Dakota 17 (1.3) 79 (1.5) 417 (21) 871 (13)

Tennessee 24 (1.2) 77 (1.3) 411 (16) 815 (12)

Texas 23 (1.5) 80 (1.4) 427 (18) 909 (14)

Utah 18 (1.4) 72 (1.9) 443 (23) 848 (17)

Vermont 9 (0.6) 83 (1.0) 462 (22) 1,000 (10)

Virginia 27 (1.2) 75 (1.3) 424 (16) 823 (12)

Washington 10 (0.6) 84 (0.8) 434 (18) 1,025 (10)

West Virginia 24 (2.1) 75 (2.1) 457 (23) 811 (17)

Wisconsin 7 (0.4) 85 (0.8) 436 (21) 1,008 (10)

Wyoming 12 (1.1) 78 (1.8) 407 (27) 824 (14)

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 

a

 Average amount among elderly eligible SNAP households with income type. 

b In California, SSI recipients are ineligible for SNAP. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

45

average Social Security income among elderly eligible SNAP households was $1,000 or more also 

were the 10 states with the highest rates of Social Security receipt among the same group.15

Sixteen percent of elderly eligibles nationally were in units with countable assets in FY 2009 

(Table III.14). The vast majority of elderly eligibles with countable assets had countable financial 

assets; only one-tenth of one percent had countable vehicle assets. In 11 states, no elderly eligibles 

had any countable assets, meaning those states had expanded categorical eligibility to eliminate the 

asset test for virtually all elderly applicants, or had implemented a higher asset limit.16 In an 

additional four states (Arizona, Oregon, Texas, and Vermont), the percentage of elderly eligibles 

with countable assets was two percent or less. Conversely, in five states (Iowa, Montana, New 

Hampshire, Nebraska, and Wyoming), half or more of elderly eligibles had countable assets. 

Nationally, 55 percent of elderly eligibles were in SNAP households that qualified for a medical 

deduction in FY 2009, more than three times the similar percentage of elderly participants in 

FY 2007. Similarly, in every state, a larger percentage of elderly eligibles qualified for a medical 

deduction in FY 2009 than did participants in FY 2007. The District of Columbia, which had the 

highest rate of Medicaid receipt among elderly eligibles, had the lowest percentage with a medical 

deduction—36 percent. This is likely because Medicaid often covers most medical expenses, 

including the Medicare Part B premium, when applicable. Mississippi, where 43 percent of elderly 

eligibles qualified for a medical deduction (along with most other states with a low medical 

deduction percentage), had among the highest rates of Medicaid receipt among elderly eligibles. 

Conversely, states with the largest medical deduction percentages, such as North Dakota, Vermont, 

and Wisconsin (68, 67, and 67 percent respectively), had among the lowest rates of Medicaid receipt. 

 

15 The 10 states in which the average Social Security income was $1,000 or more were Delaware, Georgia, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

16 The 11 states in which no elderly eligibles had any countable assets were Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

46

Table III.14. Percentage of Elderly Eligibles in SNAP Households with Assets, with Shelter and Medical 

Deductions, and in Public Housing and Average Shelter Deduction Among Elderly Eligible 

SNAP Households with a Shelter Deduction, by State, FY 2009 

Estimated Percentage of Elderly Eligibles (Standard Error) Average Shelter 

Deductionb($)

(Standard Error)

With Countable 

Assetsa

With Medical 

Deduction

With Shelter 

Deduction

That Lived in 

Public Housing

United States 16 (0.6) 55 (1.4) 56 (1.3) 11 (0.5) 396 (11)

Alabama 33 (1.5) 47 (1.8) 52 (1.8) 13 (0.8) 323 (16)

Alaska 45 (1.4) 54 (1.6) 71 (1.5) 13 (0.7) 346 (12)

Arizona 1 (0.3) 60 (1.5) 44 (1.7) 8 (0.5) 397 (13)

Arkansas 35 (1.7) 49 (1.8) 49 (1.5) 13 (0.8) 379 (16)

California 47 (2.5) 54 (2.4) 54 (3.2) 11 (1.5) 440 (31)

Colorado 42 (1.5) 49 (1.7) 80 (2.2) 15 (1.0) 372 (13)

Connecticut 48 (1.5) 50 (1.7) 90 (1.7) 17 (1.0) 567 (12)

Delaware 0 62 (1.2) 51 (1.2) 8 (0.4) 371 (11)

District of Columbia 31 (1.8) 37 (2.3) 53 (1.7) 24 (1.5) 333 (20)

Florida 36 (1.4) 48 (1.8) 40 (1.7) 13 (0.9) 423 (23)

Georgia 0 57 (1.4) 39 (1.2) 10 (0.5) 362 (11)

Hawaii 41 (2.4) 44 (2.3) 45 (2.5) 15 (1.4) 393 (24)

Idaho 46 (1.7) 55 (1.9) 74 (2.5) 10 (0.7) 385 (13)

Illinois 39 (1.4) 48 (1.8) 57 (1.8) 15 (0.9) 371 (16)

Indiana 45 (1.5) 51 (1.5) 83 (2.0) 14 (0.9) 363 (12)

Iowa 50 (1.7) 55 (1.8) 75 (2.0) 12 (0.8) 383 (13)

Kansas 48 (1.5) 51 (1.8) 66 (1.9) 15 (0.9) 386 (16)

Kentucky 34 (1.8) 50 (2.0) 52 (2.3) 12 (0.8) 328 (14)

Louisiana 32 (1.6) 47 (2.3) 59 (1.7) 12 (1.1) 341 (13)

Maine 46 (1.6) 55 (1.7) 90 (1.1) 12 (0.7) 517 (12)

Maryland 35 (1.5) 46 (1.8) 67 (1.9) 15 (0.9) 362 (13)

Massachusetts 0 60 (1.5) 88 (1.4) 12 (0.7) 511 (13)

Michigan 0 64 (1.2) 66 (1.4) 8 (0.4) 399 (11)

Minnesota 0 57 (1.5) 41 (1.5) 11 (0.6) 367 (16)

Mississippi 29 (1.7) 43 (2.1) 44 (1.9) 11 (0.8) 325 (20)

Missouri 42 (1.5) 51 (1.8) 49 (1.6) 13 (0.8) 367 (17)

Montana 53 (1.7) 57 (1.8) 89 (1.5) 11 (0.8) 434 (14)

Nebraska 50 (1.6) 52 (1.8) 66 (2.0) 15 (1.0) 375 (16)

Nevada 37 (1.4) 47 (2.0) 55 (2.2) 13 (0.8) 362 (17)

New Hampshire 53 (1.6) 54 (1.7) 89 (1.5) 14 (0.9) 475 (13)

New Jersey 38 (1.5) 46 (2.0) 74 (2.7) 15 (1.0) 370 (13)

New Mexico 32 (1.9) 46 (2.1) 57 (2.7) 12 (1.0) 367 (25)

New York 0 56 (1.3) 64 (1.4) 12 (0.6) 398 (10)

North Carolina 36 (1.5) 46 (1.7) 53 (1.5) 15 (0.9) 343 (15)

North Dakota 0 68 (1.4) 94 (0.6) 9 (0.6) 515 (13)

Ohio 45 (1.3) 53 (1.6) 89 (1.6) 13 (0.7) 452 (11)

Oklahoma 38 (1.4) 49 (1.7) 50 (1.6) 13 (0.8) 407 (16)

Oregon 1 (0.3) 63 (1.2) 48 (1.4) 9 (0.5) 407 (13)

Pennsylvania 0 64 (1.1) 57 (1.3) 8 (0.4) 388 (11)

Rhode Island 39 (1.4) 48 (1.7) 86 (2.3) 16 (0.9) 419 (11)

South Carolina 0 58 (1.3) 28 (0.9) 9 (0.4) 400 (17)

South Dakota 49 (1.6) 54 (1.8) 91 (1.1) 13 (0.8) 491 (11)

Tennessee 35 (1.4) 48 (1.8) 57 (1.7) 13 (0.8) 353 (13)

Texas 2 (0.4) 46 (1.8) 47 (1.8) 13 (0.8) 348 (22)

Utah 49 (1.8) 54 (2.6) 53 3.0 11 (0.9) 414 (24)

Vermont 2 (0.3) 67 (1.1) 86 (0.8) 8 (0.5) 518 (13)

Virginia 36 (1.4) 48 (1.6) 59 (1.5) 15 (0.8) 374 (14)

Washington 0 65 (1.1) 44 (1.3) 9 (0.5) 406 (14)

West Virginia 37 (2.1) 54 (2.1) 64 (2.9) 8 (0.6) 330 (13)

Wisconsin 0 67 (1.1) 40 (1.2) 9 (0.5) 404 (16)

Wyoming 50 (1.7) 53 (1.8) 59 (2.1) 13 (0.9) 367 (17)

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 

a States with zero elderly eligibles with countable assets are those that have eliminated the asset test through 

categorical eligibility expansions. 

b

 Average shelter deduction amount among SNAP households qualifying for a shelter deduction. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

47

Nationally, 56 percent of elderly eligibles were in SNAP households that qualified for a shelter 

deduction in FY 2009, compared to 72 percent of elderly participants in FY 2007. In one-quarter of 

the states, the percentage of elderly eligibles who qualified for a shelter deduction was higher than 

the corresponding percentage of elderly participants; in all other states, the percentage of elderly 

eligibles with a shelter deduction was lower than that of elderly participants. The largest differential 

was in Georgia, where the eligible percentage was 50 percentage points higher than the participant 

percentage. In South Carolina, 28 percent of elderly eligibles qualified for a shelter deduction, the 

lowest percentage among states; in North Dakota, 94 percent qualified for shelter deduction, the 

largest percentage. Several states that had among the lowest percentages of elderly eligibles 

qualifying for a shelter deduction, such as Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, and South Carolina, were in 

relatively warm climates and had among the lowest SUAs. However, Minnesota, Washington, and 

Wisconsin also had low percentages of elderly eligibles qualifying for a shelter deduction. Almost all 

of the states with high shelter deduction percentages were in relatively cold climates and had among 

the highest SUAs. 

The average national shelter deduction among elderly eligible SNAP households qualifying for a 

shelter deduction in FY 2009 was $396. The average shelter deduction varied across states, from 

$323 in Alabama to $567 in Connecticut. Among states, the highest average shelter deductions 

generally corresponded with the highest percentages of elderly eligibles qualifying for a shelter 

deduction, with the exceptions of California and Florida. Both of those states had lower than 

average percentages qualifying for a shelter deduction and higher than average shelter deductions 

among those who did qualify. Many, although not all, states with low average shelter deductions 

were in the south, including Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky. 

Eleven percent of elderly eligibles lived in public housing nationally in FY 2009. The highest 

percentage—24 percent—was in the District of Columbia, which also had a lower than average 

percentage qualifying for a shelter deduction and one of the lowest average shelter deductions 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

48

among those who did qualify. The next highest percentages of public housing use were in 

Connecticut and Rhode Island (17 and 16 percent, respectively). These states, along with the District 

of Columbia, had relatively large percentages of eligible elderly living alone. Unlike the District of 

Columbia, Connecticut and Rhode Island both had relatively high percentages of elderly eligibles 

qualifying for a shelter deduction, and Connecticut had a relatively high average shelter deduction. In 

Michigan, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont, Arizona, and Pennsylvania, 8 percent of the elderly 

eligibles lived in public housing, the lowest percentage among states. With the exception of West 

Virginia, these states also had relatively low rates of Medicaid receipt and relatively high rates of 

Social Security receipt and average Social Security amounts. 

Nationally, 37 percent of elderly eligibles were in SNAP households that qualified for the 

minimum benefit or less in FY 2009, compared to 17 percent of elderly participants in FY 2007 

(Table III.15). (In FY 2009, the minimum benefit was $16 for the 48 contiguous states and the 

District of Columbia. In Alaska and Hawaii, the minimum benefit was $19 and $25, respectively.) As 

was the case for participants, Hawaii had the lowest percentage by far of elderly eligibles qualifying 

for the minimum benefit (2 percent). The next lowest percentages were 14 percent, in Maine, and 

15 percent, in North and South Dakota. These states had among the largest percentages of elderly 

eligibles qualifying for a shelter deduction and relatively high average shelter deduction amounts. 

The seven states in which at least half of the elderly eligible population qualified for the minimum 

benefit (Delaware, Georgia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin) 

are all states that have expanded categorical eligibility; most have among the lowest poverty levels. 

The highest percentage—55 percent—was in Wisconsin, the same state with the highest 

corresponding rate among elderly participants. More than half of the states had a higher percentage 

of elderly eligibles qualifying for the minimum benefit in FY 2009 than the percentage of elderly 

participants in FY 2007. The largest difference was in Washington, where 53 percent of elderly 

eligibles qualified for the minimum benefit, versus 10 percent of elderly participants. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

49

Table III.15. Percentage of Elderly Eligibles in SNAP Households Qualifying for the Minimum 

Benefit or Less and Qualifying for the Maximum Benefit and Average Benefit for Elderly 

Eligible SNAP Households, by State, FY 2009 

Estimated Percentage of Elderly Eligibles (Standard Error) Average Benefit ($)

With Minimum Benefit or Less With Maximum Benefit (Standard Error)

United States 37 (0.9) 14 (0.7) 102 (2)

Alabama 22 (1.1) 11 (1.0) 107 (3)

Alaska 30 (1.2) 17 (1.1) 126 (4)

Arizona 47 (1.2) 13 (1.0) 94 (3)

Arkansas 20 (1.0) 12 (1.1) 113 (3)

California 38 (2.2) 17 (2.2) 108 (8)

Colorado 23 (1.0) 18 (1.1) 117 (3)

Connecticut 17 (1.3) 28 (1.2) 134 (3)

Delaware 53 (1.1) 12 (0.7) 83 (2)

District of Columbia 25 (1.1) 11 (1.3) 93 (3)

Florida 25 (1.1) 10 (1.0) 103 (4)

Georgia 55 (1.1) 10 (0.7) 79 (2)

Hawaii 2 (0.3) 14 (1.4) 265 (11)

Idaho 22 (0.9) 18 (1.3) 127 (4)

Illinois 26 (1.0) 14 (1.1) 109 (3)

Indiana 21 (1.0) 19 (1.2) 118 (4)

Iowa 21 (1.0) 23 (1.5) 131 (4)

Kansas 24 (1.0) 19 (1.3) 118 (3)

Kentucky 22 (1.1) 11 (1.1) 107 (4)

Louisiana 18 (0.9) 14 (1.1) 122 (3)

Maine 14 (0.8) 24 (1.1) 145 (4)

Maryland 20 (0.9) 17 (1.1) 123 (3)

Massachusetts 18 (0.9) 26 (1.3) 138 (3)

Michigan 48 (1.0) 15 (0.9) 96 (2)

Minnesota 55 (1.3) 10 (0.8) 73 (3)

Mississippi 18 (1.0) 11 (1.2) 116 (6)

Missouri 27 (1.1) 14 (1.1) 102 (3)

Montana 19 (1.1) 24 (1.4) 135 (4)

Nebraska 23 (1.1) 19 (1.3) 117 (3)

Nevada 24 (1.2) 15 (1.1) 113 (4)

New Hampshire 18 (1.0) 28 (1.3) 139 (3)

New Jersey 21 (1.1) 14 (1.1) 114 (3)

New Mexico 20 (1.2) 12 (1.2) 117 (6)

New York 44 (1.0) 14 (0.7) 94 (2)

North Carolina 23 (1.0) 13 (1.0) 110 (3)

North Dakota 15 (0.7) 28 (1.5) 143 (3)

Ohio 20 (1.0) 20 (1.1) 128 (3)

Oklahoma 23 (1.0) 16 (1.1) 109 (3)

Oregon 48 (1.2) 14 (0.8) 89 (3)

Pennsylvania 50 (1.0) 14 (0.8) 89 (2)

Rhode Island 19 (1.0) 18 (1.3) 118 (3)

South Carolina 51 (1.2) 10 (0.7) 81 (2)

South Dakota 15 (0.9) 26 (1.4) 144 (4)

Tennessee 21 (0.9) 14 (1.0) 115 (3)

Texas 39 (1.4) 9 (0.9) 96 (5)

Utah 23 (1.3) 16 (1.7) 132 (11)

Vermont 33 (1.1) 24 (1.1) 122 (3)

Virginia 23 (0.9) 13 (1.0) 113 (3)

Washington 53 (1.2) 13 (0.8) 81 (3)

West Virginia 18 (1.0) 15 (1.5) 123 (6)

Wisconsin 55 (1.1) 13 (0.9) 78 (2)

Wyoming 25 (1.2) 19 (1.4) 114 (3)

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

50

Nationally, 14 percent of elderly eligibles were in SNAP households that qualified for the 

maximum benefit for their SNAP household size in FY 2009, similar to the 15 percent of elderly 

participants that received the maximum benefit in FY 2007. (In FY 2009, the maximum benefit for a 

one-person SNAP household was $200 for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia. In 

Alaska and Hawaii, the maximum benefit was $239 and $314, respectively.) The percentage of 

elderly eligibles that qualified for the maximum benefit varied from 9 percent in Texas to 28 percent 

in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and North Dakota. As with participants, the states that had the 

lowest percentages of elderly eligibles qualifying for the minimum benefit also had among the 

highest percentages of elderly eligibles qualifying for the maximum benefit. Likewise, three of the 

states that had the highest percentages of elderly eligibles qualifying for the minimum benefit also 

had among the lowest percentages of elderly eligibles qualifying for the maximum benefit 

(10 percent in Georgia, Minnesota, and South Carolina). However, Mississippi had a relatively low 

percentage qualifying for both the minimum (18 percent) and the maximum benefit (11 percent). 

In most states, the average percentage of elderly eligibles qualifying for the maximum benefit 

was higher than the similar percentage of elderly participants in FY 2007. Two notable exceptions 

were California and New York; in both, the percentage of elderly eligibles qualifying for the 

maximum benefit was at least 20 percentage points lower than the corresponding percentage of 

participants. 

Nationally, the average monthly SNAP household benefit for which elderly eligibles qualified 

was $102, significantly higher than the minimum benefit. Among states, Hawaii had by far the 

largest average elderly eligibles benefit—$265—reflecting in part the higher maximum benefit in that 

state. The seven states with the next highest average benefits were Maine, South Dakota, North 

Dakota, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Montana, and Connecticut, with average benefits ranging 

from $145 to $134. These states all had among the highest percentages of elderly eligibles qualifying 

for a shelter deduction and the maximum benefit, and among the highest average shelter deductions. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

51

Unlike Hawaii, these states did not have high elderly eligibles poverty rates, relative to other states. 

Minnesota had the lowest average elderly eligibles benefit ($73), followed by Wisconsin, Georgia, 

South Carolina, Washington, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Oregon, with average elderly eligibles 

benefits ranging from $78 to $89. These states had high percentages of elderly eligibles receiving 

Social Security and qualifying for the minimum benefit. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Georgia, South 

Carolina, and Washington also had among the lowest percentages qualifying for a shelter deduction. 

3. Characteristics of the Low-Income SNAP-Ineligible Elderly Population 

Nationally, 20 percent of SNAP-ineligible individuals with gross income under 200 percent of 

the poverty level were elderly, slightly higher than the elderly percentage of SNAP-eligible 

individuals (Table III.16). However, the elderly percentage among ineligibles varied substantially 

across states. In states with expanded categorical eligibility policies that exempt essentially all SNAP 

households from the asset and net income tests, only elderly individuals who had too high an 

income to qualify for a positive SNAP benefit or did not meet citizenship or residency requirements 

Table III.16. Elderly Percentage of Low-Income SNAP-Ineligible Individuals, FY 2009 

Estimated Low-Income SNAP-Ineligible Individuals

Percentage 

Elderly 

Percentage 

Elderly 

Percentage 

Elderly

United States 20

Alabama 24 Kentucky 23 North Dakota 23

Alaska 12 Louisiana 26 Ohio 22

Arizona 14 Maine 38 Oklahoma 22

Arkansas 23 Maryland 40 Oregon 15

California 20 Massachusetts 18 Pennsylvania 2

Colorado 19 Michigan 4 Rhode Island 22

Connecticut 24 Minnesota 16 South Carolina 5

Delaware 5 Mississippi 23 South Dakota 22

District of Columbia 27 Missouri 23 Tennessee 24

Florida 28 Montana 22 Texas 22

Georgia 1 Nebraska 21 Utah 12

Hawaii 24 Nevada 22 Vermont 16

Idaho 16 New Hampshire 23 Virginia 24

Illinois 23 New Jersey 24 Washington 3

Indiana 19 New Mexico 23 West Virginia 29

Iowa 22 New York 2 Wisconsin 2

Kansas 21 North Carolina 23 Wyoming 22

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

52

were ineligible for SNAP.17 On the other hand, the percentage of elderly ineligibles was almost twice 

the national percentage in Maryland and Maine (40 and 38 percent, respectively), both states that 

expanded categorical eligibility only for SNAP households with children. 

Nationally the characteristics of low-income elderly individuals ineligible for SNAP differed 

from the characteristics of elderly eligibles in notable ways (Tables III.17 and III.18). Compared to 

elderly eligibles, fewer elderly ineligibles were in one-person SNAP households (45 percent), were in 

poverty (11 percent), received Medicaid (11 percent), were in SNAP households that received SSI 

(one percent), or had excess shelter expenses (29 percent). More elderly ineligibles than elderly 

eligibles had countable assets (80 percent) and were in SNAP households that received Social 

Security (88 percent). 

The differences among elderly eligibles and ineligibles were most acute in states with expanded 

categorical eligibility policies. For example, none of the elderly ineligibles in the eight states in which 

elderly individuals are not subject to income or asset tests (Delaware, Georgia, Michigan, New York, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin) were in one-person SNAP units, had 

income below the poverty level, or had countable assets. In the two additional states without an 

asset test—Massachusetts and North Dakota—and the three states in which few households are 

subject to an asset test—Arizona, Oregon, and Vermont no elderly ineligibles were in poverty. In 

the remaining states, poverty rates among elderly ineligibles ranged from 9 percent in Nevada to 

18 percent in Minnesota and 19 percent in Alaska. 

Among states with some one-person elderly ineligible SNAP households, the lowest 

percentages were in Arizona and Mississippi (32 and 33 percent, respectively) and the highest 

 

17 In this report, we consider SNAP households that meet the income and asset standards or are categorically 

eligible to be ineligible for SNAP if they do not qualify for a positive benefit. As mentioned in Chapter II, a ―SNAP 

household‖ is a group of individuals that would be required to apply for SNAP together and is not necessarily eligible 

for or participating in SNAP. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

53

Table III.17. Estimated Percentage of Elderly Ineligibles in One-Person SNAP Household, in Poverty, and 

with Countable Assets by State, FY 2009 

Estimated Percentage of Elderly Ineligibles (Standard Error)

In One-Person

SNAP Household In Poverty

With Countable 

Assets

United States 45 (1.4) 11 (0.8) 80 (1.1)

All exempt from asset and net income tests: 

Delaware, Georgia, Michigan, New York, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin 0 0 0

All exempt from asset test

Massachusetts 52 (1.9) 0 0

North Dakota 45 (1.9) 0 0

Almost all exempt from asset and net income tests 

Arizona 32 (3.0) 0 69 (3.4)

Oregon 36 (2.8) 0 77 (2.9)

Vermont 38 (3.0) 0 82 (2.4)

Other 

Alabama 41 (1.2) 10 (0.8) 75 (1.5)

Alaska 44 (1.4) 19 (0.9) 92 (0.8)

Arkansas 36 (1.1) 10 (0.8) 76 (1.5)

California 52 (1.4) 12 (1.0) 80 (1.2)

Colorado 52 (1.8) 12 (0.8) 84 (1.1)

Connecticut 52 (1.8) 16 (1.0) 91 (0.9)

District of Columbia 70 (1.6) 11 (1.2) 75 (2.6)

Florida 45 (1.4) 11 (0.7) 81 (1.1)

Hawaii 38 (1.1) 17 (1.1) 89 (1.3)

Idaho 42 (1.7) 11 (0.8) 85 (1.2)

Illinois 52 (1.5) 12 (0.8) 84 (1.1)

Indiana 51 (1.4) 10 (0.7) 84 (1.1)

Iowa 44 (1.6) 17 (1.1) 89 (0.8)

Kansas 49 (1.6) 13 (0.8) 87 (1.0)

Kentucky 45 (1.4) 13 (1.1) 80 (1.3)

Louisiana 35 (1.2) 10 (0.9) 72 (2.1)

Maine 42 (1.5) 17 (1.2) 90 (0.9)

Maryland 48 (1.4) 14 (1.0) 81 (1.3)

Minnesota 42 (2.2) 18 (1.4) 98 (0.6)

Mississippi 33 (1.2) 11 (1.1) 70 (2.5)

Missouri 47 (1.3) 11 (0.7) 83 (1.0)

Montana 41 (1.5) 14 (0.9) 90 (0.9)

Nebraska 47 (1.7) 15 (0.9) 89 (0.8)

Nevada 48 (1.6) 9 (0.7) 77 (1.4)

New Hampshire 46 (1.6) 16 (1.2) 90 (0.8)

New Jersey 51 (1.6) 12 (0.9) 84 (1.0)

New Mexico 44 (1.8) 11 (1.1) 77 (1.7)

North Carolina 44 (1.3) 13 (0.9) 80 (1.2)

Ohio 47 (1.3) 12 (0.8) 87 (1.0)

Oklahoma 42 (1.2) 11 (0.8) 80 (1.3)

Rhode Island 50 (1.7) 13 (0.9) 87 (1.0)

South Dakota 42 (1.6) 17 (1.2) 90 (0.9)

Tennessee 42 (1.2) 10 (0.8) 78 (1.3)

Texas 41 (1.7) 14 (1.3) 86 (1.4)

Utah 37 (1.8) 11 (1.0) 86 (1.5)

Virginia 46 (1.3) 10 (0.7) 80 (1.2)

West Virginia 38 (1.3) 11 (1.0) 78 (1.5)

Wyoming 43 (1.6) 14 (0.9) 88 (0.8)

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

54

Table III.18. Percentage of Elderly Ineligibles in SNAP Households with Medicaid, SSI, Social Security, and 

Excess Shelter Expenses by State, FY 2009 

Estimated Percentage of Elderly Ineligibles (Standard Error)

With Medicaid With SSI With Social Security

With Excess Shelter 

Expenses

United States 11 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 88 (0.7) 29 (1.1)

Alabama 13 (0.8) 1 (0.4) 90 (0.7) 21 (1.1)

Alaska 6 (0.6) 1 (0.2) 86 (0.7) 36 (1.2)

Arizona 9 (1.7) 1 (0.5) 84 (2.8) 14 (2.1)

Arkansas 13 (0.9) 1 (0.3) 88 (0.7) 22 (1.2)

California 12 (1.0) -

a 88 (1.1) 26 (1.4)

Colorado 10 (0.8) 1 (0.5) 87 (0.8) 35 (1.3)

Connecticut 8 (0.6) 0 (0.3) 87 (0.9) 72 (1.6)

Delaware 16 (3.1) 3 (1.4) 87 (4.4) 9 (4.9)

District of Columbia 15 (1.4) 1 (0.2) 89 (1.1) 26 (1.5)

Florida 12 (0.7) 1 (0.4) 88 (0.7) 20 (1.1)

Georgia 22 (3.9) 10 (4.4) 86 (5.9) 9 (4.6)

Hawaii 8 (0.8) 1 (0.3) 86 (1.0) 24 (1.4)

Idaho 10 (0.7) 1 (0.3) 86 (0.8) 33 (1.7)

Illinois 11 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 88 (0.7) 26 (1.2)

Indiana 9 (0.6) 0 (0.1) 89 (0.6) 34 (1.2)

Iowa 8 (0.6) 0 (0.1) 87 (0.9) 36 (1.4)

Kansas 9 (0.7) 0 (0.1) 87 (0.8) 30 (1.3)

Kentucky 12 (0.7) 1 (0.4) 89 (0.8) 23 (1.2)

Louisiana 14 (1.0) 1 (0.4) 88 (1.0) 23 (1.3)

Maine 7 (0.6) 0 (0.1) 87 (0.9) 69 (1.4)

Maryland 11 (0.7) 0 (0.1) 88 (0.8) 30 (1.2)

Massachusetts 12 (0.9) 2 (0.5) 91 (0.9) 38 (1.9)

Michigan 15 (3.7) 3 (1.3) 84 (4.8) 15 (4.7)

Minnesota 4 (0.7) 0 (0.1) 84 (1.3) 39 (1.9)

Mississippi 14 (1.1) 2 (0.6) 89 (1.0) 19 (1.3)

Missouri 10 (0.6) 1 (0.1) 89 (0.6) 23 (1.1)

Montana 7 (0.6) 0 (0.1) 87 (0.8) 52 (1.6)

Nebraska 8 (0.7) 0 (0.2) 87 (0.8) 32 (1.3)

Nevada 13 (1.0) 1 (0.3) 88 (0.8) 23 (1.3)

New Hampshire 8 (0.6) 0 (0.1) 87 (0.9) 57 (1.3)

New Jersey 11 (0.8) 1 (0.4) 87 (0.8) 33 (1.2)

New Mexico 15 (1.4) 1 (0.4) 85 (1.4) 27 (1.5)

New York 24 (5.5) 10 (3.2) 82 (6.2) 16 (5.0)

North Carolina 12 (0.8) 1 (0.1) 88 (0.7) 24 (1.2)

North Dakota 10 (1.0) 0 (0.2) 91 (1.2) 41 (2.1)

Ohio 8 (0.5) 0 (0.1) 89 (0.7) 54 (1.4)

Oklahoma 11 (0.8) 1 (0.3) 88 (0.6) 24 (1.2)

Oregon 6 (1.3) 1 (0.4) 86 (2.1) 17 (2.5)

Pennsylvania 14 (3.5) 4 (1.5) 85 (3.8) 10 (3.6)

Rhode Island 10 (0.7) 1 (0.6) 87 (0.8) 52 (1.5)

South Carolina 22 (3.8) 6 (2.9) 87 (3.9) 4 (3.0)

South Dakota 8 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 86 (0.9) 65 (1.6)

Tennessee 12 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 89 (0.7) 25 (1.2)

Texas 10 (1.1) 1 (0.6) 84 (1.5) 30 (1.9)

Utah 10 (1.3) 1 (0.3) 85 (1.0) 24 (1.6)

Vermont 6 (1.4) 1 (0.5) 87 (2.4) 43 (3.3)

Virginia 12 (0.7) 1 (0.2) 88 (0.7) 26 (1.1)

Washington 13 (3.7) 6 (2.6) 81 (5.3) 12 (5.0)

West Virginia 11 (0.8) 1 (0.3) 89 (0.7) 25 (1.4)

Wisconsin 9 (2.5) 3 (1.4) 81 (5.4) 6 (3.2)

Wyoming 8 (0.6) 0 (0.2) 87 (0.8) 29 (1.3)

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model 

a In California, SSI recipients are ineligible for SNAP. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

55

percentage was in the District of Columbia (70 percent). Among states with an asset test, Arizona 

and Mississippi had the` lowest percentage of elderly ineligibles with countable assets (69 and 

70 percent, respectively) and Minnesota had the highest (98 percent). 

In most states, the percentage of elderly ineligibles with Medicaid was 16 percent or less. 

Exceptions were Georgia, New York, and South Carolina, where the percentages were 22, 24, and 

22 percent, respectively. Those states, along with Washington, also had the highest percentages of 

elderly ineligibles with SSI—6 percent for South Carolina and Washington and 10 percent in 

Georgia and New York. In all states, the percentages with Medicaid or SSI were lower among elderly 

ineligibles than elderly eligibles. 

C. Estimates of State Elderly SNAP Eligibility Rates 

The SNAP eligibility rate—the percentage of the low-income population eligible for SNAP—is 

a useful tool for assessing program performance and comparing elderly participation across states. 

We used the 2009 Baseline of the MATH SIPP+ model to examine FY 2009 SNAP eligibility rates 

nationally and by state for elderly individuals below 200 percent of poverty and two subgroups: lowincome elderly individuals in SNAP households with SSI and low-income elderly individuals in oneperson SNAP households. Estimates of the total number of elderly individuals below 200 percent of 

poverty, the number eligible, and eligibility rates by state can be found in Appendix C. As mentioned 

earlier, the eligibility rate estimates presented in this section are drawn from the same data source as 

the tabulations of elderly eligibles presented in III.B, and so can be compared directly. 

1. Eligibility Rates for All Low-Income Elderly Individuals 

In FY 2009, more than 16 million elderly individuals had income under 200 percent of poverty 

and an estimated 8.5 million, or 53 percent, were eligible for SNAP (Table III.19). State elderly 

eligibility rates varied widely. Eligibility rates are influenced by both the SNAP policies in effect and 

the characteristics of the low-income population. For instance, most states with relatively high 

eligibility rates have implemented policies specifically designed to increase eligibility, such as 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

56

Table III.19. Estimated Number and SNAP Eligibility Rate of Elderly Individuals with Income Below 

200 Percent of Poverty, by State, 2009 

Elderly Individuals with Income below 200 Percent of Poverty

Number (000s) Number Eligible (000s) Eligibility Rate (Row Percent)

United States 16,257 8,540 53

Alabama 309 126 41

Alaska 30 11 37

Arizona 335 284 85

Arkansas 204 79 39

California 1,807 326 18

Colorado 189 71 37

Connecticut 168 71 42

Delaware 43 41 95

District of Columbia 33 16 50

Florida 1,239 429 35

Georgia 425 404 95

Hawaii 92 37 40

Idaho 68 22 32

Illinois 634 225 35

Indiana 306 110 36

Iowa 158 51 32

Kansas 143 47 33

Kentucky 279 113 41

Louisiana 319 132 41

Maine 80 33 40

Maryland 265 107 40

Massachusetts 297 190 64

Michigan 506 485 96

Minnesota 205 121 59

Mississippi 223 99 44

Missouri 327 113 34

Montana 63 20 32

Nebraska 93 30 32

Nevada 133 51 38

New Hampshire 57 20 35

New Jersey 387 142 37

New Mexico 126 53 42

New York 1,129 1,058 94

North Carolina 532 214 40

North Dakota 39 26 66

Ohio 595 223 37

Oklahoma 243 91 37

Oregon 207 179 86

Pennsylvania 737 704 96

Rhode Island 54 22 40

South Carolina 284 273 96

South Dakota 49 19 39

Tennessee 402 158 39

Texas 1,223 713 58

Utah 74 21 28

Vermont 32 28 88

Virginia 351 132 37

Washington 286 274 96

West Virginia 161 63 39

Wisconsin 285 277 97

Wyoming 28 9 32

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

57

expanding categorical eligibility to most low-income households or counting few, if any, vehicle 

assets. These state rules were summarized in Table II.2. 

In the 13 states that had eligibility rates of 64 percent or more, virtually no applicants were 

subject to an asset test.18 Most of these states also eliminated the net income test for most or 

virtually all applicants, the exceptions being Massachusetts and North Dakota, which retained the 

net income test for most households. In contrast, California, the state with the lowest elderly 

eligibility rate, has a policy that excludes SSI recipients from SNAP eligibility. Another 12 states had 

elderly eligibility rates of 36 percent or less.19

2. Eligibility Rates for Subgroups of Low-Income Elderly Individuals 

Table III.20 presents the estimated number and eligibility rates for low-income elderly 

individuals in SNAP households with SSI and low-income elderly individuals in one-person SNAP 

households by state in FY 2009. Nationally, 73 percent of the former were eligible for SNAP; this 

eligibility rate rises to 96 percent when low-income elderly individuals in California are excluded 

from the calculation. The high eligibility rate for SSI recipients is not surprising, given that many are 

in households in which every member receives some form of public assistance and so are 

categorically eligible for SNAP. All states except for California had elderly SSI recipient eligibility 

rates of more than 90 percent, with Michigan and Wisconsin reaching 99 percent. 

Among the 13 states with the highest overall eligibility rates, all except Massachusetts also had 

one of the 13 highest SSI recipient eligibility rates. Minnesota, with an SSI recipient eligibility rate of 

98 percent, was also in the top quarter of states. Among the 13 states with the lowest overall 

eligibility rates, the percentage of the low-income population that received SSI was lower than 

 

18 The 13 states in which the eligibility rate was 64 percent or more were Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington, and 

Wisconsin. 

19 The 13 states in which the eligibility rate was 36 percent or less were California, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah, and Wyoming. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

58

Table III.20. Estimated Number and SNAP Eligibility Rate of Elderly Individuals with SSI or in 

One-Person SNAP Households with Income Below 200 Percent of Poverty, by State, 2009 

Low-Income Elderly with SSI Low-Income Elderly in One-Person Households

Number 

(000s)

Eligibility Rate 

(Row Percent)

Number 

(000s)

Eligibility Rate 

(Row Percent)

United States 2,019 73 8,635 58

U.S. (minus California) 1,548 96 7,612 63

Alabama 38 94 152 50

Alaska 3 94 16 48

Arizona 26 98 162 88

Arkansas 23 94 90 49

California 470 0 1,022 22

Colorado 16 94 110 44

Connecticut 14 97 104 51

Delaware 3 98 23 97

District of Columbia 5 97 24 53

Florida 132 93 632 42

Georgia 53 97 231 97

Hawaii 9 95 41 49

Idaho 4 92 32 39

Illinois 63 95 364 41

Indiana 16 97 176 44

Iowa 9 97 78 39

Kansas 8 96 78 40

Kentucky 39 95 141 46

Louisiana 40 93 137 52

Maine 6 97 40 50

Maryland 27 97 144 47

Massachusetts 46 95 175 68

Michigan 42 99 277 98

Minnesota 17 98 111 67

Mississippi 34 92 96 57

Missouri 23 95 175 42

Montana 3 95 30 42

Nebraska 5 96 49 40

Nevada 10 93 72 43

New Hampshire 2 97 30 44

New Jersey 46 94 219 43

New Mexico 17 94 63 48

New York 204 98 643 96

North Carolina 56 96 277 49

North Dakota 2 97 21 72

Ohio 42 96 331 46

Oklahoma 21 93 121 46

Oregon 15 98 110 90

Pennsylvania 69 98 395 98

Rhode Island 7 93 32 49

South Carolina 30 98 142 98

South Dakota 4 95 24 49

Tennessee 41 95 198 47

Texas 171 96 603 64

Utah 4 94 31 37

Vermont 3 98 18 91

Virginia 38 95 186 44

Washington 27 98 161 97

West Virginia 16 95 71 47

Wisconsin 19 99 161 98

Wyoming 1 96 14 41

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

59

average in all except Florida. Given the high eligibility rate of elderly SSI recipients, the low 

proportion of this group in some states may contribute to those states’ low overall eligibility rates.

Nationally, the eligibility rate of low-income elderly individuals in one-person SNAP 

households was 58 percent, slightly higher than the overall low-income elderly SNAP eligibility rate. 

Rates varied widely across states, from less than one-quarter of California’s single low-income elderly 

population being SNAP-eligible to 98 percent of that population in Michigan, Pennsylvania, South 

Carolina, and Wisconsin being eligible. For the 15 states with the highest overall eligibility rates and 

the five states with the lowest, the state’s rank, based on its one-person eligibility rate relative to 

other states’ rates, was identical to the rank based on their overall eligibility rate. Most other states 

also had similar rankings for the two rates. Because the one-person eligibility rate is, on average, only 

slightly higher than the overall eligibility rate, the prevalence of one-person SNAP households in a 

state does not appear to have much effect on the overall eligibility rate. 

D. Estimates of State Elderly SNAP Participation Rates 

Estimated SNAP participation rates are the ratio of estimated numbers of participants to 

estimated numbers of eligibles. The shrinkage estimates of state elderly SNAP participation rates 

presented here are substantially more precise than direct sample estimates. They are based on fairly 

small samples of households in each state, however, so there is still substantial uncertainty associated 

with the estimates for some states. The standard errors of the estimated elderly participation rates, 

along with the estimated rates, ranks, and numbers of elderly participants and eligibles by state for 

FY 2002 through FY 2006, can be found in Appendix D. 

Although the numerators of the participation rate estimates presented in this section are drawn 

from the same data source as the tabulations of elderly participants presented in III.A, they differ 

slightly. To maintain consistency with the denominator for the participation rate estimates, we 

excluded from the numerator those SNAP households that were categorically eligible and would fail 

the SNAP income tests. The tabulations in III.A include such SNAP households. The denominators 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

60

of the participation rate estimates differ in several ways, described above, from the estimates of 

elderly eligibles presented in III.B, and so should not be compared directly to those estimates.

As discussed in Chapter II, the participation rate estimates presented in this report are based in 

part on regression estimates. Consequently, researchers should be cautious about using these 

estimates to model elderly SNAP participation levels. 

1. Trend in National Elderly SNAP Participation Rates from FY 2002 to FY 2006 

Nationally, the estimated SNAP participation rate among elderly individuals increased steadily, 

from 25 percent in FY 2002 to 34 percent in FY 2006, a statistically significant increase of 9 

percentage points (Table III.21). Increases from FY 2003 to FY 2004 and from FY 2005 to FY 2006 

also were statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level. 

Table III.21. National SNAP Participation Rates for Eligible Elderly Individuals and for All Eligible 

Individuals, FY 2002 to FY 2006 

Estimated SNAP Participation Rates

(Standard Errors)

Fiscal Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Elderly individualsa 25

(0.9)

26

(1.1)

30

(1.0)

31

(1.1)

34

(1.2)

All individuals 54

(0.5)

56

(0.6)

61

(0.6)

65

(0.7)

67

(0.6)

Ratio of elderly rate to all individuals rate 47 47 48 47 51

Sources: SNAP QC, CPS, and administrative data for years shown; census 2000 data. 

aThe elderly participation rates for FY 2002 through FY 2004 differ slightly from those in Leftin and 

Wolkwitz (2009) because they are based on revised participant data files that are methodologically 

consistent with the participant data files for FY 2005 and FY 2006. 

During the same period, the estimated national SNAP participation rate for all individuals rose 

14 percentage points, from 54 percent to 67 percent. The increase between FY 2002 and FY 2006 

was statistically significant at the 95-percent confidence level, as was each increase between 

consecutive years. 

Although the percentage point increase in rates from FY 2002 to FY 2006 was larger for all 

individuals than for elderly individuals, the percentage increase in rates was larger for elderly 

individuals. The elderly participation rate increased by 37 percent, while the all-individuals rate 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

61

increased by 26 percent. As a result, the elderly participation rate rose from 47 percent of the allindividuals rate in FY 2002 to 51 percent of the all-individuals rate in FY 2006. As seen in 

Table III.21, all of the relative increase in the elderly participation rate occurred between FY 2005 

and FY 2006. 

2. Trends in State Elderly SNAP Participation Rates from FY 2002 to FY 2006 

Like the national elderly participation rate, state elderly participation rates increased between 

FY 2002 and FY 2006 (Table III.22). Although there was variation across states and between 

consecutive years, the change from FY 2002 to FY 2006 was positive in every state. In two-thirds of 

the states, the change was statistically significant, for the most part at a 95-percent confidence level 

(Table III.23). 

The upward trend in state elderly participation rates between FY 2002 and FY 2006 was similar 

to the trend in state participation rates for all individuals. In all states, the all-individuals participation 

rate increased between FY 2002 and FY 2006. The increase in the all-individuals rate was statistically 

significant at the 95-percent confidence level in all but seven states (Alaska, California, Hawaii, 

Nevada, Rhode Island, West Virginia, and Wyoming). 

Among states with statistically significant elderly participation rate changes from FY 2002 to 

FY 2006, five—Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, and Washington—had a rate 

increase of 15 percentage points or more. These five states also had increases of 15 percentage 

points or more in their participation rates for all individuals. Another 12 states had statistically 

significant elderly participation rate increases of 10 to 14 percentage points.20 Again, each of these 12

states had significant increases of at least 10 percentage points in their rate for all individuals, as well. 

 

20The 12 states with statistically significant rate increases of 10 to 14 percentage points were Delaware, Illinois, 

Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

62

Table III.22. Elderly SNAP Participation Rates by State, FY 2002 to FY 2006 

Estimated Elderly SNAP Participation Rates (Percentage)

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

United States 25 26 30 31 34

Alabama 20 22 22 21 26

Alaska 28 29 25 31 38

Arizona 18 24 26 27 26

Arkansas 20 23 23 27 27

California 7 7 11 9 10

Colorado 20 22 24 22 27

Connecticut 31 26 29 31 34

Delaware 17 18 22 23 27

District of Columbia 28 32 30 30 41

Florida 35 34 43 43 44

Georgia 26 27 29 29 35

Hawaii 61 52 58 61 63

Idaho 20 24 26 23 23

Illinois 30 28 32 37 40

Indiana 21 25 26 29 30

Iowa 19 21 24 26 30

Kansas 23 26 27 27 31

Kentucky 28 32 29 33 34

Louisiana 23 28 25 30 33

Maine 36 40 38 45 50

Maryland 22 18 21 21 28

Massachusetts 16 17 20 20 32

Michigan 27 29 30 37 43

Minnesota 27 26 27 26 33

Mississippi 21 26 24 21 31

Missouri 29 33 34 44 45

Montana 18 25 24 23 25

Nebraska 26 27 30 30 33

Nevada 23 25 30 27 28

New Hampshire 22 19 21 20 25

New Jersey 28 21 29 28 34

New Mexico 17 24 25 26 30

New York 35 33 42 43 50

North Carolina 21 22 25 24 30

North Dakota 25 25 26 22 25

Ohio 24 29 30 32 36

Oklahoma 22 31 29 32 34

Oregon 40 42 38 46 45

Pennsylvania 23 25 29 31 34

Rhode Island 22 21 26 22 24

South Carolina 23 27 27 30 33

South Dakota 18 20 20 16 21

Tennessee 30 35 33 39 39

Texas 20 24 28 28 32

Utah 21 24 27 27 30

Vermont 35 33 33 35 38

Virginia 27 26 30 29 34

Washington 28 30 33 37 43

West Virginia 26 32 28 31 30

Wisconsin 18 20 21 22 26

Wyoming 16 19 21 15 20

Sources: SNAP QC, CPS, and administrative data for years shown; Census 2000 data. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

63

Table III.23. Trends in Estimated State Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, FY 2002 to FY 2006 

Significant Rate Increase 

Between 2002 and 2006 Trend from 

2002 to 2006

Number of Significant 

Changes Between 

Percentage Point Percent Consecutive Years

Alabama 6 points 30 No trend One increase (2005–06)

Alaska none - Up 3 years None

Arizona 8 points 43 Up 3 consecutive years One increase (2002–03)

Arkansas 7 points 35 Up 3 years None

California none - Up 3 years None

Colorado 7 +points 34 Up 3 years One increase (2005–06)

Connecticut none - Up 3 consecutive years None

Delaware 11 points 63 Up all years None

District of Columbia none - Up 3 years None

Florida 9 points 24 No trend One increase (2003–04)

Georgia 9 points 36 Up all years One increase (2005–06)

Hawaii none - Up 3 consecutive years None

Idaho none - No trend None

Illinois 11 points 36 Up 3 consecutive years One increase (2004–05)

Indiana 9 points 41 Up all years None

Iowa 11 points 58 Up all years None

Kansas 7 points 31 Up 3 years One increase (2005–06)

Kentucky 6 points 22 Up 3 years None

Louisiana 10 points 46 Up 3 years One increase (2002–03)

Maine 14 points 39 Up 3 years One increase (2004–05)

Maryland 6 points 29 No trend One increase (2005–06)

Massachusetts 16 points 100 Up 3 years One increase (2005–06)

Michigan 16 points 58 Up all years Two increases (2004–05, 

2005–06)

Minnesota 6 points 22 No trend One increase (2005–06)

Mississippi 10 points 47 No trend One increase (2005–06)

Missouri 16 points 53 Up all years One increase (2004–05)

Montana none - No trend None

Nebraska 7 points 28 Up all years None

Nevada none - Up 3 years One increase (2003–04)

New Hampshire none - No trend One increase (2005–06)

New Jersey none - No trend One decrease (2002–03),

One increase (2003–04)

New Mexico 13 points 78 Up all years One increase (2002–03)

New York 15 points 42 Up 3 consecutive years One increase (2003–04)

North Carolina 9 points 41 Up 3 years One increase (2005–06)

North Dakota none - Up 3 years None

Ohio 12 points 50 Up all years One increase (2002–03)

Oklahoma 11 points 50 Up 3 years One increase (2002–03)

Oregon none - No trend None

Pennsylvania 11 points 47 Up all years One increase (2003–04)

Rhode Island none - No trend One increase (2003–04)

South Carolina 10 points 41 Up all years None

South Dakota none - No trend None

Tennessee 9 points 29 No trend None

Texas 13 points 65 Up all years Three increases (2002–03, 

2003–04, 2005–06)

Utah 9 points 45 Up all years None

Vermont none - No trend None

Virginia 8 points 29 No trend Two increases (2003–04, 

2005–06)

Washington 15 points 52 Up all years One increase (2005–06)

West Virginia none - No trend None

Wisconsin 8 points 48 Up all years One increase (2005–06)

Wyoming none - Up 3 years None

Note: Statistical significance is determined at 90-percent confidence level. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

64

In addition to examining percentage point increases in participation rates, we also looked at the 

percentage increase in state elderly participation rates from FY 2002 to FY 2006. The highest 

percentage increase was in Massachusetts, where the elderly participation rate rose by 100 percent, 

from 16 percent in FY 2002 to 32 percent in FY 2006. Nine other states had participation rate 

increases of at least 50 percent from FY 2002 to FY 2006 (Delaware, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, New 

Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington). By comparison, increases from FY 2002 to FY 

2006 in the participation rate for all individuals ranged from 3 to 45 percent. Texas had the highest 

percentage increase in its all-individuals participation rate (45 percent), followed by Massachusetts, 

(42 percent).

3. Comparisons of State Elderly Participation Rates Across States and to National Rates 

We compared state elderly participation rates across states and to the national elderly 

participation rate (Table III.24). Hawaii’s elderly participation rate was higher than that of every 

other state in all five years, and Florida, Maine, New York, and Oregon had participation rates that 

were significantly higher than two-thirds of the states in all five years. California’s elderly 

participation rate was lower than the rate of every other state in all five years. No state other than 

California had a rate that was significantly lower than two-thirds of the other states in all five years, 

although Wyoming’s participation rate was significantly lower than two-thirds of the other states in 

three out of the five years. 

Hawaii’s high elderly participation rate is likely due in part to that state’s high poverty rate 

among elderly eligibles—65 percent of elderly eligibles were in poverty in Hawaii, compared to the 

national average of 42 percent (Section III.B). On average, eligible individuals in poverty are more 

likely to participate in SNAP than eligibles with slightly higher incomes. California’s low elderly 

percentage among SNAP participants is likely due in large part to a state policy that makes SSI 

recipients ineligible for SNAP. On average, SNAP-eligible individuals who receive SSI or other 

forms of public assistance are more likely to participate than eligibles who do not receive other 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

65

Table III.24. Comparisons of Estimated Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, FY 2002 to FY 2006 

State Rate Significantly Different 

from National Rate

State Rate Significantly Different from 

Two-Thirds of Other States’ Rates

Alabama Lower all 5 years n/a

Alaska n/a n/a

Arizona Lower 3 years n/a

Arkansas Lower 4 years n/a

California Lower all 5 years Lowest every year

Colorado Lower all 5 years n/a

Connecticut Higher 1 year n/a

Delaware Lower all 5 years Lower 2 years

District of Columbia n/a n/a

Florida Higher all 5 years Higher all 5 years

Georgia n/a n/a

Hawaii Higher all 5 years Highest every year

Idaho Lower 4 years Lower 1 year

Illinois Higher 3 years Higher 2 years

Indiana Lower 3 years n/a

Iowa Lower all 5 years n/a

Kansas Lower 2 years n/a

Kentucky Higher 1 year n/a

Louisiana Lower 1 year n/a

Maine Higher all 5 years Higher all 5 years

Maryland Lower all 5 years Lower 2 years

Massachusetts Lower 4 years Lower 2 years

Michigan Higher 2 years Higher 2 years

Minnesota Lower 1 year n/a

Mississippi Lower 3 years n/a

Missouri Higher all 5 years Higher 3 years

Montana Lower 4 years n/a

Nebraska n/a n/a

Nevada Lower 1 year n/a

New Hampshire Lower 4 years Lower 2 years

New Jersey Lower 1 year n/a

New Mexico Lower 4 years n/a

New York Higher all 5 years Higher all 5 years

North Carolina Lower all 5 years n/a

North Dakota Lower 2 years n/a

Ohio n/a n/a

Oklahoma Higher 1 year n/a

Oregon Higher all 5 years Higher all 5 years

Pennsylvania n/a n/a

Rhode Island Lower 3 years n/a

South Carolina n/a n/a

South Dakota Lower all 5 years Lower 2 years

Tennessee Higher 3 years Higher 2 years

Texas Lower 1 year n/a

Utah Lower 1 year n/a

Vermont Higher 2 years Higher 1 year

Virginia n/a n/a

Washington Higher 3 years Higher 1 year

West Virginia Higher 1 year, lower 1 year n/a

Wisconsin Lower all 5 years Lower 1 year

Wyoming Lower all 5 years Lower 3 years

Note: Statistical significance is determined at a 90-percent confidence level. 

n/a = not applicable (state rate not statistically significantly different). 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

66

public assistance, so the absence of this group from the eligible California SNAP population may 

reduce that state’s participation rate. 

The elderly participation rate in six states (Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, New York, and 

Oregon) was significantly higher than the national participation rate in all five years. The rate for five 

additional states (Illinois, Michigan, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington) was significantly higher 

than the national rate in two or three out of the five years. Ten states had elderly participation rates 

significantly lower than the national rate in all five years.21 Twelve additional states had rates 

significantly lower than the national rate in two, three, or four years.22

4. Trends in the Number of Elderly Eligibles and Participants from FY 2002 to FY 2006 

An increase in a state’s participation rate can be due to a decrease in the number of eligibles or 

an increase in the number of participants. If the numbers of participants and eligibles both move in 

the same direction, a relative increase in participants or a relative decrease in eligibles also will result 

in an increase in the state’s participation rate. To gain a better understanding of the state elderly

participation rate increases between FY 2002 and FY 2006, we examined trends in the number of 

elderly eligibles and elderly participants. 

In half of the states and the District of Columbia, the number of elderly eligibles decreased 

from FY 2002 to FY 2006 (Table III.25). The size of the decrease varied, from one percent in the 

District of Columbia to 41 percent in New Mexico. However, the decreases in elderly eligibles 

between FY 2002 and FY 2006 were statistically significant in only five states. Maine, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and South Carolina had decreases that were statistically significant at the 95-percent 

confidence level, and Georgia had a decrease that was statistically significant at the 90-percent level. 

 

21 The 10 states with elderly participation rates that were significantly lower than the national rate in all five years 

were Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, North Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming. 

22 The 12 states with elderly participation rates that were significantly lower than the national rate in two to four 

years were Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, and Rhode Island. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

67

Table III.25. Change in Estimated Number of Elderly SNAP Eligibles and Participants and Estimated 

Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, FY 2002 to FY 2006 

Percent Change from 2002 to 2006 Percentage Point Increase

in Participation Rates

Eligibles Participants from 2002 to 2006

Alabama -5 23 6 **

Alaska -12 21 10

Arizona 25 79 8 **

Arkansas -18 11 7 **

California 44 113 3

Colorado -11 18 7 **

Connecticut 13 24 3

Delaware 19 108 11 **

District of Columbia -1 42 12

Florida -2 22 9 *

Georgia -17 14 9 **

Hawaii -9 -5 3

Idaho 8 24 3

Illinois 4 42 11 **

Indiana 13 59 9 **

Iowa 5 66 11 **

Kansas -5 24 7 **

Kentucky 12 37 6 **

Louisiana 17 70 10 **

Maine -19 13 14 **

Maryland -10 17 6 **

Massachusetts 37 173 16 **

Michigan -13 37 16 **

Minnesota -15 4 6 **

Mississippi -18 20 10 **

Missouri -15 31 16 **

Montana -10 20 6

Nebraska -6 21 7 **

Nevada 5 26 5

New Hampshire 2 18 4

New Jersey -5 16 6

New Mexico -41 5 13 **

New York -4 36 15 **

North Carolina 12 58 9 **

North Dakota 17 20 1

Ohio 11 67 12 **

Oklahoma -27 10 11 **

Oregon 56 75 5

Pennsylvania -7 36 11 **

Rhode Island 1 10 2

South Carolina -24 7 10 **

South Dakota 29 43 2

Tennessee 11 44 9 **

Texas 35 123 13 **

Utah -8 33 9 **

Vermont 21 32 3

Virginia 3 33 8 **

Washington 25 89 15 **

West Virginia -13 -1 4

Wisconsin -3 44 8 **

Wyoming 23 51 4

Sources: SNAP QC, CPS, and administrative data for years shown and Census 2000 data. 

* Change is statistically different from zero at a 90-percent level of significance. 

** Change is statistically different from zero at a 95-percent level of significance. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

68

The number of elderly eligibles increased from FY 2002 to FY 2006 in the other half of the 

states, ranging from a one-percent increase in Rhode Island to a 56-percent increase in Oregon. As 

with the decreases in elderly eligibles, many of the increases were not statistically significant. 

Exceptions were Oregon, Texas, and Washington, whose increases in elderly eligibles between 

FY 2002 and FY 2006 were statistically significant at the 95-percent level, and Arizona, Delaware, 

Massachusetts, and Vermont, whose increases were statistically significant at the 90-percent level. 

The number of elderly participants increased from FY 2002 to FY 2006 in all but two states—

Hawaii and West Virginia—where the number decreased. In both of those states, the number of 

elderly eligibles also decreased, and the percentage decrease in the number of elderly participants was 

less than the percentage decrease in elderly eligibles. In states that had an increase in elderly eligibles, 

the percentage increase in elderly participants from FY 2002 to FY 2006 was greater than the 

percentage increase in elderly eligibles. 

In four states, the increase in elderly participants between FY 2002 and FY 2006 was more than 

100 percent. In Massachusetts, the number of elderly participants increased by 173 percent, from 

20,000 in FY 2002 to 55,000 in FY 2006. Texas had a 123 percent increase, from 96,000 to 214,000;

California, a 113 percent increase, from 19,000 to 40,000; and Delaware, a 108 percent increase, 

from 2,000 to 4,000. 

5. Effect of Changes in Numbers of Eligibles and Participants on Participation Rates 

Although every state’s estimated elderly SNAP participation rate increased from FY 2002 to

FY 2006, the factors that contributed to the increase varied by state. Among states with relatively 

large increases in SNAP participation rates between FY 2002 and FY 2006, the rate change in some 

cases appears to have been driven by a change in the number of eligibles and in others by a change 

in the number of participants. 

In Massachusetts, the state with the largest increase in its elderly SNAP participation rate, the 

number of elderly eligibles increased by more than one-third. However, the number of elderly 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

69

participants in the state increased dramatically over the same period—by 173 percent—leading to a 

large participation rate increase. Similarly, Texas experienced an increase of more than one-third in 

the number of eligibles and an increase of more than 100 percent in the number of participants, 

again leading to a large participation rate increase. The increases in elderly participation rates in 

Delaware, Iowa, Ohio, and Washington also were the result of a larger percentage increase in 

participants than eligibles. 

The remaining states with large rate increases between FY 2002 and FY 2006 experienced a 

decrease in the number of eligibles and an increase in the number of participants. While the changes 

in both numbers contributed to the participation rate increases, in some states the decrease in 

eligibles appears to have contributed more to the rate increase, while in others, the increase in 

participants appears to have contributed more. In New York, the number of eligibles fell by less 

than 5 percent, while the number of participants rose by 36 percent. The reverse was true in New 

Mexico, where the number of eligibles fell by more than 40 percent and the number of participants 

rose by 5 percent. In Oklahoma, as in New Mexico, the percentage decrease in eligibles was larger 

than the percentage increase in participants, while in Michigan and Missouri, the percentage decrease 

in eligibles was less than the percentage increase in participants. 

6. Changes Between Consecutive Years in State Elderly Participation Rates and Number 

of Elderly Eligibles and Participants 

To this point, our discussion of trends in elderly participation rates and the number of elderly 

eligibles and participants has focused on changes from FY 2002 to FY 2006. Here, we examine 

changes between consecutive years in participation rates and numbers of elderly eligibles and 

participants. Changes in estimated rates over time may be due to statistical variability as well as true 

changes in rates. The statistical variability is sufficiently great that a large change in a state’s rate from 

year to year should be interpreted cautiously. Despite this uncertainty, it can be informative to 

examine statistically significant changes between consecutive years. 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

70 

In 15 states, elderly participation rates rose each year from FY 2002 to FY 2006, while in 

another 20 states, elderly participation rates rose each year but one (Table III.26). In no state did the 

elderly participation rate decrease between consecutive years more often than it increased. Most 

participation rate changes between consecutive years were not statistically significant, however. Half 

of the states had one statistically significant increase between two consecutive years, Michigan and 

Virginia had two, and Texas had three. Across all of the states, there was only one statistically 

significant decrease between consecutive years—in New Jersey, between FY 2002 and FY 2003. 

Between consecutive years, the largest statistically significant decreases in elderly eligibles 

occurred in New Mexico, from FY 2002 to FY 2003 (34 percent); Oklahoma, from FY 2002 to FY 

2003 (30 percent); Colorado, from FY 2005 to FY 2006 (28 percent); and Utah, from FY 2002 

to FY 2003 (28 percent) (Appendix D, Tables D.1–D.5). 

Between consecutive years, the largest statistically significant increases in elderly eligibles 

occurred in Wyoming, from FY 2004 to FY 2005 (110 percent); the District of Columbia, from 

FY 2003 to FY 2004 (61 percent); Texas, from FY 2002 to FY 2003 (41 percent); and Washington, 

from FY 2002 to FY 2003 (40 percent). 
III. Findings Mathematica Policy Research 

71

Table III.26. Direction of Change in Estimated Number of Elderly SNAP Eligibles and Participants and 

Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, by Year, FY 2002 to FY 2006 

2002 to 2003 2003 to 2004 2004 to 2005 2005 to 2006

E P Rate E P Rate E P Rate E P Rate

Alabama    **          *

Alaska            

Arizona    **         

Arkansas            

California            

Colorado             **

Connecticut            

Delaware            

District of Columbia            

Florida       **      

Georgia             **

Hawaii            

Idaho            

Illinois          *   

Indiana            

Iowa            

Kansas             *

Kentucky            

Louisiana    *         

Maine          *   

Maryland             **

Massachusetts             **

Michigan          **    *

Minnesota             **

Mississippi             **

Missouri          **   

Montana            

Nebraska            

Nevada       *      

New Hampshire             *

New Jersey    **    **      

New Mexico    **         

New York       **      

North Carolina             **

North Dakota            

Ohio    **         

Oklahoma    **         

Oregon            

Pennsylvania       *      

Rhode Island       *      

South Carolina            

South Dakota            

Tennessee            

Texas    *    *       *

Utah            

Vermont            

Virginia       *       **

Washington             *

West Virginia            

Wisconsin             *

Wyoming            

Sources: SNAP QC, CPS, and administrative data for years shown; census 2000 data. 

Note: Arrows in columns headed by ‘E’ and ‘P’ denote the direction of change in the number of elderly 

eligibles and participants, respectively, from one year to the next. Arrows in columns headed by 

‘Rate’ denote the direction of change in the elderly SNAP participation rate.

* Change is statistically different from zero at a 90-percent level of significance. 

** Change is statistically different from zero at a 95-percent level of significance. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
IV. Summary Mathematica Policy Research 

73

IV. SUMMARY 

In an average month in FY 2009, an estimated 16.3 million elderly individuals had income 

under 200 percent of poverty, and an estimated 53 percent of these individuals were eligible for 

SNAP. The estimated 8.6 million elderly individuals eligible for SNAP comprised 16 percent of the 

national eligible population. The elderly percentage of the SNAP eligible population varied across 

states from 7 percent to 28 percent. 

The number of elderly individuals participating in SNAP rose steadily from 1.6 million in 

FY 2000 to 2.3 million in FY 2007. During the same time period, the number of all SNAP 

participants rose from 16.9 million in FY 2000 to 25.9 percent in FY 2007. In FY 2007, elderly 

participants comprised 9 percent of the national participant population. From FY 2000 to FY 2007, 

the number of elderly participants increased in all but two states. While the increase was minimal in 

some states, six states experienced an increase in the number of elderly participants of more than 

100 percent. 

In FY 2006, an estimated 34 percent of eligible elderly individuals participated in SNAP. As 

with the number of elderly SNAP participants, the elderly SNAP participation rate increased steadily 

from FY 2002 through FY 2006. Estimated elderly SNAP participation rates increased in every state 

from FY 2002 to FY 2006, although both the state rates and the amount of increase varied 

substantially across states. In some states, the participation rate increase was driven by a large 

increase in the number of elderly participants, while in others it was driven primarily by a decrease in 

the number of elderly eligibles. 

Although the estimates of SNAP eligibles and participants presented in this report are not 

directly comparable, the characteristics of the elderly eligible population often appear to vary from 

those of the elderly SNAP-participating population. The characteristics of both populations 

frequently varied by state, and the characteristics of the elderly SNAP population also occasionally 

varied over time. For example, the estimated percentage of elderly SNAP eligibles qualifying for the 
IV. Summary Mathematica Policy Research 

74

minimum benefit in FY 2009 was 37 percent, while the FY 2000 to FY 2007 average percentage of 

elderly SNAP participants receiving the minimum benefit was 21 percent. (In FY 2009, the 

minimum benefit was $16 for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia and slightly 

higher for Alaska and Hawaii. In FY 2000 through FY 2007, the minimum benefit was $10 for all 

states.) Among both elderly eligibles in FY 2009 and elderly participants in FY 2007, the estimated 

percentage qualifying for or receiving the minimum benefit varied across states, from 2 percent to 

more than 50 percent. Nationally, the percentage of elderly participants receiving the minimum 

benefit dropped from around 28 percent in FY 2000 through FY 2002 to 17 percent in FY 2006 and 

FY 2007. 

Variations in characteristics appear to be related to state SNAP eligibility policies as well as state 

demographics and economic climates. For example, the states with the largest percentages of elderly 

eligibles qualifying for the minimum benefit are all states that have expanded categorical eligibility 

and most have among the lowest poverty levels. The state with the lowest percentage of elderly 

eligibles qualifying for the minimum benefit—Hawaii—had the highest minimum benefit among 

states. Other states with low percentages had relatively high percentages of elderly eligibles 

qualifying for a shelter deduction and relatively high average shelter deduction amounts. 

A rigorous analysis of the correlation between various policy, economic, and demographic 

factors and state elderly participation and eligibility rates and the characteristics of elderly eligibles 

and participants was beyond the scope of this research. However, future research can use the rich 

data on elderly individuals’ eligibility for and participation in SNAP presented in this report in 

combination with information on efforts to increase elderly SNAP participation and data on 

economic and demographic changes that affect states’ elderly populations to assess the success of 

past efforts to increase elderly SNAP participation and predict the effectiveness of additional efforts. 
References Mathematica Policy Research 

75

REFERENCES 

Boussy, Carole, Russell H. Jackson, and Nancy Wemmerus. ―Evaluation of SSI/FSP Joint 

Processing Alternatives Demonstration.‖ Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Consumer Service, January 2000. 

Cody, Scott, Allen Schirm, Elizabeth Stuart, Laura Castner, and Alan Zaslavsky. ―Sources of 

Variation in State Level Food Stamp Participation Rates.‖ Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy 

Research, November 2007. 

Cody, Scott and James Ohls. ―Evaluation of the USDA Elderly Nutrition Demonstrations: Volume 

I, Evaluation Findings.‖ Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, July 2005. 

Cunnyngham, Karen E. and Laura A. Castner. ―Reaching Those in Need: State Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates in 2007.‖ Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, November 2009. 

Cunnyngham, Karen E., Laura A. Castner, and Allen L. Schirm. ―Empirical Bayes Shrinkage 

Estimates of State Food Stamp Participation Rates in 2004-2006 for All Eligible People and the 

Working Poor.‖ Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, February 2009.

Cunnyngham, Karen E., Laura A. Castner, and Allen L. Schirm. ―Reaching Those in Need: State 

Food Stamp Participation Rates in 2006.‖ Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service, November 2008. 

Gabor, Vivian, Susan Schreiber Williams, Hilary Bellamy, and Brooke Layne Hardison. ―Seniors’ 

Views of the Food Stamp Program and Ways to Improve Participation—Focus Group 

Findings in Washington State.‖ Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, June 2002. 

Haider, Steven J., Robert F. Schoeni, and Alison Jacknowitz. ―Food Stamps and the Elderly: Why Is 

Participation So Low?‖ Ann Arbor, MI: National Poverty Center, May 2003.

Klerman, Jacob Alex, and Caroline Danielson. ―Determinants of the Food Stamp Program 

Caseload.‖ Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

January 2009. 

LeBlanc, Michael, Biing-Hwan Lin, and David Smallwood. ―Food Assistance: How Strong Is the 

Safety Net?‖ Amber Waves, vol. 4, no. 4, September 2006, pp. 11-15.

Lee, Jung Sun and Edward A. Frongillo, Jr. ―Understanding Needs Is Important for Assessing the 

Impact of Food Assistance Program Participation on Nutritional and Health Status in U.S. 

Elderly Persons.‖ The Journal of Nutrition, vol. 13, no. 3, March 2001, pp. 765-773. 

Leftin, Joshua. ―Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: 2001 to 

2008.‖ In Current Perspectives on SNAP Participation. Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 2010. 
References Mathematica Policy Research 

76

Leftin, Joshua, Andrew Gothro, and Esa Eslami. ―Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2009.‖ Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, forthcoming. 

Leftin, Joshua and Kari Wolkwitz. ―Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

Participation Rates: 2000 to 2007.‖ In Current Perspectives on SNAP Participation. Alexandria, VA: 

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 2009. 

Mabli, James, Emily Sama Martin, and Laura Castner. ―Effects of Economic Conditions and 

Program Policy on State Food Stamp Program Caseloads, 2000 to 2006.‖ Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, August 2009. 

Maryns, Nicholas. ―Access and Access Barriers to Getting Food Stamps: A Review of the 

Literature.‖ Washington, DC: Food Research and Action Center, February 2008. 

Nord, Mark, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. ―Household Food Security in the United 

States, 2008.‖ Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

November 2009. 

Ratcliffe, Caroline, Signe-Mary McKernan, and Kenneth Finegold. ―The Effect of State Food Stamp 

and TANF Policies on Food Stamp Program Participation.‖ Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, January 2008. 

Salmon, Mary Anne and Jessalyn Gooden Bridges. ―Waiting for Dinner: Elderly on the Waiting List 

for Home-Delivered Meals.‖ Mississippi State, MS: Southern Rural Development Center, 

February 2005. 

Smith, Joel. ―Technical Working Paper: Creation of the September 2009 Baseline of the 2005 

MATH SIPP+ Model and Database.‖ Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research,

May 2010. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. ―Evaluation of the 2004/2005 Food 

Stamp Outreach Projects.‖ Washington, DC, January 2008.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. ―Food Stamp Program State Options 

Report, Seventh Edition.‖ Washington, DC, November 2007.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. ―Food Stamp Program State Options 

Report, Eighth Edition.‖ Washington, DC, June 2009.

Wilde, Parke, and Elizabeth Dagata. ―Food Stamp Participation by Eligible Older Americans 

Remains Low.‖ Food Review, vol. 25, no. 2, Summer/Fall 2002, pp. 25-29.

Wolkwitz, Kari. ―Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: 2000 to 

2006.‖ In Current Perspectives on SNAP Participation. Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 2008. 

Wolkwitz, Kari, and Daisy Ewell. ―Technical Documentation for the Fiscal Year 2008 SNAP QC 

Database and QC Minimodel.‖ Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, September 

2009. 
References Mathematica Policy Research 

77

Wolkwitz, Kari, and Daisy Ewell. ―Technical Documentation for the Fiscal Year 2007 FSPQC 

Database and QC Minimodel.‖ Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, 

September 2008. 

Wolkwitz, Kari, and Daisy Ewell. ―Technical Documentation for the Fiscal Year 2006 FSPQC 

Database and QC Minimodel.‖ Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, 

September 2007. 

Wolkwitz, Kari, and Josh Leftin. ―Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

Households: Fiscal Year 2007.‖ Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, September 2008.

Wolkwitz, Kari, and Carole Trippe. ―Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

Households: Fiscal Year 2008.‖ Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, September 2009. 

Wu, April Yanyuan. ―Why Do So Few Elderly Use Food Stamps?‖ Chicago, IL: The Harris School 

of Public Policy Studies, The University of Chicago, October 2009. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
APPENDIX A 

TABLES SHOWING CHARACTERISTICS OF ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS 

PARTICIPATING IN SNAP, FISCAL YEARS 2000 TO 2007 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

81

Table A.1. Number and Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants by Year 

Number of SNAP Participants (000s) Percent of Participants Age 

60 or Over

All (Standard Error)

In Units with Elderly 

Participants

Elderly 

Participants

Fiscal year 2000 16,879 1,903 1,626 9.6 (0.4)

Fiscal year 2001 16,815 1,809 1,562 9.3 (0.3)

Fiscal year 2002 18,572 1,829 1,575 8.5 (0.2)

Fiscal year 2003 20,738 1,994 1,689 8.1 (0.1)

Fiscal year 2004 23,286 2,304 1,918 8.2 (0.1)

Fiscal year 2005 24,841 2,406 2,045 8.2 (0.1)

Fiscal year 2006 25,555 2,607 2,226 8.7 (0.1)

Fiscal year 2007 25,887 2,623 2,263 8.7 (0.1)

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

82

Table A.2. Number of SNAP Participants Age 60 or Over by State and Year 

Elderly SNAP Participants (000s)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 1,626 1,562 1,575 1,689 1,918 2,045 2,226 2,263

Alabama 38 35 28 33 29 33 35 31

Alaska 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 3

Arizona 14 13 15 23 24 29 27 30

Arkansas 25 22 21 22 22 25 23 25

California 24 16 19 24 29 30 40 34

Colorado 17 14 15 16 18 18 16 18

Connecticut 18 18 18 20 21 20 22 24

Delaware 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4

District of Columbia 5 5 5 4 7 5 7 7

Florida 155 163 166 164 181 192 201 198

Georgia 57 57 57 56 56 59 64 66

Hawaii 15 14 15 14 15 15 14 14

Idaho 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 6

Illinois 59 66 65 69 84 86 93 91

Indiana 24 24 24 30 32 39 38 37

Iowa 10 9 10 9 11 12 16 13

Kansas 13 12 12 12 12 13 15 14

Kentucky 37 37 37 41 45 50 51 45

Louisiana 39 31 29 44 39 48 48 52

Maine 16 13 14 16 16 16 16 17

Maryland 24 22 22 21 22 24 25 28

Massachusetts 24 23 21 24 27 36 55 56

Michigan 54 54 57 65 64 73 79 83

Minnesota 20 19 21 18 17 19 21 24

Mississippi 31 28 27 32 30 26 33 35

Missouri 37 35 37 41 43 53 49 48

Montana 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5

Nebraska 8 8 8 9 7 9 10 9

Nevada 7 8 10 10 13 14 12 14

New Hampshire 4 4 5 4 4 5 6 5

New Jersey 41 43 38 37 46 43 44 48

New Mexico 13 13 13 12 14 13 13 14

New York 236 213 221 152 243 267 299 302

North Carolina 58 52 53 58 67 65 85 83

North Dakota 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 5

Ohio 55 54 51 66 71 69 86 78

Oklahoma 27 28 29 27 26 30 31 30

Oregon 21 23 26 31 34 41 44 43

Pennsylvania 68 76 68 75 98 90 92 112

Rhode Island 6 6 6 5 7 6 7 8

South Carolina 31 30 35 29 36 38 37 41

South Dakota 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4

Tennessee 54 59 52 62 75 74 73 77

Texas 102 90 96 165 171 184 218 208

Utah 6 5 6 5 6 5 7 7

Vermont 5 5 5 5 6 5 6 6

Virginia 46 40 39 42 47 48 52 56

Washington 25 24 23 34 36 43 44 52

West Virginia 20 18 21 21 21 25 20 25

Wisconsin 19 15 17 20 21 23 25 26

Wyoming 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

83

Table A.3. Percentage of SNAP Participants Age 60 or Over by State and Year 

Elderly SNAP Participants (Percent of State SNAP Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 9.6 9.3 8.5 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.7 8.7

Alabama 9.7 8.8 6.6 7.1 5.9 6.2 6.5 5.7

Alaska 6.1 3.9 5.0 4.7 4.7 3.9 4.6 5.1

Arizona 5.4 4.5 4.1 5.0 4.6 5.4 5.3 5.7

Arkansas 10.0 8.8 7.6 7.2 6.6 6.9 6.3 6.8

California 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.7

Colorado 11.3 9.7 8.5 8.1 7.4 7.5 6.4 7.4

Connecticut 10.8 11.6 11.1 11.3 10.9 10.2 11.0 11.9

Delaware 5.1 6.0 5.4 5.9 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.2

District of Columbia 6.4 7.2 6.5 5.6 7.8 6.0 7.9 8.7

Florida 17.9 19.1 17.8 16.3 15.6 15.5 17.0 16.4

Georgia 10.4 10.2 9.0 7.6 6.7 6.5 7.1 7.2

Hawaii 12.5 13.2 14.5 14.7 15.1 15.8 16.5 15.8

Idaho 8.2 6.9 6.1 4.7 5.3 5.9 5.5 6.6

Illinois 7.7 8.2 7.6 7.4 8.0 7.5 7.7 7.5

Indiana 8.3 7.1 5.9 6.6 6.2 7.3 6.7 6.4

Iowa 7.9 7.4 6.9 5.9 6.5 6.0 7.3 5.7

Kansas 11.1 10.0 8.6 7.7 7.1 7.7 8.2 7.6

Kentucky 9.5 9.1 8.5 8.4 8.5 9.0 8.8 7.6

Louisiana 7.9 6.1 4.9 6.9 5.7 6.7 7.7 8.3

Maine 15.7 12.8 13.1 12.7 11.9 10.8 10.4 10.9

Maryland 11.1 10.6 9.8 8.3 8.1 8.5 8.5 9.2

Massachusetts 10.3 10.6 8.6 8.2 8.1 9.8 12.9 12.4

Michigan 8.9 8.7 7.8 8.0 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.0

Minnesota 10.1 9.8 9.8 8.1 7.4 7.8 8.4 8.9

Mississippi 11.4 9.6 8.6 9.0 8.0 6.9 8.1 8.3

Missouri 9.1 8.1 7.6 7.2 6.4 7.0 6.2 5.9

Montana 8.4 7.1 7.0 6.8 6.8 5.9 6.6 6.4

Nebraska 9.3 10.2 9.3 8.9 6.4 7.7 8.1 7.6

Nevada 11.5 12.1 10.3 9.3 11.5 11.2 10.7 11.5

New Hampshire 12.1 11.0 12.4 9.1 9.0 9.7 10.3 8.3

New Jersey 12.2 13.7 12.0 10.9 12.5 11.2 11.2 11.7

New Mexico 7.4 8.0 7.7 6.3 6.5 5.7 5.6 6.2

New York 16.4 16.1 16.6 10.8 15.4 15.5 17.0 17.1

North Carolina 12.2 10.8 9.4 9.1 9.0 8.3 10.0 9.5

North Dakota 9.8 9.8 8.9 9.0 9.3 8.2 9.1 10.3

Ohio 9.1 8.7 7.1 7.9 7.7 7.1 8.3 7.5

Oklahoma 11.0 11.0 9.3 7.4 6.5 7.5 7.4 7.4

Oregon 9.3 8.7 7.7 8.4 8.7 9.7 10.4 9.9

Pennsylvania 8.9 10.4 9.0 9.3 10.3 8.8 8.6 10.1

Rhode Island 7.8 8.0 8.8 7.4 9.1 8.5 9.4 10.6

South Carolina 10.3 9.5 9.2 6.5 7.4 7.5 7.1 7.6

South Dakota 9.3 8.2 6.4 6.9 7.6 5.6 7.5 7.0

Tennessee 11.1 11.5 8.9 8.8 9.6 8.9 8.7 9.1

Texas 7.7 6.7 6.2 8.9 7.6 7.8 8.7 8.7

Utah 7.2 6.6 6.3 4.4 5.0 4.1 5.7 5.3

Vermont 13.2 14.0 12.0 13.1 13.6 12.5 13.3 12.0

Virginia 13.9 12.2 11.3 10.9 10.7 10.2 10.5 11.2

Washington 8.7 7.9 6.9 8.8 8.1 8.6 8.3 9.8

West Virginia 8.8 8.2 9.0 8.7 8.4 9.7 7.9 9.4

Wisconsin 10.0 7.2 6.6 6.8 6.7 6.7 6.8 6.9

Wyoming 5.4 6.2 5.3 5.9 5.0 7.5 7.8 7.4

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

84

Table A.4a. All SNAP Participants and Elderly Participants by State, FY 2000 

All SNAP 

Participants

Participants in 

Units with Elderly

Elderly 

Participants Percent of 

Participants 

Age 60 or Over 

(Standard Error)

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

United States 16,879 100.0 1,903 100.0 1,626 100.0 9.6 (0.4)

Alabama 394 2.3 48 2.5 38 2.3 9.7 (1.1)

Alaska 37 0.2 5 0.3 2 0.1 6.1 (1.1)

Arizona 256 1.5 19 1.0 14 0.9 5.4 (0.4)

Arkansas 246 1.5 34 1.8 25 1.5 10.0 (0.6)

California 1,799 10.7 33 1.7 24 1.5 1.3 (0.3)

Colorado 153 0.9 20 1.0 17 1.1 11.3 (0.7)

Connecticut 164 1.0 19 1.0 18 1.1 10.8 (1.0)

Delaware 32 0.2 2 0.1 2 0.1 5.1 (1.0)

District of Columbia 81 0.5 6 0.3 5 0.3 6.4 (0.9)

Florida 865 5.1 175 9.2 155 9.5 17.9 (0.9)

Georgia 542 3.2 67 3.5 57 3.5 10.4 (0.6)

Hawaii 118 0.7 17 0.9 15 0.9 12.5 (1.0)

Idaho 56 0.3 5 0.3 5 0.3 8.2 (0.8)

Illinois 758 4.5 69 3.6 59 3.6 7.7 (0.5)

Indiana 293 1.7 28 1.5 24 1.5 8.3 (0.6)

Iowa 120 0.7 11 0.6 10 0.6 7.9 (0.5)

Kansas 116 0.7 14 0.7 13 0.8 11.1 (0.9)

Kentucky 396 2.3 44 2.3 37 2.3 9.5 (0.6)

Louisiana 493 2.9 53 2.8 39 2.4 7.9 (0.5)

Maine 100 0.6 17 0.9 16 1.0 15.7 (1.0)

Maryland 218 1.3 31 1.6 24 1.5 11.1 (1.0)

Massachusetts 229 1.4 25 1.3 24 1.5 10.3 (0.7)

Michigan 611 3.6 60 3.1 54 3.3 8.9 (0.7)

Minnesota 194 1.2 21 1.1 20 1.2 10.1 (0.7)

Mississippi 271 1.6 41 2.1 31 1.9 11.4 (0.5)

Missouri 412 2.4 42 2.2 37 2.3 9.1 (0.6)

Montana 58 0.3 6 0.3 5 0.3 8.4 (1.1)

Nebraska 82 0.5 8 0.4 8 0.5 9.3 (1.0)

Nevada 61 0.4 8 0.4 7 0.4 11.5 (1.0)

New Hampshire 36 0.2 5 0.2 4 0.3 12.1 (1.5)

New Jersey 339 2.0 46 2.4 41 2.5 12.2 (0.8)

New Mexico 169 1.0 18 0.9 13 0.8 7.4 (0.7)

New York 1,439 8.5 256 13.5 236 14.5 16.4 (1.2)

North Carolina 474 2.8 68 3.6 58 3.5 12.2 (0.6)

North Dakota 31 0.2 3 0.2 3 0.2 9.8 (1.0)

Ohio 601 3.6 61 3.2 55 3.4 9.1 (0.6)

Oklahoma 250 1.5 31 1.6 27 1.7 11.0 (0.6)

Oregon 226 1.3 23 1.2 21 1.3 9.3 (0.8)

Pennsylvania 760 4.5 75 3.9 68 4.2 8.9 (0.6)

Rhode Island 71 0.4 6 0.3 6 0.3 7.8 (0.7)

South Carolina 295 1.7 39 2.1 31 1.9 10.3 (0.6)

South Dakota 43 0.3 5 0.3 4 0.2 9.3 (1.0)

Tennessee 492 2.9 63 3.3 54 3.3 11.1 (0.6)

Texas 1,326 7.9 129 6.8 102 6.3 7.7 (0.5)

Utah 79 0.5 6 0.3 6 0.3 7.2 (1.0)

Vermont 40 0.2 6 0.3 5 0.3 13.2 (1.6)

Virginia 329 2.0 57 3.0 46 2.8 13.9 (0.8)

Washington 288 1.7 28 1.5 25 1.5 8.7 (0.6)

West Virginia 226 1.3 26 1.4 20 1.2 8.8 (0.6)

Wisconsin 186 1.1 21 1.1 19 1.1 10.0 (0.6)

Wyoming 22 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 5.4 (0.8)

Source: Revised FY 2000 SNAP QC data file. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

85

Table A.4b. All SNAP Participants and Elderly Participants by State, FY 2001 

All SNAP 

Participants

Participants in

Units with Elderly

Elderly

Participants

Percent of 

Participants 

Age 60 or Over 

(Standard Error)

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

United States 16,815 100.0 1,809 100.0 1,562 100.0 9.3 (0.3)

Alabama 394 2.3 47 2.6 35 2.2 8.8 (0.6)

Alaska 36 0.2 3 0.2 1 0.1 3.9 (0.8)

Arizona 286 1.7 19 1.0 13 0.8 4.5 (0.4)

Arkansas 254 1.5 30 1.7 22 1.4 8.8 (0.5)

California 1,617 9.6 20 1.1 16 1.0 1.0 (0.2)

Colorado 149 0.9 16 0.9 14 0.9 9.7 (0.7)

Connecticut 152 0.9 20 1.1 18 1.1 11.6 (0.8)

Delaware 31 0.2 2 0.1 2 0.1 6.0 (0.8)

District of Columbia 71 0.4 6 0.3 5 0.3 7.2 (0.7)

Florida 853 5.1 179 9.9 163 10.4 19.1 (0.8)

Georgia 555 3.3 70 3.8 57 3.6 10.2 (0.7)

Hawaii 106 0.6 15 0.8 14 0.9 13.2 (1.0)

Idaho 58 0.3 4 0.2 4 0.3 6.9 (0.7)

Illinois 798 4.7 76 4.2 66 4.2 8.2 (0.8)

Indiana 335 2.0 26 1.5 24 1.5 7.1 (0.5)

Iowa 124 0.7 10 0.6 9 0.6 7.4 (0.5)

Kansas 119 0.7 13 0.7 12 0.8 10.0 (0.7)

Kentucky 402 2.4 44 2.5 37 2.4 9.1 (0.6)

Louisiana 510 3.0 38 2.1 31 2.0 6.1 (0.5)

Maine 102 0.6 14 0.8 13 0.8 12.8 (0.8)

Maryland 205 1.2 25 1.4 22 1.4 10.6 (0.7)

Massachusetts 215 1.3 24 1.4 23 1.5 10.6 (0.7)

Michigan 626 3.7 58 3.2 54 3.5 8.7 (0.5)

Minnesota 193 1.1 22 1.2 19 1.2 9.8 (0.6)

Mississippi 294 1.7 35 1.9 28 1.8 9.6 (0.5)

Missouri 434 2.6 40 2.2 35 2.3 8.1 (0.8)

Montana 60 0.4 5 0.3 4 0.3 7.1 (0.7)

Nebraska 77 0.5 9 0.5 8 0.5 10.2 (0.7)

Nevada 68 0.4 9 0.5 8 0.5 12.1 (1.0)

New Hampshire 34 0.2 4 0.2 4 0.2 11.0 (1.3)

New Jersey 311 1.8 48 2.7 43 2.7 13.7 (0.7)

New Mexico 160 1.0 17 0.9 13 0.8 8.0 (0.5)

New York 1,321 7.9 230 12.7 213 13.6 16.1 (0.9)

North Carolina 480 2.9 63 3.5 52 3.3 10.8 (0.6)

North Dakota 37 0.2 4 0.2 4 0.2 9.8 (0.9)

Ohio 625 3.7 61 3.4 54 3.5 8.7 (0.7)

Oklahoma 254 1.5 34 1.9 28 1.8 11.0 (0.6)

Oregon 266 1.6 25 1.4 23 1.5 8.7 (0.7)

Pennsylvania 731 4.3 87 4.8 76 4.9 10.4 (0.6)

Rhode Island 70 0.4 6 0.3 6 0.4 8.0 (0.7)

South Carolina 314 1.9 37 2.1 30 1.9 9.5 (0.5)

South Dakota 44 0.3 4 0.2 4 0.2 8.2 (1.1)

Tennessee 512 3.0 71 3.9 59 3.8 11.5 (0.7)

Texas 1,345 8.0 116 6.4 90 5.8 6.7 (0.4)

Utah 77 0.5 5 0.3 5 0.3 6.6 (0.7)

Vermont 37 0.2 5 0.3 5 0.3 14.0 (1.5)

Virginia 326 1.9 45 2.5 40 2.5 12.2 (0.6)

Washington 300 1.8 26 1.4 24 1.5 7.9 (0.7)

West Virginia 215 1.3 21 1.1 18 1.1 8.2 (0.5)

Wisconsin 210 1.2 17 0.9 15 1.0 7.2 (0.5)

Wyoming 22 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 6.2 (0.8)

Source: Revised FY 2001 SNAP QC data file. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

86

Table A.4c. All SNAP Participants and Elderly Participants by State, FY 2002 

All SNAP 

Participants

Participants in

Units with Elderly

Elderly

Participants

Percent of 

Participants 

Age 60 or Over 

(Standard Error)

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

United States 18,572 100.0 1,829 100.0 1,575 100.0 8.5 (0.2)

Alabama 426 2.3 36 2.0 28 1.8 6.6 (0.5)

Alaska 44 0.2 4 0.2 2 0.1 5.0 (0.7)

Arizona 372 2.0 19 1.1 15 1.0 4.1 (0.4)

Arkansas 280 1.5 26 1.4 21 1.3 7.6 (0.5)

California 1,651 8.9 24 1.3 19 1.2 1.1 (0.3)

Colorado 174 0.9 17 0.9 15 0.9 8.5 (0.6)

Connecticut 163 0.9 19 1.1 18 1.2 11.1 (0.8)

Delaware 38 0.2 2 0.1 2 0.1 5.4 (0.6)

District of Columbia 71 0.4 6 0.3 5 0.3 6.5 (0.8)

Florida 929 5.0 178 9.7 166 10.5 17.8 (0.9)

Georgia 631 3.4 73 4.0 57 3.6 9.0 (0.6)

Hawaii 105 0.6 16 0.9 15 1.0 14.5 (0.9)

Idaho 67 0.4 4 0.2 4 0.3 6.1 (0.8)

Illinois 862 4.6 74 4.1 65 4.2 7.6 (0.5)

Indiana 396 2.1 28 1.5 24 1.5 5.9 (0.5)

Iowa 139 0.7 11 0.6 10 0.6 6.9 (0.5)

Kansas 135 0.7 13 0.7 12 0.7 8.6 (0.6)

Kentucky 440 2.4 47 2.6 37 2.4 8.5 (0.6)

Louisiana 579 3.1 38 2.1 29 1.8 4.9 (0.4)

Maine 110 0.6 16 0.9 14 0.9 13.1 (0.8)

Maryland 223 1.2 25 1.4 22 1.4 9.8 (0.6)

Massachusetts 241 1.3 23 1.3 21 1.3 8.6 (0.6)

Michigan 724 3.9 63 3.4 57 3.6 7.8 (0.5)

Minnesota 213 1.1 24 1.3 21 1.3 9.8 (0.8)

Mississippi 320 1.7 36 2.0 27 1.7 8.6 (0.5)

Missouri 490 2.6 43 2.3 37 2.4 7.6 (0.7)

Montana 61 0.3 5 0.3 4 0.3 7.0 (0.7)

Nebraska 85 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.5 9.3 (0.7)

Nevada 96 0.5 12 0.7 10 0.6 10.3 (0.8)

New Hampshire 39 0.2 5 0.3 5 0.3 12.4 (1.4)

New Jersey 318 1.7 45 2.5 38 2.4 12.0 (0.7)

New Mexico 167 0.9 17 1.0 13 0.8 7.7 (0.5)

New York 1,334 7.2 238 13.0 221 14.1 16.6 (0.9)

North Carolina 567 3.1 68 3.7 53 3.4 9.4 (0.5)

North Dakota 36 0.2 4 0.2 3 0.2 8.9 (0.8)

Ohio 719 3.9 56 3.0 51 3.3 7.1 (0.6)

Oklahoma 307 1.7 32 1.8 29 1.8 9.3 (0.5)

Oregon 339 1.8 27 1.5 26 1.7 7.7 (0.7)

Pennsylvania 751 4.0 77 4.2 68 4.3 9.0 (0.6)

Rhode Island 70 0.4 6 0.4 6 0.4 8.8 (0.8)

South Carolina 376 2.0 44 2.4 35 2.2 9.2 (0.6)

South Dakota 47 0.3 3 0.2 3 0.2 6.4 (0.8)

Tennessee 577 3.1 61 3.3 52 3.3 8.9 (0.7)

Texas 1,543 8.3 123 6.7 96 6.1 6.2 (0.4)

Utah 89 0.5 7 0.4 6 0.4 6.3 (0.6)

Vermont 39 0.2 5 0.3 5 0.3 12.0 (1.2)

Virginia 346 1.9 45 2.5 39 2.5 11.3 (0.7)

Washington 340 1.8 28 1.5 23 1.5 6.9 (0.5)

West Virginia 229 1.2 26 1.4 21 1.3 9.0 (0.6)

Wisconsin 251 1.4 19 1.0 17 1.1 6.6 (0.5)

Wyoming 23 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 5.3 (0.8)

Source: Revised FY 2002 SNAP QC data file. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

87

Table A.4d. All SNAP Participants and Elderly Participants by State, FY 2003 

All SNAP 

Participants

Participants in 

Units with Elderly

Elderly 

Participants

Percent of 

Participants 

Age 60 or Over 

(Standard Error)

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

United States 20,738 100.0 1,994 100.0 1,689 100.0 8.1 (0.1)

Alabama 460 2.2 44 2.2 33 1.9 7.1 (0.5)

Alaska 49 0.2 5 0.2 2 0.1 4.7 (0.7)

Arizona 448 2.2 32 1.6 23 1.3 5.0 (0.4)

Arkansas 307 1.5 30 1.5 22 1.3 7.2 (0.4)

California 1,681 8.1 36 1.8 24 1.4 1.4 (0.3)

Colorado 202 1.0 19 0.9 16 1.0 8.1 (0.6)

Connecticut 175 0.8 23 1.1 20 1.2 11.3 (0.7)

Delaware 45 0.2 3 0.2 3 0.2 5.9 (0.6)

District of Columbia 79 0.4 5 0.3 4 0.3 5.6 (0.6)

Florida 1,007 4.9 179 9.0 164 9.7 16.3 (0.7)

Georgia 735 3.5 75 3.8 56 3.3 7.6 (0.5)

Hawaii 99 0.5 16 0.8 14 0.9 14.7 (0.9)

Idaho 78 0.4 4 0.2 4 0.2 4.7 (0.6)

Illinois 936 4.5 87 4.4 69 4.1 7.4 (0.6)

Indiana 451 2.2 33 1.7 30 1.8 6.6 (0.5)

Iowa 150 0.7 11 0.5 9 0.5 5.9 (0.4)

Kansas 154 0.7 13 0.6 12 0.7 7.7 (0.5)

Kentucky 488 2.4 52 2.6 41 2.4 8.4 (0.5)

Louisiana 637 3.1 62 3.1 44 2.6 6.9 (0.4)

Maine 128 0.6 18 0.9 16 1.0 12.7 (0.7)

Maryland 249 1.2 25 1.2 21 1.2 8.3 (0.5)

Massachusetts 291 1.4 27 1.3 24 1.4 8.2 (0.6)

Michigan 817 3.9 80 4.0 65 3.8 8.0 (0.6)

Minnesota 229 1.1 21 1.0 18 1.1 8.1 (0.6)

Mississippi 351 1.7 39 1.9 32 1.9 9.0 (0.4)

Missouri 573 2.8 50 2.5 41 2.5 7.2 (0.5)

Montana 71 0.3 5 0.3 5 0.3 6.8 (0.7)

Nebraska 96 0.5 9 0.5 9 0.5 8.9 (0.7)

Nevada 108 0.5 11 0.5 10 0.6 9.3 (0.8)

New Hampshire 43 0.2 4 0.2 4 0.2 9.1 (1.1)

New Jersey 336 1.6 42 2.1 37 2.2 10.9 (0.6)

New Mexico 191 0.9 17 0.9 12 0.7 6.3 (0.4)

New York 1,417 6.8 155 7.8 152 9.0 10.8 (0.8)

North Carolina 636 3.1 67 3.4 58 3.4 9.1 (0.5)

North Dakota 39 0.2 4 0.2 4 0.2 9.0 (0.7)

Ohio 838 4.0 73 3.6 66 3.9 7.9 (0.5)

Oklahoma 367 1.8 33 1.7 27 1.6 7.4 (0.5)

Oregon 370 1.8 34 1.7 31 1.8 8.4 (0.6)

Pennsylvania 806 3.9 88 4.4 75 4.4 9.3 (0.6)

Rhode Island 71 0.3 6 0.3 5 0.3 7.4 (0.7)

South Carolina 443 2.1 34 1.7 29 1.7 6.5 (0.5)

South Dakota 51 0.2 5 0.3 4 0.2 6.9 (0.8)

Tennessee 706 3.4 75 3.8 62 3.7 8.8 (0.6)

Texas 1,859 9.0 197 9.9 165 9.8 8.9 (0.4)

Utah 104 0.5 6 0.3 5 0.3 4.4 (0.4)

Vermont 41 0.2 6 0.3 5 0.3 13.1 (1.2)

Virginia 383 1.8 47 2.4 42 2.5 10.9 (0.6)

Washington 390 1.9 37 1.9 34 2.0 8.8 (0.6)

West Virginia 242 1.2 26 1.3 21 1.2 8.7 (0.6)

Wisconsin 287 1.4 22 1.1 20 1.2 6.8 (0.5)

Wyoming 25 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 5.9 (0.8)

Source: Revised FY 2003 SNAP QC data file. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

88

Table A.4e. All SNAP Participants and Elderly Participants by State, FY 2004 

All SNAP 

Participants

Participants in 

Units with Elderly

Elderly

Participants

Percent of 

Participants 

Age 60 or Over 

(Standard Error)

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

United States 23,286 100.0 2,304 100.0 1,918 100.0 8.2 (0.1)

Alabama 483 2.1 37 1.6 29 1.5 5.9 (0.4)

Alaska 49 0.2 5 0.2 2 0.1 4.7 (0.8)

Arizona 518 2.2 34 1.5 24 1.3 4.6 (0.4)

Arkansas 339 1.5 30 1.3 22 1.2 6.6 (0.4)

California 1,839 7.9 49 2.1 29 1.5 1.6 (0.3)

Colorado 240 1.0 20 0.9 18 0.9 7.4 (0.5)

Connecticut 192 0.8 24 1.1 21 1.1 10.9 (0.8)

Delaware 55 0.2 4 0.2 3 0.2 6.1 (0.6)

District of Columbia 84 0.4 8 0.3 7 0.3 7.8 (0.7)

Florida 1,161 5.0 202 8.8 181 9.4 15.6 (0.6)

Georgia 839 3.6 75 3.2 56 2.9 6.7 (0.5)

Hawaii 96 0.4 17 0.7 15 0.8 15.1 (0.9)

Idaho 88 0.4 5 0.2 5 0.2 5.3 (0.5)

Illinois 1,045 4.5 103 4.5 84 4.4 8.0 (0.6)

Indiana 510 2.2 36 1.6 32 1.6 6.2 (0.5)

Iowa 175 0.8 13 0.6 11 0.6 6.5 (0.5)

Kansas 164 0.7 14 0.6 12 0.6 7.1 (0.5)

Kentucky 533 2.3 56 2.4 45 2.4 8.5 (0.6)

Louisiana 688 3.0 52 2.2 39 2.1 5.7 (0.4)

Maine 136 0.6 18 0.8 16 0.8 11.9 (0.7)

Maryland 270 1.2 26 1.1 22 1.1 8.1 (0.6)

Massachusetts 332 1.4 29 1.3 27 1.4 8.1 (0.6)

Michigan 936 4.0 80 3.5 64 3.4 6.9 (0.5)

Minnesota 237 1.0 18 0.8 17 0.9 7.4 (0.6)

Mississippi 372 1.6 37 1.6 30 1.5 8.0 (0.5)

Missouri 669 2.9 53 2.3 43 2.2 6.4 (0.5)

Montana 76 0.3 6 0.3 5 0.3 6.8 (0.7)

Nebraska 112 0.5 8 0.4 7 0.4 6.4 (0.5)

Nevada 117 0.5 15 0.6 13 0.7 11.5 (0.8)

New Hampshire 47 0.2 5 0.2 4 0.2 9.0 (1.1)

New Jersey 366 1.6 52 2.2 46 2.4 12.5 (0.7)

New Mexico 219 0.9 18 0.8 14 0.7 6.5 (0.4)

New York 1,577 6.8 269 11.7 243 12.7 15.4 (0.8)

North Carolina 745 3.2 81 3.5 67 3.5 9.0 (0.5)

North Dakota 41 0.2 4 0.2 4 0.2 9.3 (0.8)

Ohio 924 4.0 80 3.5 71 3.7 7.7 (0.5)

Oklahoma 401 1.7 34 1.5 26 1.4 6.5 (0.4)

Oregon 395 1.7 39 1.7 34 1.8 8.7 (0.7)

Pennsylvania 947 4.1 113 4.9 98 5.1 10.3 (0.6)

Rhode Island 73 0.3 8 0.3 7 0.3 9.1 (0.8)

South Carolina 488 2.1 48 2.1 36 1.9 7.4 (0.5)

South Dakota 52 0.2 5 0.2 4 0.2 7.6 (0.9)

Tennessee 784 3.4 92 4.0 75 3.9 9.6 (0.6)

Texas 2,237 9.6 222 9.6 171 8.9 7.6 (0.4)

Utah 123 0.5 8 0.3 6 0.3 5.0 (0.5)

Vermont 42 0.2 6 0.3 6 0.3 13.6 (1.3)

Virginia 442 1.9 57 2.5 47 2.5 10.7 (0.6)

Washington 437 1.9 40 1.7 36 1.9 8.1 (0.6)

West Virginia 248 1.1 25 1.1 21 1.1 8.4 (0.6)

Wisconsin 318 1.4 23 1.0 21 1.1 6.7 (0.5)

Wyoming 25 0.1 2 0.1 1 0.1 5.0 (0.8)

Source: Revised FY 2004 SNAP QC data file. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

89

Table A.4f. All SNAP Participants and Elderly Participants by State, FY 2005 

All SNAP 

Participants

Participants in 

Units with Elderly

Elderly

Participants

Percent of 

Participants 

Age 60 or Over 

(Standard Error)

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

United States 24,841 100.0 2,406 100.0 2,045 100.0 8.2 (0.1)

Alabama 523 2.1 50 2.1 33 1.6 6.2 (0.5)

Alaska 54 0.2 3 0.1 2 0.1 3.9 (0.6)

Arizona 531 2.1 40 1.7 29 1.4 5.4 (0.4)

Arkansas 367 1.5 31 1.3 25 1.2 6.9 (0.4)

California 1,958 7.9 43 1.8 30 1.5 1.6 (0.3)

Colorado 241 1.0 22 0.9 18 0.9 7.5 (0.5)

Connecticut 199 0.8 22 0.9 20 1.0 10.2 (0.7)

Delaware 61 0.2 5 0.2 4 0.2 6.1 (0.7)

District of Columbia 86 0.3 6 0.3 5 0.3 6.0 (0.6)

Florida 1,240 5.0 214 8.9 192 9.4 15.5 (0.7)

Georgia 897 3.6 76 3.1 59 2.9 6.5 (0.5)

Hawaii 92 0.4 16 0.7 15 0.7 15.8 (1.0)

Idaho 91 0.4 7 0.3 5 0.3 5.9 (0.5)

Illinois 1,141 4.6 99 4.1 86 4.2 7.5 (0.6)

Indiana 539 2.2 46 1.9 39 1.9 7.3 (0.5)

Iowa 201 0.8 15 0.6 12 0.6 6.0 (0.5)

Kansas 175 0.7 17 0.7 13 0.7 7.7 (0.5)

Kentucky 561 2.3 64 2.7 50 2.5 9.0 (0.6)

Louisiana 707 2.8 63 2.6 48 2.3 6.7 (0.5)

Maine 148 0.6 17 0.7 16 0.8 10.8 (0.7)

Maryland 284 1.1 27 1.1 24 1.2 8.5 (0.5)

Massachusetts 365 1.5 40 1.7 36 1.8 9.8 (0.7)

Michigan 1,027 4.1 83 3.4 73 3.5 7.1 (0.6)

Minnesota 247 1.0 22 0.9 19 0.9 7.8 (0.6)

Mississippi 379 1.5 31 1.3 26 1.3 6.9 (0.5)

Missouri 748 3.0 61 2.6 53 2.6 7.0 (0.6)

Montana 79 0.3 6 0.3 5 0.2 5.9 (0.7)

Nebraska 116 0.5 10 0.4 9 0.4 7.7 (0.6)

Nevada 120 0.5 15 0.6 14 0.7 11.2 (0.8)

New Hampshire 51 0.2 5 0.2 5 0.2 9.7 (1.0)

New Jersey 386 1.6 52 2.2 43 2.1 11.2 (0.7)

New Mexico 236 1.0 18 0.8 13 0.7 5.7 (0.5)

New York 1,725 6.9 288 12.0 267 13.1 15.5 (0.8)

North Carolina 786 3.2 82 3.4 65 3.2 8.3 (0.5)

North Dakota 42 0.2 4 0.2 3 0.2 8.2 (0.7)

Ohio 977 3.9 85 3.5 69 3.4 7.1 (0.5)

Oklahoma 405 1.6 36 1.5 30 1.5 7.5 (0.4)

Oregon 423 1.7 45 1.9 41 2.0 9.7 (0.7)

Pennsylvania 1,019 4.1 102 4.2 90 4.4 8.8 (0.6)

Rhode Island 74 0.3 7 0.3 6 0.3 8.5 (0.7)

South Carolina 509 2.0 48 2.0 38 1.9 7.5 (0.5)

South Dakota 56 0.2 5 0.2 3 0.2 5.6 (0.7)

Tennessee 827 3.3 91 3.8 74 3.6 8.9 (0.6)

Texas 2,374 9.6 216 9.0 184 9.0 7.8 (0.6)

Utah 131 0.5 6 0.2 5 0.3 4.1 (0.4)

Vermont 44 0.2 6 0.2 5 0.3 12.5 (1.1)

Virginia 474 1.9 54 2.3 48 2.4 10.2 (0.6)

Washington 503 2.0 48 2.0 43 2.1 8.6 (0.7)

West Virginia 256 1.0 30 1.3 25 1.2 9.7 (0.7)

Wisconsin 340 1.4 24 1.0 23 1.1 6.7 (0.5)

Wyoming 25 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 7.5 (0.9)

Source: FY 2005 SNAP QC data file. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

90

Table A.4g. All SNAP Participants and Elderly Participants by State, FY 2006 

All SNAP 

Participants

Participants in 

Units with Elderly

Elderly

Participants

Percent of 

Participants 

Age 60 or Over 

(Standard Error)

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

United States 25,555 100.0 2,607 100.0 2,226 100.0 8.7 (0.1)

Alabama 532 2.1 40 1.5 35 1.6 6.5 (0.5)

Alaska 55 0.2 4 0.2 3 0.1 4.6 (0.7)

Arizona 520 2.0 34 1.3 27 1.2 5.3 (0.5)

Arkansas 370 1.4 29 1.1 23 1.0 6.3 (0.5)

California 1,977 7.7 46 1.8 40 1.8 2.0 (0.3)

Colorado 245 1.0 19 0.7 16 0.7 6.4 (0.4)

Connecticut 204 0.8 25 1.0 22 1.0 11.0 (0.8)

Delaware 64 0.3 5 0.2 4 0.2 6.5 (0.7)

District of Columbia 85 0.3 8 0.3 7 0.3 7.9 (0.8)

Florida 1,184 4.6 226 8.7 201 9.0 17.0 (0.8)

Georgia 910 3.6 87 3.3 64 2.9 7.1 (0.5)

Hawaii 87 0.3 17 0.6 14 0.6 16.5 (1.0)

Idaho 89 0.3 6 0.2 5 0.2 5.5 (0.5)

Illinois 1,198 4.7 107 4.1 93 4.2 7.7 (0.6)

Indiana 561 2.2 40 1.5 38 1.7 6.7 (0.5)

Iowa 220 0.9 18 0.7 16 0.7 7.3 (0.6)

Kansas 178 0.7 16 0.6 15 0.7 8.2 (0.6)

Kentucky 576 2.3 66 2.5 51 2.3 8.8 (0.5)

Louisiana 625 2.4 64 2.4 48 2.2 7.7 (0.7)

Maine 155 0.6 18 0.7 16 0.7 10.4 (0.7)

Maryland 299 1.2 30 1.2 25 1.1 8.5 (0.6)

Massachusetts 428 1.7 62 2.4 55 2.5 12.9 (0.7)

Michigan 1,114 4.4 90 3.5 79 3.5 7.1 (0.6)

Minnesota 257 1.0 24 0.9 21 1.0 8.4 (0.7)

Mississippi 404 1.6 40 1.6 33 1.5 8.1 (0.5)

Missouri 788 3.1 58 2.2 49 2.2 6.2 (0.6)

Montana 78 0.3 7 0.3 5 0.2 6.6 (0.7)

Nebraska 118 0.5 10 0.4 10 0.4 8.1 (0.6)

Nevada 116 0.5 13 0.5 12 0.6 10.7 (0.7)

New Hampshire 55 0.2 6 0.2 6 0.3 10.3 (1.1)

New Jersey 397 1.6 51 2.0 44 2.0 11.2 (0.7)

New Mexico 238 0.9 17 0.7 13 0.6 5.6 (0.5)

New York 1,753 6.9 331 12.7 299 13.4 17.0 (0.9)

North Carolina 844 3.3 108 4.1 85 3.8 10.0 (0.6)

North Dakota 42 0.2 5 0.2 4 0.2 9.1 (0.7)

Ohio 1,028 4.0 95 3.6 86 3.8 8.3 (0.5)

Oklahoma 422 1.7 36 1.4 31 1.4 7.4 (0.5)

Oregon 424 1.7 53 2.0 44 2.0 10.4 (0.7)

Pennsylvania 1,069 4.2 103 3.9 92 4.1 8.6 (0.6)

Rhode Island 72 0.3 8 0.3 7 0.3 9.4 (0.8)

South Carolina 522 2.0 50 1.9 37 1.7 7.1 (0.5)

South Dakota 58 0.2 5 0.2 4 0.2 7.5 (0.8)

Tennessee 841 3.3 95 3.7 73 3.3 8.7 (0.6)

Texas 2,512 9.8 264 10.1 218 9.8 8.7 (0.5)

Utah 130 0.5 8 0.3 7 0.3 5.7 (0.5)

Vermont 46 0.2 7 0.3 6 0.3 13.3 (1.2)

Virginia 492 1.9 56 2.2 52 2.3 10.5 (0.6)

Washington 527 2.1 47 1.8 44 2.0 8.3 (0.6)

West Virginia 257 1.0 25 0.9 20 0.9 7.9 (0.5)

Wisconsin 363 1.4 27 1.0 25 1.1 6.8 (0.5)

Wyoming 24 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 7.8 (1.2)

Source: FY 2006 SNAP QC data file. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

91

Table A.4h. All SNAP Participants and Elderly Participants by State, FY 2007 

All SNAP 

Participants

Participants in 

Units with Elderly

Elderly

Participants

Percent of 

Participants 

Age 60 or Over 

(Standard Error)

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

Number 

(000s) Percent

United States 25,887 100.0 2,623 100.0 2,263 100.0 8.7 (0.1)

Alabama 536 2.1 38 1.4 31 1.4 5.7 (0.4)

Alaska 55 0.2 5 0.2 3 0.1 5.1 (0.7)

Arizona 532 2.1 41 1.6 30 1.3 5.7 (0.5)

Arkansas 370 1.4 33 1.3 25 1.1 6.8 (0.5)

California 2,020 7.8 40 1.5 34 1.5 1.7 (0.3)

Colorado 245 0.9 22 0.8 18 0.8 7.4 (0.5)

Connecticut 205 0.8 27 1.0 24 1.1 11.9 (0.7)

Delaware 66 0.3 5 0.2 4 0.2 6.2 (0.7)

District of Columbia 83 0.3 9 0.3 7 0.3 8.7 (0.8)

Florida 1,208 4.7 215 8.2 198 8.8 16.4 (0.8)

Georgia 910 3.5 84 3.2 66 2.9 7.2 (0.5)

Hawaii 89 0.3 15 0.6 14 0.6 15.8 (1.0)

Idaho 85 0.3 7 0.3 6 0.2 6.6 (0.6)

Illinois 1,228 4.7 102 3.9 91 4.0 7.5 (0.5)

Indiana 568 2.2 43 1.7 37 1.6 6.4 (0.5)

Iowa 231 0.9 14 0.5 13 0.6 5.7 (0.6)

Kansas 181 0.7 16 0.6 14 0.6 7.6 (0.6)

Kentucky 592 2.3 54 2.1 45 2.0 7.6 (0.5)

Louisiana 629 2.4 63 2.4 52 2.3 8.3 (0.5)

Maine 156 0.6 18 0.7 17 0.8 10.9 (0.7)

Maryland 308 1.2 34 1.3 28 1.2 9.2 (0.6)

Massachusetts 452 1.7 60 2.3 56 2.5 12.4 (0.8)

Michigan 1,183 4.6 96 3.7 83 3.7 7.0 (0.6)

Minnesota 270 1.0 27 1.0 24 1.1 8.9 (0.7)

Mississippi 421 1.6 42 1.6 35 1.5 8.3 (0.5)

Missouri 815 3.1 61 2.3 48 2.1 5.9 (0.7)

Montana 78 0.3 6 0.2 5 0.2 6.4 (0.7)

Nebraska 119 0.5 10 0.4 9 0.4 7.6 (0.6)

Nevada 120 0.5 16 0.6 14 0.6 11.5 (0.8)

New Hampshire 57 0.2 5 0.2 5 0.2 8.3 (0.9)

New Jersey 408 1.6 56 2.1 48 2.1 11.7 (0.7)

New Mexico 228 0.9 19 0.7 14 0.6 6.2 (0.5)

New York 1,767 6.8 327 12.5 302 13.4 17.1 (1.0)

North Carolina 877 3.4 107 4.1 83 3.7 9.5 (0.6)

North Dakota 45 0.2 5 0.2 5 0.2 10.3 (0.8)

Ohio 1,038 4.0 87 3.3 78 3.4 7.5 (0.4)

Oklahoma 408 1.6 35 1.3 30 1.3 7.4 (0.5)

Oregon 432 1.7 46 1.8 43 1.9 9.9 (0.7)

Pennsylvania 1,114 4.3 129 4.9 112 5.0 10.1 (0.7)

Rhode Island 75 0.3 9 0.3 8 0.4 10.6 (0.9)

South Carolina 534 2.1 52 2.0 41 1.8 7.6 (0.5)

South Dakota 60 0.2 5 0.2 4 0.2 7.0 (0.8)

Tennessee 845 3.3 94 3.6 77 3.4 9.1 (0.6)

Texas 2,381 9.2 243 9.3 208 9.2 8.7 (0.5)

Utah 122 0.5 7 0.3 7 0.3 5.3 (0.5)

Vermont 49 0.2 6 0.2 6 0.3 12.0 (1.1)

Virginia 502 1.9 67 2.5 56 2.5 11.2 (0.6)

Washington 528 2.0 59 2.3 52 2.3 9.8 (0.6)

West Virginia 261 1.0 30 1.1 25 1.1 9.4 (0.7)

Wisconsin 381 1.5 29 1.1 26 1.2 6.9 (0.5)

Wyoming 22 0.1 2 0.1 2 0.1 7.4 (1.0)

Source: FY 2007 SNAP QC data file. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

92

Table A.5. Elderly SNAP Participants by Age Cohort and Year 

Elderly 

Participants

Elderly Participants by Age Cohort

Age 60 to 

64

Age 65 to 

69

Age 70 to 

74

Age 75 to 

79

Age 80 or 

Older

Number (000s)

Fiscal year 2000 1,626 393 349 332 271 281

Fiscal year 2001 1,562 367 342 328 252 272

Fiscal year 2002 1,575 403 342 302 259 269

Fiscal year 2003 1,689 433 371 327 262 296

Fiscal year 2004 1,918 509 448 353 284 325

Fiscal year 2005 2,045 567 434 379 318 346

Fiscal year 2006 2,226 588 490 426 342 380

Fiscal year 2007 2,263 622 512 394 348 386

Percent of Elderly 

SNAP Participants

Fiscal year 2000 100.0 24.2 21.5 20.4 16.6 17.3

Fiscal year 2001 100.0 23.5 21.9 21.0 16.2 17.4

Fiscal year 2002 100.0 25.6 21.7 19.2 16.4 17.1

Fiscal year 2003 100.0 25.6 22.0 19.4 15.5 17.5

Fiscal year 2004 100.0 26.5 23.3 18.4 14.8 16.9

Fiscal year 2005 100.0 27.7 21.2 18.5 15.6 16.9

Fiscal year 2006 100.0 26.4 22.0 19.1 15.4 17.1

Fiscal year 2007 100.0 27.5 22.6 17.4 15.4 17.1

Standard Error of 

Percentage

Fiscal year 2000 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Fiscal year 2001 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5

Fiscal year 2002 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6

Fiscal year 2003 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 

Fiscal year 2004 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 

Fiscal year 2005 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 

Fiscal year 2006 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 

Fiscal year 2007 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

93

Table A.6. Elderly SNAP Participants by Age Cohort and State, Average FY 2000–2007

Elderly 

Participants 

(Number in 

000s)

Elderly Participants by Age Cohort (Row Percent)

Age 60 to 

64

Age 65 to 

69

Age 70 to 

74

Age 75 to 

79

Age 80 or 

Older

United States 1,863 26.0 22.1 19.1 15.7 17.2

Alabama 33 26.1 21.5 18.8 13.1 20.4

Alaska 2 39.4 28.4 18.2 9.1 4.9

Arizona 22 34.6 23.3 18.8 11.1 12.2

Arkansas 23 25.7 19.9 18.3 14.5 21.7

California 27 57.6 15.9 13.6 8.1 4.8

Colorado 17 30.7 21.8 19.9 13.6 13.9

Connecticut 20 28.5 22.3 19.1 15.4 14.7

Delaware 3 28.3 26.5 18.3 11.7 15.3

District of Columbia 6 30.0 23.0 19.1 13.7 14.1

Florida 177 18.6 21.8 20.8 17.1 21.6

Georgia 59 28.6 20.4 19.1 14.7 17.2

Hawaii 14 19.5 17.8 19.8 21.9 21.0

Idaho 5 29.1 23.4 16.9 14.0 16.6

Illinois 77 27.2 24.6 18.7 14.8 14.7

Indiana 31 31.5 23.9 16.7 14.6 13.2

Iowa 11 28.3 20.0 17.8 14.3 19.6

Kansas 13 25.9 22.3 20.7 15.5 15.6

Kentucky 43 30.3 25.1 18.7 13.4 12.6

Louisiana 41 29.8 20.7 18.1 14.1 17.3

Maine 16 27.0 20.1 18.6 16.6 17.7

Maryland 24 27.2 21.9 18.1 16.7 16.1

Massachusetts 33 27.4 21.9 17.2 16.6 16.9

Michigan 66 30.8 21.9 18.3 15.6 13.5

Minnesota 20 24.7 21.0 19.9 15.5 18.9

Mississippi 30 24.1 20.6 16.3 16.4 22.6

Missouri 43 26.5 22.0 18.4 15.2 18.0

Montana 5 32.6 23.1 16.9 12.1 15.4

Nebraska 8 25.4 22.7 19.2 14.4 18.1

Nevada 11 25.8 23.7 19.9 12.6 18.0

New Hampshire 5 27.4 22.8 19.6 16.8 13.4

New Jersey 43 23.2 22.7 21.4 17.4 15.4

New Mexico 13 28.9 22.0 18.7 13.9 16.4

New York 242 20.5 23.3 20.3 17.7 18.1

North Carolina 65 25.5 18.8 20.1 16.0 19.6

North Dakota 4 21.8 18.8 17.4 18.1 23.9

Ohio 66 31.0 22.6 18.1 13.8 14.6

Oklahoma 29 27.1 22.4 16.6 15.7 18.3

Oregon 33 30.4 23.0 19.5 12.9 14.2

Pennsylvania 85 30.6 23.5 16.7 14.7 14.4

Rhode Island 6 23.4 23.1 20.5 16.1 16.9

South Carolina 35 27.3 21.2 18.2 14.6 18.7

South Dakota 4 27.0 16.5 18.6 15.3 22.7

Tennessee 66 26.3 21.7 19.4 15.4 17.3

Texas 154 21.9 21.6 20.4 17.9 18.3

Utah 6 30.5 19.7 20.0 15.9 14.0

Vermont 5 23.9 21.1 19.0 16.9 19.0

Virginia 46 24.3 21.9 19.6 15.6 18.6

Washington 35 28.9 23.8 18.0 14.7 14.6

West Virginia 21 34.3 22.6 16.4 13.3 13.4

Wisconsin 21 26.2 20.9 17.8 15.4 19.7

Wyoming 1 25.6 24.3 21.0 15.3 13.8

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

94

Table A.7a. Percentage of SNAP Participants Age 60 to 64 by State and Year 

SNAP Participants Age 60 to 64 (Percent of Elderly SNAP Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 24.2 23.5 25.6 25.6 26.5 27.7 26.4 27.5

Alabama 24.7 26.3 24.2 26.4 24.4 29.7 24.3 29.0

Alaska 40.7 41.7 40.4 37.2 31.5 38.1 45.6 39.8

Arizona 31.3 33.8 35.4 36.4 34.8 35.0 34.2 34.5

Arkansas 20.4 22.0 23.1 28.0 30.2 25.7 28.8 27.3

California 75.1 55.5 69.0 54.7 54.1 66.5 47.8 48.6

Colorado 30.2 24.9 32.3 27.5 30.0 34.1 31.7 34.1

Connecticut 30.8 28.3 28.4 27.3 29.7 24.9 27.3 30.8

Delaware 19.4 23.2 34.3 27.3 22.2 34.3 27.9 31.9

District of Columbia 20.5 24.7 37.7 40.1 32.0 28.9 25.4 32.6

Florida 17.5 16.1 18.5 22.1 19.9 20.6 16.3 18.1

Georgia 23.8 24.8 23.2 25.6 34.7 24.5 31.7 38.9

Hawaii 16.7 20.5 19.2 18.4 17.0 19.2 22.0 23.4

Idaho 21.9 23.5 30.4 22.9 30.2 31.0 38.5 31.6

Illinois 32.4 23.7 24.4 24.1 26.6 30.1 27.1 28.6

Indiana 30.6 30.9 33.5 30.3 29.1 35.1 27.5 34.6

Iowa 25.7 30.6 24.2 25.6 31.5 34.2 25.0 29.1

Kansas 22.3 17.2 21.1 24.9 29.6 28.9 28.6 32.6

Kentucky 21.2 27.8 26.7 30.4 33.0 33.9 33.8 31.8

Louisiana 26.1 17.9 30.7 34.1 29.1 35.0 32.0 29.6

Maine 25.3 27.6 29.1 28.6 23.2 28.7 28.4 25.8

Maryland 29.1 28.3 22.8 25.9 30.7 28.6 28.2 24.2

Massachusetts 25.4 22.6 26.3 22.4 27.9 31.5 27.8 29.4

Michigan 30.5 27.9 31.5 32.5 32.9 32.5 33.9 24.9

Minnesota 23.2 25.4 23.9 24.6 24.3 26.1 23.0 26.9

Mississippi 20.8 25.1 26.5 24.9 21.8 21.9 22.9 28.3

Missouri 19.7 22.8 26.9 24.3 27.6 31.0 26.5 30.1

Montana 30.7 35.1 26.1 31.9 24.7 34.0 39.3 38.3

Nebraska 21.2 20.5 22.8 24.3 25.6 23.9 27.9 35.6

Nevada 31.1 26.6 18.8 34.3 31.1 22.0 22.6 22.6

New Hampshire 24.1 32.1 25.9 31.1 20.0 33.4 26.0 27.1

New Jersey 21.8 24.2 22.5 20.4 21.9 20.6 31.5 22.0

New Mexico 31.2 22.5 30.4 27.5 29.9 37.4 24.2 27.7

New York 18.7 22.5 18.6 23.6 17.2 24.7 19.2 20.8

North Carolina 17.6 21.2 26.0 20.7 31.0 27.6 27.8 28.2

North Dakota 19.8 17.2 26.7 21.2 27.4 16.0 17.5 27.0

Ohio 31.9 29.7 29.8 30.8 32.5 29.7 29.7 33.3

Oklahoma 23.9 27.0 25.5 22.1 30.1 26.9 29.3 31.0

Oregon 26.5 26.1 31.1 33.0 29.5 29.8 34.5 29.2

Pennsylvania 35.1 23.2 33.2 25.2 31.8 30.3 31.7 33.1

Rhode Island 17.5 24.3 19.0 34.5 27.5 20.8 25.6 20.0

South Carolina 25.0 22.7 28.1 19.9 31.5 24.9 32.1 31.3

South Dakota 32.8 22.3 21.2 22.8 32.7 31.1 23.6 28.2

Tennessee 17.7 19.4 20.2 26.0 28.4 30.5 28.1 34.0

Texas 20.4 19.5 30.4 18.4 21.4 20.2 23.2 23.0

Utah 24.4 25.5 26.8 30.2 36.9 36.8 34.7 26.7

Vermont 26.0 25.7 23.5 17.3 20.0 28.2 24.0 26.2

Virginia 20.2 22.9 23.5 24.1 23.2 30.9 22.1 26.6

Washington 25.5 24.4 29.0 24.3 33.5 30.2 29.6 30.9

West Virginia 38.1 31.7 35.6 30.3 34.8 33.0 37.6 33.6

Wisconsin 17.8 20.0 25.1 30.3 25.5 23.3 28.2 34.5

Wyoming 28.9 24.2 21.8 35.0 21.9 28.8 15.6 29.6

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

95

Table A.7b. Percentage of SNAP Participants Age 65 to 74 by State and Year 

SNAP Participants Age 65 to 74 (Percent of Elderly SNAP Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 41.9 42.9 40.9 41.4 41.7 39.8 41.1 40.1

Alabama 43.4 37.0 43.8 31.4 41.0 44.8 40.4 41.1

Alaska 43.0 58.3 47.6 48.1 53.4 44.1 45.8 38.5

Arizona 39.4 41.9 35.1 40.8 51.1 42.7 42.8 39.5

Arkansas 38.8 40.9 38.3 34.6 31.8 39.0 36.3 44.9

California 12.2 37.7 18.1 31.1 37.3 24.6 39.8 28.8

Colorado 38.3 49.1 38.4 42.4 42.6 42.4 41.9 39.7

Connecticut 34.1 42.4 44.2 45.0 39.7 41.6 39.5 44.1

Delaware 43.6 51.8 40.8 46.6 42.4 37.5 53.4 42.5

District of Columbia 49.0 40.9 42.2 35.9 41.9 42.2 41.6 42.7

Florida 40.8 41.2 41.0 39.7 42.6 45.0 46.3 42.8

Georgia 40.0 40.4 42.1 38.9 30.3 44.3 43.3 36.1

Hawaii 46.4 37.7 38.7 35.8 35.8 41.4 37.0 27.6

Idaho 48.5 33.8 38.1 48.7 38.6 40.8 32.9 41.5

Illinois 43.2 47.4 41.0 47.5 45.4 37.9 40.4 45.2

Indiana 41.4 41.0 43.1 37.7 52.2 37.3 39.9 35.2

Iowa 37.0 37.0 45.4 40.5 33.7 32.8 39.4 38.0

Kansas 40.9 44.2 47.5 40.4 47.6 40.4 40.8 43.6

Kentucky 48.5 42.9 40.3 41.5 40.4 45.7 45.9 44.0

Louisiana 47.0 39.2 39.4 33.7 33.2 33.5 42.1 42.2

Maine 44.8 37.3 38.7 38.0 40.9 31.3 41.9 36.3

Maryland 42.6 39.9 42.3 40.2 40.0 35.6 41.8 38.4

Massachusetts 45.6 47.7 37.0 45.5 38.8 34.5 35.9 37.2

Michigan 41.1 44.7 36.5 40.9 40.2 38.8 36.7 43.2

Minnesota 43.7 38.3 40.9 46.9 37.9 35.4 45.4 38.4

Mississippi 33.9 36.8 32.9 38.6 38.9 38.6 39.6 35.8

Missouri 43.7 46.8 40.1 39.7 41.8 37.0 38.0 38.4

Montana 32.7 39.5 42.1 53.7 48.5 27.9 38.0 37.1

Nebraska 40.7 37.7 39.8 51.6 40.7 41.9 45.3 37.0

Nevada 43.4 38.3 53.1 42.8 37.6 48.6 42.8 42.2

New Hampshire 43.5 42.5 44.9 38.9 48.6 40.7 38.3 42.7

New Jersey 43.9 44.7 44.7 43.5 48.4 45.6 39.2 42.8

New Mexico 41.3 48.2 43.0 41.6 41.2 31.5 40.0 39.7

New York 45.2 47.0 46.0 44.0 46.4 40.2 42.9 39.5

North Carolina 41.8 40.6 42.8 44.9 36.4 37.5 38.0 32.7

North Dakota 38.4 37.7 36.8 40.7 35.2 36.9 35.4 30.9

Ohio 33.7 41.8 44.1 45.3 43.1 41.4 34.2 42.5

Oklahoma 39.6 36.0 41.0 43.0 37.0 40.3 38.7 36.3

Oregon 44.5 42.1 43.2 37.8 46.9 45.6 36.4 44.9

Pennsylvania 39.6 47.3 37.9 42.0 35.7 42.3 40.9 37.8

Rhode Island 51.2 43.7 49.2 36.2 39.4 42.5 41.4 44.9

South Carolina 39.3 43.5 38.0 40.0 37.4 43.2 34.9 39.5

South Dakota 33.1 33.4 35.3 34.4 27.7 36.6 40.6 38.6

Tennessee 46.3 44.9 36.5 37.4 41.2 40.7 43.0 38.4

Texas 44.8 41.6 39.6 45.7 44.4 34.1 43.7 41.9

Utah 41.6 42.5 43.2 42.5 32.1 30.5 38.1 47.3

Vermont 35.1 36.7 33.6 34.5 38.2 47.1 42.7 50.8

Virginia 40.4 44.2 38.4 41.0 48.0 41.9 41.5 37.0

Washington 51.5 39.9 44.2 38.6 43.0 38.1 37.9 44.7

West Virginia 37.1 42.7 38.6 35.5 37.1 40.2 38.9 41.4

Wisconsin 41.0 41.2 33.0 41.5 36.0 39.6 42.8 34.8

Wyoming 36.8 33.5 43.9 34.3 58.0 50.3 54.7 46.4

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

96

Table A.7c. Percentage of SNAP Participants Age 75 or Older by State and Year 

SNAP Participants Age 75 or Older (Percent of Elderly SNAP Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 33.9 33.6 33.5 33.0 31.7 32.5 32.4 32.4

Alabama 31.9 36.7 32.0 42.2 34.7 25.4 35.3 29.8

Alaska 16.3 0.0 12.0 14.7 15.1 17.9 8.7 21.6

Arizona 29.3 24.2 29.5 22.8 14.1 22.2 23.0 26.0

Arkansas 40.9 37.1 38.6 37.4 38.0 35.3 34.9 27.8

California 12.7 6.8 12.9 14.2 8.6 8.9 12.4 22.7

Colorado 31.5 26.0 29.3 30.1 27.4 23.5 26.4 26.1

Connecticut 35.2 29.3 27.3 27.7 30.6 33.5 33.2 25.2

Delaware 36.9 25.0 24.9 26.2 35.4 28.2 18.6 25.6

District of Columbia 30.5 34.4 20.1 24.0 26.1 28.9 33.0 24.7

Florida 41.7 42.7 40.5 38.1 37.5 34.4 37.4 39.1

Georgia 36.2 34.8 34.7 35.5 34.9 31.2 25.1 24.9

Hawaii 36.9 41.8 42.1 45.8 47.2 39.4 41.0 49.0

Idaho 29.6 42.7 31.6 28.3 31.2 28.2 28.6 26.9

Illinois 24.4 28.9 34.5 28.4 28.1 32.0 32.6 26.2

Indiana 28.0 28.1 23.4 32.0 18.7 27.6 32.6 30.2

Iowa 37.3 32.4 30.4 33.9 34.9 33.0 35.7 32.9

Kansas 36.8 38.7 31.4 34.7 22.8 30.8 30.5 23.8

Kentucky 30.3 29.3 32.9 28.1 26.7 20.3 20.3 24.2

Louisiana 26.9 42.9 30.0 32.2 37.7 31.5 26.0 28.1

Maine 29.9 35.1 32.2 33.4 35.9 40.0 29.8 37.8

Maryland 28.3 31.8 34.8 33.9 29.3 35.7 30.1 37.4

Massachusetts 29.0 29.7 36.7 32.1 33.3 34.1 36.3 33.4

Michigan 28.5 27.5 32.0 26.6 26.9 28.7 29.4 31.9

Minnesota 33.2 36.3 35.2 28.5 37.8 38.4 31.6 34.7

Mississippi 45.3 38.1 40.6 36.6 39.3 39.5 37.6 35.8

Missouri 36.6 30.4 33.0 36.1 30.6 32.1 35.6 31.5

Montana 36.6 25.4 31.7 14.4 26.8 38.0 22.7 24.5

Nebraska 38.1 41.8 37.4 24.1 33.7 34.2 26.8 27.4

Nevada 25.6 35.0 28.1 22.8 31.3 29.4 34.7 35.1

New Hampshire 32.4 25.4 29.2 29.9 31.4 25.9 35.6 30.2

New Jersey 34.4 31.1 32.8 36.1 29.7 33.8 29.2 35.2

New Mexico 27.5 29.3 26.7 30.9 28.9 31.2 35.8 32.6

New York 36.1 30.5 35.4 32.4 36.4 35.1 37.9 39.7

North Carolina 40.6 38.2 31.2 34.3 32.6 34.9 34.2 39.1

North Dakota 41.7 45.2 36.5 38.1 37.3 47.1 47.1 42.1

Ohio 34.3 28.5 26.1 23.9 24.4 28.8 36.2 24.2

Oklahoma 36.5 36.9 33.5 34.9 32.8 32.8 32.0 32.7

Oregon 29.0 31.8 25.7 29.2 23.6 24.5 29.2 25.9

Pennsylvania 25.3 29.4 28.8 32.7 32.4 27.4 27.4 29.1

Rhode Island 31.3 32.0 31.8 29.3 33.0 36.8 32.9 35.1

South Carolina 35.7 33.8 33.9 40.1 31.1 31.9 33.0 29.1

South Dakota 34.1 44.2 43.5 42.8 39.6 32.4 35.8 33.1

Tennessee 36.0 35.7 43.3 36.5 30.4 28.9 28.9 27.6

Texas 34.8 38.9 30.0 35.9 34.2 45.7 33.1 35.1

Utah 34.0 32.0 30.0 27.3 31.0 32.7 27.2 26.0

Vermont 38.9 37.5 42.9 48.2 41.8 24.8 33.3 23.0

Virginia 39.4 32.9 38.1 34.9 28.7 27.2 36.3 36.4

Washington 23.1 35.6 26.8 37.1 23.6 31.7 32.5 24.4

West Virginia 24.8 25.6 25.8 34.2 28.0 26.9 23.5 24.9

Wisconsin 41.2 38.8 41.8 28.2 38.6 37.1 29.0 30.7

Wyoming 34.4 42.4 34.3 30.6 20.1 20.9 29.7 24.0

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

97

Table A.8. Elderly SNAP Participants by Type of Eligibility and Year 

Elderly 

SNAP 

Participants

Elderly Participants by Mutually Exclusive Type of Eligibility

SSI CAP 

Participant

Pass Income and 

Asset Tests

Categorically Eligible

Pure PA Other

Number (000s)

Fiscal year 2000 1,626 0 1,612 15 0

Fiscal year 2001 1,562 0 1,542 16 3

Fiscal year 2002 1,575 0 1,558 11 6

Fiscal year 2003 1,689 0 1,663 14 12

Fiscal year 2004 1,918 191 1,705 11 10

Fiscal year 2005 2,045 225 1,792 11 17

Fiscal year 2006 2,226 232 1,962 12 20

Fiscal year 2007 2,263 288 1,938 14 23

Percent of Elderly SNAP 

Participants

Fiscal year 2000 100.0 0.0 99.1 0.9 0.0

Fiscal year 2001 100.0 0.0 98.8 1.0 0.2

Fiscal year 2002 100.0 0.0 98.9 0.7 0.4

Fiscal year 2003 100.0 0.0 98.5 0.8 0.7

Fiscal year 2004 100.0 10.0 88.9 0.6 0.5

Fiscal year 2005 100.0 11.0 87.7 0.5 0.8

Fiscal year 2006 100.0 10.4 88.2 0.5 0.9

Fiscal year 2007 100.0 12.7 85.6 0.6 1.0

Standard Error of 

Percentage

Fiscal year 2000 - 0.1 0.1 -

Fiscal year 2001 - 0.2 0.1 0.1

Fiscal year 2002 - 0.1 0.1 0.1

Fiscal year 2003 - 0.2 0.1 0.1

Fiscal year 2004 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1

Fiscal year 2005 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.1

Fiscal year 2006 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2

Fiscal year 2007 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.2

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

98

Table A.9. Elderly SNAP Participants by Type of Eligibility and State, Average FY 2000–2007 

Elderly Non-SSI 

CAP Participants 

(Number in (000s)

Elderly by Mutually Exclusive Type of Eligibility (Row Percent)

Pass Income and 

Asset Tests

Categorically Eligible

Pure PA Other

United States 1,746 98.6 0.7 0.7

Alabama 33 99.3 0.6 0.8

Alaska 2 95.3 4.7 0.0

Arizona 22 99.6 0.1 1.4

Arkansas 23 99.5 0.5 0.0

California 27 99.3 0.5 1.3

Colorado 17 92.5 7.5 0.0

Connecticut 20 98.8 1.0 0.3

Delaware 3 92.7 1.1 6.3

District of Columbia 6 99.9 0.0 0.8

Florida 165 99.4 0.6 0.0

Georgia 59 99.3 0.6 0.7

Hawaii 14 99.9 0.1 0.0

Idaho 5 98.7 1.1 0.5

Illinois 77 99.7 0.3 0.0

Indiana 31 99.5 0.6 0.0

Iowa 11 98.5 1.4 0.3

Kansas 13 99.7 0.4 0.0

Kentucky 42 98.7 1.3 0.0

Louisiana 41 99.6 0.6 0.0

Maine 16 99.3 0.6 0.1

Maryland 24 99.3 0.5 0.4

Massachusetts 32 98.2 1.2 0.7

Michigan 66 93.7 0.9 5.4

Minnesota 20 98.9 1.1 0.0

Mississippi 24 99.4 0.6 0.0

Missouri 43 99.1 0.9 0.0

Montana 5 99.2 1.0 0.0

Nebraska 8 99.7 0.3 0.0

Nevada 11 99.7 0.2 0.1

New Hampshire 5 99.6 0.4 0.0

New Jersey 43 99.8 0.2 0.0

New Mexico 13 99.1 0.8 0.3

New York 190 98.9 0.8 0.4

North Carolina 61 99.0 0.9 0.5

North Dakota 4 98.1 1.6 0.6

Ohio 66 99.4 0.6 0.0

Oklahoma 29 99.0 1.0 0.2

Oregon 33 92.3 0.6 8.3

Pennsylvania 84 99.4 0.6 0.0

Rhode Island 6 99.0 0.8 1.1

South Carolina 31 99.8 0.2 0.3

South Dakota 4 99.8 0.4 0.0

Tennessee 66 99.4 0.6 0.3

Texas 126 97.1 0.8 2.9

Utah 6 99.4 0.6 0.0

Vermont 5 99.0 1.0 0.0

Virginia 46 99.6 0.4 0.0

Washington 28 99.0 0.5 0.9

West Virginia 21 98.7 1.3 0.0

Wisconsin 21 92.9 1.9 6.0

Wyoming 1 99.8 0.4 0.0

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

99

Table A.10. SSI CAP Participants by State and Year 

SSI CAP Participants

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Number (000s)

United States 191 225 232 288

Florida 0 13 40 45

Kentucky 0 0 0 6

Louisiana 0 0 0 5

Massachusetts 0 2 1 5

Mississippi 13 9 11 15

New York 101 119 106 91

North Carolina 0 3 3 24

Pennsylvania 0 0 0 6

South Carolina 10 6 11 4

Texas 55 61 44 67

Virginia 0 0 0 1

Washington 12 12 14 17

Percent of Elderly SNAP Participants

United States 10.0 11.0 10.4 12.7

Florida 0.0 6.7 20.1 22.8

Kentucky 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.7

Louisiana 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3

Massachusetts 0.0 4.5 2.5 8.6

Mississippi 42.7 35.2 34.0 44.0

New York 41.8 44.5 35.6 30.0

North Carolina 0.0 4.0 3.4 28.5

Pennsylvania 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7

South Carolina 27.7 16.1 30.9 10.4

Texas 32.3 33.2 20.1 32.4

Virginia 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3

Washington 32.4 28.1 32.8 33.3

Sources: Revised FY 2004 SNAP QC data file and FY 2005-2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

100

Table A.11. Elderly Participants by SNAP Unit Composition and Year 

Elderly Participants by SNAP Unit Composition

Elderly SNAP 

Participants

Single 

Elderly 

Person

Multiple 

Elderly 

People

Mixed Elderly, Nonelderly

All

Elderly and Children 

Under Age 18 Only

Number (000s)

Fiscal year 2000 1,626 1,171 278 177 61

Fiscal year 2001 1,562 1,157 236 168 64

Fiscal year 2002 1,575 1,151 262 162 56

Fiscal year 2003 1,689 1,219 289 180 62

Fiscal year 2004 1,918 1,353 329 236 67

Fiscal year 2005 2,045 1,454 354 237 78

Fiscal year 2006 2,226 1,611 385 230 68

Fiscal year 2007 2,263 1,654 378 231 72

Percent of Elderly SNAP 

Participants

Fiscal year 2000 100.0 72.0 17.1 10.9 3.8

Fiscal year 2001 100.0 74.1 15.1 10.8 4.1

Fiscal year 2002 100.0 73.1 16.6 10.3 3.5

Fiscal year 2003 100.0 72.2 17.1 10.7 3.7

Fiscal year 2004 100.0 70.6 17.1 12.3 3.5

Fiscal year 2005 100.0 71.1 17.3 11.6 3.8

Fiscal year 2006 100.0 72.4 17.3 10.3 3.1

Fiscal year 2007 100.0 73.1 16.7 10.2 3.2

Standard Error of 

Percentage

Fiscal year 2000 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3

Fiscal year 2001 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.3

Fiscal year 2002 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.3

Fiscal year 2003 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.3

Fiscal year 2004 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.3

Fiscal year 2005 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.3

Fiscal year 2006 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.3

Fiscal year 2007 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.3

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

101

Table A.12. Elderly Participants by SNAP Unit Composition and State, Average FY 2000–2007 

Elderly 

Participants 

(Number

in 000s)

Elderly by SNAP Unit Composition (Row Percent)

Single 

Elderly 

Person

Multiple 

Elderly 

People

Mixed Elderly and Nonelderly

All

Elderly and Children 

under Age 18 Only

United States 1,863 72.3 16.8 10.9 3.5

Alabama 33 67.0 13.4 19.7 7.1

Alaska 2 55.4 6.2 38.4 7.3

Arizona 22 61.7 18.9 19.5 5.9

Arkansas 23 68.9 12.8 18.4 4.4

California 27 65.9 15.0 19.1 8.1

Colorado 17 78.5 11.8 9.7 3.5

Connecticut 20 78.1 14.0 8.0 2.7

Delaware 3 75.9 10.2 13.9 6.0

District of Columbia 6 83.1 4.8 12.7 6.2

Florida 177 71.9 21.2 7.0 2.3

Georgia 59 71.6 11.2 17.1 6.6

Hawaii 14 68.4 25.1 6.5 2.2

Idaho 5 75.7 15.2 9.1 3.0

Illinois 77 73.1 17.5 9.4 2.9

Indiana 31 80.7 10.0 9.3 2.6

Iowa 11 76.2 13.6 10.2 3.1

Kansas 13 80.0 11.8 8.2 3.2

Kentucky 43 65.6 18.0 16.4 2.7

Louisiana 41 68.4 13.2 18.4 5.6

Maine 16 79.8 13.0 7.2 1.5

Maryland 24 71.9 16.4 11.7 5.4

Massachusetts 33 73.7 19.3 7.0 1.9

Michigan 66 76.8 13.2 10.0 3.0

Minnesota 20 75.4 17.3 7.3 1.6

Mississippi 30 73.8 11.4 14.8 5.6

Missouri 43 72.1 15.6 12.3 4.5

Montana 5 81.9 7.8 11.3 3.5

Nebraska 8 78.6 13.7 7.8 2.8

Nevada 11 78.6 14.9 6.6 1.8

New Hampshire 5 82.1 12.7 5.2 1.7

New Jersey 43 71.6 18.9 9.5 4.0

New Mexico 13 60.2 19.5 20.3 6.7

New York 242 73.0 21.3 5.7 1.6

North Carolina 65 72.5 14.0 13.5 4.1

North Dakota 4 76.2 16.4 7.4 1.8

Ohio 66 80.6 10.9 8.4 3.2

Oklahoma 29 74.9 12.8 12.3 4.5

Oregon 33 74.8 17.7 7.5 2.0

Pennsylvania 85 73.9 16.3 9.8 3.5

Rhode Island 6 80.4 12.5 7.2 2.8

South Carolina 35 73.4 10.1 16.5 6.0

South Dakota 4 70.6 15.0 14.4 5.2

Tennessee 66 69.1 15.1 15.8 4.7

Texas 154 65.4 21.1 13.4 5.4

Utah 6 76.4 14.5 9.1 3.1

Vermont 5 78.7 16.0 5.3 1.3

Virginia 46 75.2 14.7 10.1 3.4

Washington 35 70.6 21.3 8.1 2.5

West Virginia 21 67.3 16.6 16.1 2.3

Wisconsin 21 74.0 19.3 6.7 2.3

Wyoming 1 75.5 12.7 13.3 5.6

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

102

Table A.13. Percentage of Elderly Participants in One-Person SNAP Units by State and Year 

Elderly Participants in One-Person SNAP Units (Percent of State Elderly 

Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 72.0 74.1 73.1 72.2 70.6 71.1 72.4 73.1

Alabama 70.8 66.1 67.1 63.0 67.3 59.7 69.5 71.6

Alaska 40.6 57.0 52.7 49.2 52.4 63.0 67.8 59.1

Arizona 68.4 53.7 67.0 54.9 59.3 60.7 61.7 67.1

Arkansas 62.8 71.4 69.1 67.8 65.5 76.6 63.7 73.3

California 69.3 63.3 73.1 73.0 47.0 52.1 71.3 77.8

Colorado 81.4 83.3 74.6 76.2 81.8 77.2 77.0 76.6

Connecticut 83.9 80.7 81.6 78.5 71.9 76.5 75.5 77.9

Delaware 78.3 79.4 79.8 74.8 77.0 68.6 78.1 75.9

District of Columbia 84.0 80.2 85.7 79.1 84.5 87.6 79.7 84.0

Florida 71.4 76.3 73.2 72.8 72.7 67.7 67.9 73.9

Georgia 75.1 71.8 72.6 68.2 66.0 67.8 77.3 73.4

Hawaii 65.9 71.1 67.8 74.6 64.5 63.7 68.8 71.4

Idaho 74.6 73.9 71.6 74.5 86.8 69.4 76.0 78.3

Illinois 72.7 71.6 77.8 68.1 75.4 76.1 68.1 74.9

Indiana 81.0 79.6 72.9 82.6 78.0 81.7 82.5 84.0

Iowa 80.7 77.4 78.4 74.1 76.1 73.1 77.7 73.3

Kansas 75.2 81.6 79.5 89.0 76.3 79.7 78.5 81.2

Kentucky 62.4 69.5 70.1 64.8 61.0 65.7 62.2 70.3

Louisiana 64.8 73.9 73.5 67.9 70.8 68.4 60.8 70.6

Maine 77.5 81.7 78.8 77.3 84.0 77.9 78.1 82.9

Maryland 68.5 73.8 73.4 72.8 70.1 80.6 67.8 69.2

Massachusetts 72.3 75.1 70.3 64.5 66.9 67.0 84.0 76.2

Michigan 76.8 80.9 83.5 77.1 73.6 74.7 68.7 81.3

Minnesota 72.2 80.1 66.3 84.2 75.4 78.7 75.3 73.1

Mississippi 64.3 71.1 70.8 78.3 74.8 80.2 73.6 77.3

Missouri 79.6 77.2 72.9 75.8 72.3 70.0 68.9 64.2

Montana 82.7 81.8 85.5 76.1 81.5 76.4 81.2 90.1

Nebraska 80.4 75.9 76.7 81.3 80.2 75.9 80.0 78.1

Nevada 85.6 82.9 77.3 79.4 75.5 75.1 82.0 75.9

New Hampshire 78.6 87.3 81.2 80.9 80.6 77.8 87.0 82.9

New Jersey 72.0 72.9 75.1 75.9 65.9 68.1 74.8 69.8

New Mexico 59.5 60.3 58.6 61.7 59.0 59.9 68.2 54.6

New York 73.9 76.9 70.9 80.3 70.4 72.3 74.7 68.5

North Carolina 69.3 71.7 73.2 74.3 71.2 73.3 74.6 72.1

North Dakota 80.4 73.0 77.2 80.3 72.8 83.4 71.7 73.4

Ohio 86.1 75.9 83.0 82.3 77.3 74.6 83.6 82.2

Oklahoma 75.6 74.8 76.4 68.1 76.3 73.6 76.7 77.3

Oregon 83.5 78.3 82.0 76.7 68.1 68.2 73.2 76.2

Pennsylvania 79.1 75.4 76.3 71.1 71.6 79.4 73.8 68.0

Rhode Island 82.5 88.9 77.8 84.4 74.9 83.8 78.5 75.7

South Carolina 72.7 75.4 73.5 75.3 68.3 72.7 75.1 74.5

South Dakota 66.2 55.1 91.2 69.4 69.0 76.2 65.4 76.7

Tennessee 69.3 69.6 75.0 73.4 69.7 65.7 69.1 63.7

Texas 56.2 66.0 59.6 57.4 66.8 67.6 67.7 73.4

Utah 76.9 78.0 74.9 84.3 75.9 79.7 73.7 71.2

Vermont 83.4 79.4 80.7 74.1 69.7 84.7 77.8 80.2

Virginia 69.0 78.4 74.0 81.4 67.5 76.7 75.4 79.4

Washington 64.0 69.3 69.3 69.8 71.7 67.0 75.9 73.1

West Virginia 66.5 66.9 65.4 62.8 65.8 66.1 72.1 72.4

Wisconsin 71.9 77.7 79.6 72.2 81.0 67.4 71.0 74.3

Wyoming 80.8 78.9 62.7 70.5 66.7 78.3 73.2 89.5

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

103

Table A.14. Elderly SNAP Participants by Poverty Level and Year 

Elderly 

SNAP 

Participants

Elderly Participants by Gross Income as a Percentage of Poverty 

Level

At or Below 100% of Poverty Above 100% of Poverty

0 to 

100% 0 to 75%

76% to 

100%

Above 

101%

101% to 

130%

Above

130%

Number (000s)

Fiscal year 2000 1,626 1,390 419 971 237 210 27

Fiscal year 2001 1,562 1,331 307 1,024 231 202 29

Fiscal year 2002 1,575 1,338 321 1,018 236 208 29

Fiscal year 2003 1,689 1,413 487 926 276 243 32

Fiscal year 2004 1,918 1,599 534 1,066 319 266 52

Fiscal year 2005 2,045 1,720 646 1,074 325 269 56

Fiscal year 2006 2,226 1,831 571 1,260 395 315 80

Fiscal year 2007 2,263 1,845 478 1,367 418 345 73

Percent of Elderly 

SNAP Participants

Fiscal year 2000 100.0 85.5 25.8 59.7 14.5 12.9 1.7

Fiscal year 2001 100.0 85.2 19.7 65.6 14.8 12.9 1.8

Fiscal year 2002 100.0 85.0 20.4 64.6 15.0 13.2 1.8

Fiscal year 2003 100.0 83.7 28.8 54.8 16.3 14.4 1.9

Fiscal year 2004 100.0 83.4 27.8 55.6 16.6 13.9 2.7

Fiscal year 2005 100.0 84.1 31.6 52.5 15.9 13.1 2.7

Fiscal year 2006 100.0 82.3 25.6 56.6 17.7 14.1 3.6

Fiscal year 2007 100.0 81.5 21.1 60.4 18.5 15.2 3.2

Standard Error of 

Percentage

Fiscal year 2000 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.2

Fiscal year 2001 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.2

Fiscal year 2002 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.2

Fiscal year 2003 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2

Fiscal year 2004 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3

Fiscal year 2005 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.3

Fiscal year 2006 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.3

Fiscal year 2007 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.3

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

104

Table A.15. Elderly SNAP Participants by Poverty Level and State, Average FY 2000-2007

Elderly 

Participants 

(Number

in 000s)

Elderly Participants by Gross Income as a Percentage of Poverty

(Row Percent)

At or Below 100% of Poverty Above 100% of Poverty

0 to 

100% 0 to 75%

76% to 

100%

Above 

101% 

101% to 

130%

Above 

130%

United States 1,863 83.7 25.2 58.4 16.3 13.8 2.5

Alabama 33 86.7 27.0 59.7 13.3 11.5 1.8

Alaska 2 57.5 32.9 24.6 42.5 38.7 3.8

Arizona 22 86.6 39.9 46.7 13.4 11.5 1.9

Arkansas 23 86.9 23.6 63.4 13.1 11.9 1.4

California 27 80.5 61.4 19.1 19.5 17.3 2.1

Colorado 17 75.2 9.5 65.7 24.8 21.5 3.3

Connecticut 20 76.4 25.9 50.6 23.6 20.7 2.9

Delaware 3 76.2 30.1 46.1 23.8 15.3 8.5

District of Columbia 6 89.1 41.2 47.9 10.9 9.7 1.3

Florida 177 89.0 34.2 54.8 11.0 9.6 1.4

Georgia 59 83.6 27.9 55.7 16.4 15.1 1.4

Hawaii 14 92.2 73.5 18.7 7.8 7.1 0.9

Idaho 5 81.3 11.9 69.4 18.7 17.9 0.8

Illinois 77 81.6 28.8 52.9 18.4 15.5 2.9

Indiana 31 73.4 21.8 51.6 26.6 20.7 5.9

Iowa 11 79.2 20.0 59.3 20.8 18.2 2.6

Kansas 13 78.9 21.8 57.1 21.1 20.0 1.1

Kentucky 43 87.8 25.7 62.1 12.2 11.1 1.1

Louisiana 41 87.1 27.4 59.8 12.9 11.1 1.8

Maine 16 70.9 10.9 60.0 29.1 25.5 3.6

Maryland 24 86.6 34.3 52.3 13.4 11.3 2.0

Massachusetts 33 72.1 12.7 59.4 27.9 24.3 3.6

Michigan 66 72.9 15.6 57.3 27.1 17.9 9.1

Minnesota 20 85.3 19.3 66.0 14.7 13.3 1.3

Mississippi 30 92.1 26.0 66.1 7.9 7.4 0.6

Missouri 43 80.6 22.1 58.5 19.4 17.7 1.7

Montana 5 82.7 25.4 57.2 17.3 14.7 2.6

Nebraska 8 76.0 16.6 59.3 24.0 22.3 1.8

Nevada 11 84.2 23.8 60.4 15.8 14.0 1.9

New Hampshire 5 72.6 9.4 63.2 27.4 23.3 4.0

New Jersey 43 85.0 22.4 62.6 15.0 13.3 1.8

New Mexico 13 86.9 28.5 58.4 13.1 12.5 0.6

New York 242 87.2 16.8 70.4 12.8 10.2 2.7

North Carolina 65 80.3 21.0 59.4 19.7 17.6 2.0

North Dakota 4 72.2 16.9 55.3 27.8 22.0 5.8

Ohio 66 82.4 28.9 53.5 17.6 15.1 2.6

Oklahoma 29 88.2 15.2 73.0 11.8 11.0 0.8

Oregon 33 66.0 21.3 44.7 34.0 21.8 12.2

Pennsylvania 85 83.1 12.3 70.8 16.9 15.3 1.5

Rhode Island 6 84.3 13.6 70.7 15.7 13.7 2.0

South Carolina 35 88.3 31.5 56.8 11.7 10.7 1.4

South Dakota 4 77.8 17.6 60.2 22.2 19.4 2.8

Tennessee 66 79.2 25.8 53.4 20.8 19.3 1.6

Texas 154 89.5 36.1 53.4 10.5 8.4 2.2

Utah 6 86.9 35.1 51.8 13.1 11.8 1.3

Vermont 5 66.2 7.3 58.9 33.8 29.2 4.6

Virginia 46 86.5 26.5 59.9 13.5 12.9 0.6

Washington 35 86.8 23.8 63.0 13.2 10.5 2.7

West Virginia 21 85.1 24.8 60.3 14.9 13.9 1.0

Wisconsin 21 60.5 8.1 52.4 39.5 30.8 8.8

Wyoming 1 81.1 19.5 61.7 18.9 18.3 0.7

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

105

Table A.16a. Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants in Poverty by State and Year 

Elderly SNAP Participants in Poverty (Percent of State Elderly Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 85.5 85.2 85.0 83.7 83.4 84.1 82.3 81.5

Alabama 85.9 88.4 87.0 86.2 83.5 87.3 84.5 91.1

Alaska 51.5 55.3 50.8 55.0 48.1 58.7 71.4 64.7

Arizona 91.3 91.9 86.2 87.9 89.1 87.3 82.2 82.6

Arkansas 88.0 89.3 86.5 85.3 88.2 83.2 86.5 88.6

California 80.6 81.6 79.7 83.9 82.3 85.2 82.7 70.0

Colorado 78.0 75.4 74.4 67.7 78.6 76.2 77.7 73.0

Connecticut 68.7 75.8 78.5 77.7 79.9 75.8 75.2 78.8

Delaware 92.0 67.3 84.1 82.0 84.0 70.0 74.1 67.8

District of Columbia 90.3 88.1 86.8 90.7 85.3 89.3 90.7 91.1

Florida 89.5 89.1 89.9 86.3 89.0 89.2 90.1 88.8

Georgia 84.4 89.8 85.8 79.8 83.2 80.6 84.3 81.0

Hawaii 90.6 90.2 89.6 93.1 94.1 94.2 94.0 91.8

Idaho 83.4 80.1 75.7 82.0 87.2 78.5 85.5 78.3

Illinois 84.2 82.9 85.5 76.5 84.4 83.3 80.8 76.9

Indiana 80.5 72.4 79.0 69.5 71.7 72.7 72.6 71.9

Iowa 74.1 84.5 83.4 80.9 77.4 79.3 76.5 79.9

Kansas 84.2 77.4 77.4 82.1 83.6 77.7 73.7 76.6

Kentucky 88.9 89.0 89.1 89.8 85.5 86.3 88.0 86.5

Louisiana 93.1 87.3 87.6 87.1 86.2 90.0 83.9 83.5

Maine 71.7 72.8 75.9 74.4 71.6 68.7 68.4 64.7

Maryland 91.7 81.8 89.3 89.1 86.5 85.7 85.5 84.0

Massachusetts 65.2 65.5 65.1 57.6 67.0 73.5 84.3 76.0

Michigan 84.1 81.0 78.1 74.5 74.8 71.7 63.1 64.3

Minnesota 86.0 87.0 76.6 89.9 85.7 87.0 85.6 85.7

Mississippi 89.7 91.9 90.7 93.5 92.6 96.0 92.2 90.7

Missouri 85.4 89.3 79.1 82.5 82.1 80.0 77.7 72.2

Montana 79.5 87.7 84.2 85.3 80.2 86.7 82.7 76.3

Nebraska 74.1 76.7 74.8 80.6 72.5 72.4 79.4 76.2

Nevada 87.7 88.2 87.2 79.7 88.2 79.8 79.5 85.4

New Hampshire 70.2 73.6 76.6 67.1 84.1 72.7 71.3 66.0

New Jersey 81.7 87.6 85.7 81.8 86.8 83.7 85.4 86.1

New Mexico 91.5 90.7 85.8 87.9 88.3 90.0 81.8 80.1

New York 84.2 86.4 88.7 92.6 85.6 88.5 87.7 85.8

North Carolina 84.0 80.2 86.1 81.5 77.1 77.1 80.5 78.4

North Dakota 83.5 66.3 67.9 62.7 82.1 82.9 69.9 65.4

Ohio 87.1 84.2 89.2 85.5 79.3 83.0 76.4 79.3

Oklahoma 92.7 90.6 86.0 87.8 82.9 89.8 85.6 90.3

Oregon 80.1 75.2 68.6 62.2 61.7 64.5 65.9 60.1

Pennsylvania 85.0 88.5 82.8 78.0 87.9 82.9 76.7 83.4

Rhode Island 83.4 93.1 87.7 84.2 80.0 80.2 85.8 81.6

South Carolina 91.0 91.6 89.9 87.9 86.6 86.4 89.1 85.1

South Dakota 83.0 63.0 84.2 85.8 75.4 84.1 80.4 69.1

Tennessee 82.8 79.9 82.0 82.8 75.5 77.2 76.6 79.2

Texas 92.6 91.6 90.0 90.8 88.4 95.0 84.1 87.1

Utah 87.4 80.9 89.1 81.4 85.4 88.6 88.0 91.7

Vermont 70.3 69.7 54.6 68.7 71.4 67.4 64.7 61.5

Virginia 89.6 86.5 89.0 85.9 89.4 83.4 87.3 81.9

Washington 92.1 81.2 84.9 87.9 85.3 88.1 86.5 87.3

West Virginia 86.5 90.9 82.5 85.3 88.0 86.0 85.5 78.0

Wisconsin 64.1 60.0 58.2 67.9 53.8 63.1 56.6 60.8

Wyoming 78.1 81.1 88.2 74.0 96.9 80.0 70.9 85.4

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

106

Table A.16b. Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants with Gross Income Under 75 Percent of 

Poverty Level by State and Year 

SNAP Participants Under 75% of Poverty (Percent of Elderly SNAP Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 25.8 19.7 20.4 28.8 27.8 31.6 25.6 21.1

Alabama 23.8 24.1 22.3 30.7 27.0 34.8 30.9 22.1

Alaska 40.8 33.1 31.5 31.4 28.7 26.7 40.5 29.8

Arizona 47.6 38.6 32.4 41.4 44.6 47.6 36.9 31.0

Arkansas 22.0 19.8 15.2 27.9 27.4 30.4 26.7 18.5

California 73.2 72.6 57.5 66.5 68.8 67.4 51.4 47.0

Colorado 7.9 6.1 4.7 5.5 9.7 14.7 13.0 12.6

Connecticut 21.7 17.7 20.4 36.5 28.6 36.0 20.9 24.0

Delaware 41.2 15.0 31.3 31.1 35.1 36.2 25.8 26.3

District of Columbia 46.1 30.8 32.8 41.0 49.7 45.5 45.4 35.7

Florida 38.4 20.3 23.7 39.5 41.9 47.1 36.0 25.8

Georgia 25.8 18.6 21.0 27.9 31.0 34.4 33.7 29.1

Hawaii 71.6 66.0 68.6 78.7 77.5 78.1 75.2 72.1

Idaho 11.3 10.2 4.3 16.1 13.2 13.6 10.5 15.1

Illinois 33.1 16.4 22.1 34.0 35.0 39.4 30.2 18.7

Indiana 24.6 17.5 20.4 17.4 23.0 29.2 23.7 16.3

Iowa 22.3 12.0 14.4 20.8 21.5 32.2 24.4 9.5

Kansas 20.9 12.2 10.4 26.3 33.4 32.0 25.3 13.4

Kentucky 24.2 19.6 19.5 24.0 30.0 33.5 27.3 23.7

Louisiana 33.5 13.8 25.6 27.4 29.2 41.5 24.3 20.3

Maine 11.6 10.7 9.2 11.9 12.3 12.2 9.1 10.0

Maryland 37.0 26.8 27.5 40.5 44.2 44.1 30.9 25.3

Massachusetts 12.2 11.1 10.8 12.5 16.4 15.5 10.8 12.8

Michigan 20.5 18.8 14.2 9.9 13.4 19.7 18.6 11.0

Minnesota 15.8 20.5 13.0 21.0 18.9 28.2 15.5 22.1

Mississippi 26.6 23.5 21.9 26.3 24.3 44.9 28.2 15.4

Missouri 23.4 16.7 16.5 27.8 20.0 34.8 20.4 14.1

Montana 22.7 25.3 14.9 23.4 24.1 41.0 29.8 21.8

Nebraska 14.4 15.7 13.7 12.8 14.9 22.1 21.0 16.9

Nevada 22.8 24.7 22.9 30.9 21.0 24.6 27.4 17.7

New Hampshire 8.0 5.2 9.0 4.8 9.0 19.0 11.5 6.3

New Jersey 19.7 22.3 19.9 21.3 22.6 24.1 25.9 22.5

New Mexico 36.8 20.2 30.1 28.9 24.1 39.3 29.1 20.7

New York 15.3 18.4 16.0 37.1 15.5 12.7 12.5 15.9

North Carolina 23.7 13.8 19.2 18.5 22.1 28.8 23.4 16.8

North Dakota 20.7 4.8 11.5 21.9 23.1 28.0 17.2 10.1

Ohio 36.3 16.9 22.0 37.0 36.5 34.8 31.2 14.8

Oklahoma 13.2 16.3 10.5 17.2 16.5 16.9 16.4 14.7

Oregon 28.2 16.7 19.6 22.8 16.7 30.4 21.5 14.8

Pennsylvania 13.8 9.4 13.5 9.2 11.4 11.0 13.5 15.7

Rhode Island 14.4 13.9 13.5 15.0 6.6 16.9 18.3 11.5

South Carolina 33.7 28.5 24.9 33.4 29.1 40.1 38.6 23.7

South Dakota 15.4 11.7 7.1 22.4 16.3 26.1 26.2 14.5

Tennessee 17.4 22.8 23.2 27.6 23.5 33.6 29.1 25.7

Texas 32.6 28.8 26.2 31.3 44.0 46.6 35.5 34.2

Utah 33.1 22.5 34.7 49.3 37.9 40.3 35.4 29.4

Vermont 6.2 12.9 3.3 8.8 3.5 5.6 4.2 13.7

Virginia 30.6 17.0 18.1 28.7 35.1 33.6 28.1 19.5

Washington 20.2 15.0 22.4 36.5 26.6 27.9 19.9 19.8

West Virginia 29.9 16.7 22.3 25.0 26.0 33.0 23.9 19.6

Wisconsin 5.9 3.0 6.3 10.2 4.4 7.9 7.4 15.8

Wyoming 21.1 20.2 17.9 15.7 17.8 21.0 19.2 22.0

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

107

Table A.16c. Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants with Gross Income Between 76 and 

100 Percent of Poverty Level by State and Year 

SNAP Participants Between 76 and 100% of Poverty (Percent of Elderly SNAP 

Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 59.7 65.6 64.6 54.8 55.6 52.5 56.6 60.4

Alabama 62.1 64.3 64.6 55.5 56.4 52.5 53.6 69.0

Alaska 10.7 22.3 19.3 23.5 19.4 32.1 30.9 34.9

Arizona 43.6 53.3 53.8 46.4 44.4 39.7 45.3 51.6

Arkansas 66.0 69.5 71.3 57.3 60.7 52.8 59.8 70.1

California 7.4 9.0 22.2 17.4 13.5 17.8 31.3 23.0

Colorado 70.2 69.3 69.7 62.2 68.8 61.5 64.8 60.4

Connecticut 47.0 58.0 58.1 41.2 51.3 39.8 54.3 54.8

Delaware 50.9 52.3 52.9 50.8 48.9 33.7 48.3 41.5

District of Columbia 44.2 57.3 54.0 49.7 35.5 43.8 45.3 55.4

Florida 51.1 68.8 66.2 46.8 47.2 42.1 54.1 63.1

Georgia 58.6 71.2 64.7 51.9 52.2 46.2 50.6 51.9

Hawaii 19.0 24.2 21.0 14.4 16.5 16.1 18.8 19.7

Idaho 72.0 69.9 71.4 65.9 74.0 64.9 75.0 63.2

Illinois 51.1 66.5 63.5 42.5 49.4 43.9 50.6 58.1

Indiana 55.9 54.9 58.6 52.2 48.7 43.5 48.9 55.6

Iowa 51.8 72.6 69.0 60.0 55.9 47.2 52.1 70.4

Kansas 63.3 65.2 67.0 55.8 50.1 45.6 48.4 63.2

Kentucky 64.6 69.4 69.6 65.8 55.5 52.8 60.7 62.9

Louisiana 59.6 73.5 62.0 59.7 57.0 48.5 59.5 63.1

Maine 60.0 62.1 66.7 62.5 59.4 56.4 59.3 54.7

Maryland 54.7 55.0 61.8 48.5 42.3 41.6 54.6 58.7

Massachusetts 53.0 54.4 54.3 45.1 50.5 58.0 73.5 63.2

Michigan 63.6 62.3 63.9 64.6 61.5 52.0 44.5 53.3

Minnesota 70.2 66.5 63.6 68.9 66.8 58.8 70.1 63.6

Mississippi 63.1 68.3 68.7 67.3 68.3 51.1 64.0 75.3

Missouri 62.0 72.6 62.6 54.6 62.2 45.2 57.3 58.1

Montana 56.9 62.4 69.4 61.9 56.1 45.8 52.9 54.5

Nebraska 59.7 61.0 61.1 67.7 57.6 50.2 58.4 59.3

Nevada 64.9 63.6 64.3 48.8 67.2 55.3 52.1 67.7

New Hampshire 62.2 68.3 67.5 62.3 75.1 53.7 59.8 59.7

New Jersey 62.1 65.3 65.8 60.6 64.2 59.5 59.4 63.6

New Mexico 54.8 70.5 55.6 59.0 64.1 50.7 52.7 59.4

New York 69.0 68.0 72.7 55.5 70.1 75.8 75.2 69.9

North Carolina 60.3 66.4 66.9 63.0 55.0 48.3 57.1 61.6

North Dakota 62.7 61.4 56.3 40.8 58.9 54.9 52.7 55.3

Ohio 50.8 67.3 67.2 48.5 42.8 48.2 45.3 64.5

Oklahoma 79.5 74.3 75.5 70.5 66.4 72.9 69.2 75.6

Oregon 52.0 58.4 49.0 39.3 45.1 34.0 44.4 45.3

Pennsylvania 71.2 79.1 69.3 68.8 76.5 71.9 63.2 67.7

Rhode Island 69.0 79.3 74.2 69.2 73.4 63.3 67.5 70.2

South Carolina 57.2 63.2 65.0 54.5 57.5 46.4 50.5 61.4

South Dakota 67.5 51.3 77.1 63.4 59.1 58.1 54.2 54.6

Tennessee 65.4 57.0 58.8 55.2 52.0 43.6 47.5 53.5

Texas 60.0 62.9 63.8 59.5 44.4 48.4 48.6 53.0

Utah 54.4 58.3 54.5 32.1 47.4 48.4 52.6 62.3

Vermont 64.1 56.8 51.3 59.9 67.9 61.8 60.4 47.8

Virginia 59.0 69.5 70.9 57.2 54.3 49.8 59.2 62.4

Washington 71.9 66.2 62.5 51.5 58.7 60.2 66.6 67.5

West Virginia 56.6 74.2 60.2 60.3 62.1 53.0 61.6 58.4

Wisconsin 58.2 57.0 52.0 57.7 49.4 55.2 49.2 45.0

Wyoming 57.0 60.9 70.3 58.3 79.1 59.0 51.7 63.4

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

108

Table A.16d. Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants with Gross Income Above 100 Percent of 

Poverty Level by State and Year 

SNAP Participants Above 100% of Poverty (Percent of Elderly SNAP Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 14.5 14.8 15.0 16.3 16.6 15.9 17.7 18.5

Alabama 14.1 11.6 13.0 13.8 16.5 12.7 15.5 8.9

Alaska 48.5 44.7 49.2 45.0 51.9 41.3 28.6 35.3

Arizona 8.7 8.1 13.8 12.1 10.9 12.7 17.8 17.4

Arkansas 12.0 10.7 13.5 14.7 11.8 16.8 13.5 11.4

California 19.4 18.4 20.3 16.1 17.7 14.8 17.3 30.0

Colorado 22.0 24.6 25.6 32.3 21.4 23.8 22.3 27.0

Connecticut 31.3 24.2 21.5 22.3 20.1 24.2 24.8 21.2

Delaware 8.0 32.7 15.9 18.0 16.0 30.0 25.9 32.2

District of Columbia 9.7 11.9 13.2 9.3 14.7 10.7 9.3 8.9

Florida 10.5 10.9 10.1 13.7 11.0 10.8 9.9 11.2

Georgia 15.6 10.2 14.2 20.2 16.8 19.4 15.7 19.0

Hawaii 9.4 9.8 10.4 6.9 5.9 5.8 6.0 8.2

Idaho 16.6 19.9 24.3 18.0 12.8 21.5 14.5 21.7

Illinois 15.8 17.1 14.5 23.5 15.6 16.7 19.2 23.1

Indiana 19.5 27.6 21.0 30.5 28.3 27.3 27.4 28.1

Iowa 25.9 15.5 16.6 19.1 22.6 20.7 23.5 20.1

Kansas 15.8 22.6 22.6 17.9 16.4 22.3 26.3 23.4

Kentucky 11.1 11.0 10.9 10.2 14.5 13.7 12.0 13.5

Louisiana 6.9 12.7 12.4 12.9 13.8 10.0 16.1 16.5

Maine 28.3 27.2 24.1 25.6 28.4 31.3 31.6 35.3

Maryland 8.3 18.2 10.7 10.9 13.5 14.3 14.5 16.0

Massachusetts 34.8 34.5 34.9 42.4 33.0 26.5 15.7 24.0

Michigan 15.9 19.0 21.9 25.5 25.2 28.3 36.9 35.7

Minnesota 14.0 13.0 23.4 10.1 14.3 13.0 14.4 14.3

Mississippi 10.3 8.1 9.3 6.5 7.4 4.0 7.8 9.3

Missouri 14.6 10.7 20.9 17.5 17.9 20.0 22.3 27.8

Montana 20.5 12.3 15.8 14.7 19.8 13.3 17.3 23.7

Nebraska 25.9 23.3 25.2 19.4 27.5 27.6 20.6 23.8

Nevada 12.3 11.8 12.8 20.3 11.8 20.2 20.5 14.6

New Hampshire 29.8 26.4 23.4 32.9 15.9 27.3 28.7 34.0

New Jersey 18.3 12.4 14.3 18.2 13.2 16.3 14.6 13.9

New Mexico 8.5 9.3 14.2 12.1 11.7 10.0 18.2 19.9

New York 15.8 13.6 11.3 7.4 14.4 11.5 12.3 14.2

North Carolina 16.0 19.8 13.9 18.5 22.9 22.9 19.5 21.6

North Dakota 16.5 33.7 32.1 37.3 17.9 17.1 30.1 34.6

Ohio 12.9 15.8 10.8 14.5 20.7 17.0 23.6 20.7

Oklahoma 7.3 9.4 14.0 12.2 17.1 10.2 14.4 9.7

Oregon 19.9 24.8 31.4 37.8 38.3 35.5 34.1 39.9

Pennsylvania 15.0 11.5 17.2 22.0 12.1 17.1 23.3 16.6

Rhode Island 16.6 6.9 12.3 15.8 20.0 19.8 14.2 18.4

South Carolina 9.0 8.4 10.1 12.1 13.4 13.6 10.9 14.9

South Dakota 17.0 37.0 15.8 14.2 24.6 15.9 19.6 30.9

Tennessee 17.2 20.1 18.0 17.2 24.5 22.8 23.4 20.8

Texas 7.4 8.4 10.0 9.2 11.6 5.0 15.9 12.9

Utah 12.6 19.1 10.9 18.6 14.6 11.4 12.0 8.3

Vermont 29.7 30.3 45.4 31.3 28.6 32.6 35.3 38.5

Virginia 10.4 13.5 11.0 14.1 10.6 16.6 12.7 18.1

Washington 7.9 18.8 15.1 12.1 14.7 11.9 13.5 12.7

West Virginia 13.5 9.1 17.5 14.7 12.0 14.0 14.5 22.0

Wisconsin 35.9 40.0 41.8 32.1 46.2 36.9 43.4 39.2

Wyoming 21.9 18.9 11.8 26.0 3.1 20.0 29.1 14.6

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

109

Table A.17. Median Poverty Level of Elderly SNAP Participants by State and Year 

Median Poverty Level of Elderly SNAP Participants

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 81 81 81 79 81 81 82 82

Alabama 78 79 79 78 78 77 78 79

Alaska 97 99 100 99 101 98 92 98

Arizona 76 76 79 77 76 77 77 79

Arkansas 77 79 79 77 78 77 78 79

California 44 36 52 45 54 56 74 76

Colorado 83 84 84 82 81 80 81 82

Connecticut 84 82 80 77 82 81 82 79

Delaware 76 85 78 82 78 77 79 79

District of Columbia 76 76 77 77 76 77 76 76

Florida 77 79 79 77 78 77 78 79

Georgia 77 79 79 78 78 77 78 79

Hawaii 68 68 69 67 67 67 68 68

Idaho 82 84 86 82 82 83 82 83

Illinois 79 81 79 81 78 77 78 80

Indiana 77 81 80 84 84 83 83 84

Iowa 78 81 79 77 82 77 84 83

Kansas 80 79 81 77 78 78 82 80

Kentucky 78 79 79 77 78 77 78 79

Louisiana 77 79 79 77 78 77 78 79

Maine 88 86 85 84 86 87 89 89

Maryland 77 79 78 77 78 77 78 79

Massachusetts 94 97 97 95 93 92 92 92

Michigan 80 81 81 85 83 83 86 88

Minnesota 87 87 90 87 89 85 87 86

Mississippi 77 79 79 77 78 77 78 79

Missouri 77 79 79 77 82 80 83 87

Montana 79 79 79 78 78 77 78 79

Nebraska 82 82 80 82 88 83 81 80

Nevada 81 82 84 82 83 82 83 83

New Hampshire 82 80 87 85 82 84 85 87

New Jersey 82 83 83 82 82 81 79 82

New Mexico 77 80 79 77 79 77 78 82

New York 89 89 89 86 87 86 86 89

North Carolina 77 81 79 79 79 79 78 79

North Dakota 77 84 86 81 79 77 86 88

Ohio 77 79 79 77 78 77 78 79

Oklahoma 82 84 84 82 82 81 82 82

Oregon 77 83 86 85 85 83 86 87

Pennsylvania 81 83 83 83 82 81 81 82

Rhode Island 87 86 88 85 86 85 85 86

South Carolina 77 79 79 77 78 77 78 79

South Dakota 83 86 80 77 83 78 82 85

Tennessee 80 79 79 79 83 83 80 79

Texas 77 79 79 77 76 77 78 76

Utah 77 79 77 76 78 77 76 77

Vermont 87 88 99 91 92 89 89 89

Virginia 77 79 79 77 78 78 78 79

Washington 80 84 80 77 81 83 81 82

West Virginia 77 79 79 82 78 81 79 79

Wisconsin 96 98 97 94 100 98 99 96

Wyoming 83 82 81 84 79 85 80 79

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

110

Table A.18. Elderly Participants in SNAP Units with SSI Income by Poverty Level and Year 

All Elderly 

Participants

in Units with 

SSI Income

Elderly Participants in Units with SSI Income by Gross 

Income as a Percentage of Poverty Level

At or Below 100% of Poverty Above 

100% of 

All 0 to 75% 76% to 100% Poverty

Number (000s)

Fiscal year 2000 979 929 255 674 50

Fiscal year 2001 966 915 161 754 51

Fiscal year 2002 946 902 155 747 44

Fiscal year 2003 965 910 289 621 55

Fiscal year 2004 1,115 1,053 317 737 62

Fiscal year 2005 1,152 1,102 396 706 50

Fiscal year 2006 1,231 1,174 286 888 57

Fiscal year 2007 1,267 1,209 221 988 58

Percent of All Elderly 

Participants in Units with 

SSI Income

Fiscal year 2000 100.0 94.9 26.0 68.9 5.1

Fiscal year 2001 100.0 94.7 16.7 78.0 5.3

Fiscal year 2002 100.0 95.3 16.4 79.0 4.7

Fiscal year 2003 100.0 94.3 29.9 64.3 5.7

Fiscal year 2004 100.0 94.4 28.4 66.0 5.6

Fiscal year 2005 100.0 95.6 34.4 61.3 4.4

Fiscal year 2006 100.0 95.3 23.3 72.1 4.7

Fiscal year 2007 100.0 95.4 17.4 78.0 4.6

Standard Error of 

Percentage

Fiscal year 2000 0.4 1.0 1.0 0.4

Fiscal year 2001 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.5

Fiscal year 2002 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.4

Fiscal year 2003 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5

Fiscal year 2004 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.5

Fiscal year 2005 0.4 1.1 1.2 0.4

Fiscal year 2006 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.5

Fiscal year 2007 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.4

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

111

Table A.19. Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants in Units with SSI Income Who Are in Poverty 

by State and Year 

Elderly SNAP Participants in Units with SSI Income and in Poverty (Percent of State 

Elderly Participants in Units with SSI Income)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 94.9 94.7 95.3 94.3 94.4 95.6 95.3 95.4

Alabama 94.9 95.3 94.6 95.6 98.8 97.2 94.3 96.2

Alaska 38.0 33.3 31.2 50.4 41.2 56.0 80.4 43.4

Arizona 96.6 94.8 98.6 96.8 98.2 97.9 93.5 100.0

Arkansas 94.2 98.1 97.6 95.7 95.2 97.4 97.5 98.7

Californiaa- - - - - - - -

Colorado 84.2 86.8 78.3 68.3 80.5 88.8 79.0 82.8

Connecticut 72.4 78.6 83.0 79.2 89.1 82.8 85.3 92.0

Delaware 100.0 93.8 98.8 97.1 94.4 91.3 88.2 94.7

District of Columbia 96.8 98.0 97.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 98.4

Florida 97.2 98.0 97.9 95.5 95.6 96.8 98.2 97.4

Georgia 96.6 96.9 96.1 93.8 95.8 88.7 100.0 96.2

Hawaii 97.6 98.0 95.3 98.9 99.0 97.9 100.0 98.8

Idaho 92.3 95.3 92.5 100.0 95.2 94.3 98.4 98.2

Illinois 90.0 87.0 92.5 81.9 89.2 92.5 90.5 92.1

Indiana 93.0 92.0 97.4 89.3 96.6 98.3 95.1 92.2

Iowa 89.8 93.8 95.9 92.8 92.3 98.1 97.5 98.3

Kansas 97.3 98.8 94.7 98.0 100.0 97.5 100.0 95.9

Kentucky 95.6 93.2 97.8 97.2 96.8 97.5 98.1 95.4

Louisiana 97.4 95.6 95.8 94.2 97.4 98.7 100.0 96.2

Maine 96.6 96.6 96.1 94.3 97.8 100.0 98.1 98.5

Maryland 98.7 92.2 97.1 98.0 97.1 97.5 95.3 93.6

Massachusetts 70.0 71.4 70.3 62.4 75.9 75.2 89.1 80.8

Michigan 93.8 94.9 100.0 89.9 95.2 90.6 88.2 92.4

Minnesota 96.0 92.2 88.0 95.7 88.4 96.8 93.4 87.2

Mississippi 97.1 96.9 97.6 96.5 99.3 100.0 97.3 98.3

Missouri 96.8 98.4 93.9 93.0 92.5 94.4 93.7 88.0

Montana 95.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Nebraska 86.0 98.6 93.8 100.0 96.1 96.9 94.9 94.8

Nevada 97.2 97.2 99.0 91.6 97.4 97.5 98.7 99.2

New Hampshire 78.0 96.6 96.8 91.0 97.3 97.6 93.4 95.9

New Jersey 94.2 96.1 95.3 92.2 92.6 91.5 95.5 91.4

New Mexico 97.7 97.5 97.4 94.7 95.9 95.6 95.7 95.2

New York 95.4 93.7 96.0 98.9 93.6 97.0 97.6 96.3

North Carolina 96.3 95.1 96.9 95.1 93.0 97.7 92.2 94.4

North Dakota 93.7 94.5 95.4 95.9 97.7 95.3 89.6 85.1

Ohio 94.9 95.5 97.2 94.8 95.9 98.4 93.6 97.5

Oklahoma 97.4 98.5 97.0 98.2 97.0 95.0 95.7 98.9

Oregon 95.7 98.1 91.0 91.6 90.9 95.0 96.6 96.9

Pennsylvania 97.4 98.8 98.3 96.5 96.8 95.3 92.0 98.4

Rhode Island 96.4 100.0 94.8 95.9 96.5 93.0 95.2 96.7

South Carolina 96.1 97.9 97.7 98.8 95.4 98.2 100.0 97.9

South Dakota 92.3 94.8 100.0 100.0 96.1 100.0 100.0 88.0

Tennessee 96.5 96.0 95.7 97.8 92.9 90.9 92.0 98.6

Texas 96.5 98.8 99.1 96.1 96.8 99.4 95.6 96.5

Utah 93.9 91.6 98.8 98.6 96.0 100.0 98.0 100.0

Vermont 98.6 92.3 100.0 91.9 95.9 97.4 97.7 88.2

Virginia 97.8 96.9 95.6 99.4 96.0 93.4 98.5 97.8

Washington 97.9 92.4 95.0 98.8 96.6 97.8 96.8 100.0

West Virginia 98.3 96.7 91.7 93.7 99.2 99.2 97.3 96.5

Wisconsin 82.6 65.4 69.5 85.4 75.6 85.8 83.4 90.4

Wyoming 100.0 100.0 97.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 93.9

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 

a In California, SSI recipients are ineligible for SNAP. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

112

Table A.20. Elderly SNAP Participants by Benefit Level and Year 

All Elderly 

SNAP 

Participants

Elderly Participants by Benefit Level

$1 to 

$10

$11 to 

$50

$51 to 

$100

$101 to 

$150

$151 or 

more

Number (000s)

Fiscal year 2000 1,626 447 478 317 250 136

Fiscal year 2001 1,562 447 428 319 257 110

Fiscal year 2002 1,575 441 391 311 300 132

Fiscal year 2003 1,689 355 454 421 316 142

Fiscal year 2004 1,918 322 483 401 472 240

Fiscal year 2005 2,045 310 486 455 553 241

Fiscal year 2006 2,226 372 465 473 361 555

Fiscal year 2007 2,263 396 456 520 352 539

Percent of Elderly SNAP 

Participants

Fiscal year 2000 100.0 27.5 29.4 19.5 15.4 8.3

Fiscal year 2001 100.0 28.6 27.4 20.4 16.5 7.1

Fiscal year 2002 100.0 28.0 24.8 19.7 19.0 8.4

Fiscal year 2003 100.0 21.0 26.9 24.9 18.7 8.4

Fiscal year 2004 100.0 16.8 25.2 20.9 24.6 12.5

Fiscal year 2005 100.0 15.2 23.8 22.2 27.0 11.8

Fiscal year 2006 100.0 16.7 20.9 21.2 16.2 24.9

Fiscal year 2007 100.0 17.5 20.1 23.0 15.6 23.8

Standard Error of 

Percentage

Fiscal year 2000 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.8

Fiscal year 2001 1.1 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.7

Fiscal year 2002 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.0 0.7

Fiscal year 2003 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5

Fiscal year 2004 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

Fiscal year 2005 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7

Fiscal year 2006 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7

Fiscal year 2007 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

113

Table A.21a. Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants with Benefits of $10 or Less by State and Year 

SNAP Participants with Benefits of $10 or Less (Percent of Elderly SNAP 

Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 27.5 28.6 28.0 21.0 16.8 15.2 16.7 17.5

Alabama 18.3 20.6 19.8 19.2 14.4 11.0 21.1 13.5

Alaska 37.1 37.8 43.9 46.8 50.3 42.2 32.0 39.1

Arizona 13.0 9.2 16.7 8.4 7.1 13.9 12.4 13.7

Arkansas 27.9 30.4 35.4 28.3 27.9 24.1 20.2 35.6

California 19.2 13.6 19.1 9.1 6.7 11.7 14.5 9.1

Colorado 59.1 56.3 50.4 45.8 38.2 25.6 27.0 31.4

Connecticut 39.6 37.0 35.9 31.8 17.8 14.6 19.6 17.4

Delaware 17.9 33.3 23.3 20.3 17.1 23.5 21.4 21.8

District of Columbia 21.0 23.2 26.7 18.7 19.8 21.8 18.9 22.2

Florida 19.1 19.8 17.9 18.1 11.7 10.8 10.9 11.4

Georgia 29.2 33.3 38.8 16.8 15.1 15.9 12.2 18.8

Hawaii 1.0 0.9 3.2 1.5 0.4 0.9 2.2 1.6

Idaho 52.0 60.6 46.3 21.8 26.0 16.1 16.0 25.3

Illinois 30.6 31.9 21.7 15.0 12.9 13.9 12.3 16.6

Indiana 39.6 40.3 37.5 13.6 17.2 16.5 23.0 18.4

Iowa 40.8 34.1 41.0 25.6 25.6 15.4 18.7 22.4

Kansas 32.5 33.2 42.7 26.8 23.6 23.3 27.6 26.9

Kentucky 30.2 28.0 33.2 18.9 14.1 13.0 12.2 12.9

Louisiana 17.6 19.3 15.5 10.3 10.8 5.4 10.0 11.4

Maine 37.1 42.9 37.6 24.4 19.9 18.8 16.5 23.9

Maryland 15.1 19.9 16.6 15.8 13.6 12.4 17.4 17.6

Massachusetts 46.5 51.0 48.4 37.1 23.1 23.9 15.0 20.8

Michigan 21.4 27.7 19.7 18.5 16.1 19.2 24.7 22.9

Minnesota 53.1 52.7 56.9 39.9 37.0 34.1 35.1 38.5

Mississippi 33.7 32.5 39.4 19.5 30.2 19.3 19.9 29.5

Missouri 24.6 29.7 33.4 19.5 23.0 23.0 29.9 30.6

Montana 21.4 33.8 39.4 29.3 25.7 10.6 13.9 24.4

Nebraska 38.3 37.4 39.8 44.2 44.4 36.8 32.6 34.9

Nevada 24.9 29.9 21.0 21.3 20.8 17.5 21.7 18.1

New Hampshire 39.5 33.4 36.8 39.7 35.3 19.1 31.4 24.3

New Jersey 27.3 21.2 24.7 19.0 14.0 13.6 10.4 12.4

New Mexico 28.4 26.8 27.4 27.1 20.4 16.8 26.3 20.2

New York 15.5 17.8 12.9 18.7 5.4 5.4 10.4 7.3

North Carolina 38.2 37.8 36.3 26.9 26.2 26.2 22.8 19.6

North Dakota 26.7 42.5 29.9 24.6 10.3 6.6 13.1 16.2

Ohio 28.9 22.9 28.3 17.9 16.7 14.0 16.4 23.2

Oklahoma 52.5 51.5 51.4 43.1 43.6 34.6 33.8 39.6

Oregon 33.9 36.7 45.7 24.5 24.1 23.4 27.5 30.5

Pennsylvania 47.1 43.6 45.6 21.4 19.4 19.0 17.2 11.6

Rhode Island 53.1 48.0 46.0 43.2 39.1 37.1 28.9 11.6

South Carolina 19.4 21.0 25.7 25.0 19.5 16.3 15.1 22.1

South Dakota 23.0 26.7 21.4 13.2 20.7 14.4 6.6 17.7

Tennessee 42.8 34.5 39.1 36.0 32.6 31.0 28.6 26.4

Texas 17.9 22.1 23.1 14.6 9.4 4.2 11.1 10.3

Utah 29.9 28.4 33.3 17.0 26.9 21.9 21.8 20.8

Vermont 40.5 37.0 51.8 25.5 20.7 14.7 15.9 16.0

Virginia 23.7 30.5 31.1 26.9 23.0 24.0 20.5 28.8

Washington 32.6 45.6 33.8 7.6 8.8 7.3 11.7 10.5

West Virginia 18.1 20.6 20.8 27.5 16.4 18.1 19.2 34.0

Wisconsin 70.6 69.2 64.0 53.7 55.3 48.8 47.5 52.7

Wyoming 41.5 43.8 35.9 34.8 20.3 30.0 18.9 19.7

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

114

Table A.21b. Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants with Benefits of $11 to $100 by State and 

Year 

SNAP Participants with Benefits of $10 to $100 (Percent of Elderly SNAP 

Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 48.8 47.8 44.5 51.8 46.1 46.0 42.1 43.1

Alabama 66.0 54.5 58.8 51.8 57.9 59.2 52.4 60.4

Alaska 9.7 18.4 12.7 7.5 14.1 11.8 21.8 18.4

Arizona 55.3 52.8 56.8 47.4 41.8 36.9 33.7 37.8

Arkansas 54.0 50.4 49.4 52.1 47.2 55.1 53.2 44.8

California 15.1 27.0 15.0 15.4 14.6 22.1 22.1 36.1

Colorado 31.8 35.2 37.8 42.5 46.8 37.4 37.8 33.5

Connecticut 48.2 48.9 48.9 50.6 50.0 46.8 38.1 27.2

Delaware 59.3 54.9 47.7 42.6 46.3 33.0 38.0 39.9

District of Columbia 52.2 48.9 48.8 56.5 48.6 38.6 49.1 48.5

Florida 58.0 58.8 58.2 54.7 50.4 44.8 45.7 42.3

Georgia 55.7 47.7 40.7 54.2 51.8 55.7 45.8 42.8

Hawaii 24.7 30.7 28.7 21.5 24.2 11.2 16.8 10.1

Idaho 33.2 29.7 45.7 52.6 60.3 47.9 51.9 55.0

Illinois 48.2 50.0 54.9 54.5 52.1 42.0 40.8 47.4

Indiana 51.4 45.9 40.7 53.4 50.9 42.4 43.6 50.8

Iowa 48.8 54.5 50.7 55.0 55.5 58.1 51.4 51.8

Kansas 57.7 57.9 50.8 62.7 52.9 51.7 50.5 53.5

Kentucky 56.9 60.9 54.0 62.1 60.8 59.1 59.3 57.6

Louisiana 59.5 66.7 52.8 60.1 51.1 56.4 45.9 59.5

Maine 47.5 40.1 41.0 44.5 48.2 50.2 48.9 49.2

Maryland 63.2 58.2 57.8 57.1 52.2 52.4 51.7 53.9

Massachusetts 36.9 30.5 32.4 34.5 34.8 43.8 54.6 47.3

Michigan 57.8 48.5 54.8 48.8 45.0 34.9 20.8 26.6

Minnesota 37.5 32.5 32.9 45.5 45.1 45.2 47.5 41.2

Mississippi 51.0 51.5 45.9 65.1 56.0 65.4 58.2 50.1

Missouri 61.0 56.5 50.8 60.9 55.4 55.5 55.2 51.3

Montana 65.3 46.3 46.7 48.0 46.1 46.9 44.7 38.0

Nebraska 54.6 50.1 50.3 45.4 40.7 48.0 46.2 44.2

Nevada 49.7 50.8 48.1 46.9 58.2 47.8 45.8 43.9

New Hampshire 44.9 56.7 44.8 48.6 37.0 46.0 39.4 45.7

New Jersey 43.9 47.9 35.7 48.0 43.4 45.8 43.0 34.0

New Mexico 48.8 51.6 49.5 48.7 58.8 46.4 44.8 50.4

New York 36.0 30.0 23.5 40.7 14.5 24.6 13.1 18.0

North Carolina 49.5 48.3 44.9 56.1 48.8 50.0 54.0 56.5

North Dakota 58.3 47.8 43.5 44.8 40.7 31.9 40.3 24.8

Ohio 56.3 57.5 55.7 53.6 51.9 45.0 31.7 43.3

Oklahoma 37.0 33.1 37.5 45.3 41.1 48.8 48.4 44.8

Oregon 51.6 50.0 39.9 49.8 46.3 42.1 39.2 41.6

Pennsylvania 36.5 43.8 38.4 55.7 51.7 45.4 47.0 44.4

Rhode Island 29.8 36.1 37.6 36.6 34.2 34.7 29.9 32.8

South Carolina 58.2 57.6 58.1 55.9 62.4 59.7 61.6 52.2

South Dakota 59.8 52.6 60.8 47.1 36.3 41.5 45.5 34.4

Tennessee 47.1 49.9 44.1 46.4 49.8 40.4 48.7 46.5

Texas 54.3 55.9 48.7 60.1 60.9 68.3 57.0 61.6

Utah 59.1 58.5 50.6 62.6 43.8 56.7 41.5 44.7

Vermont 44.8 39.2 32.0 55.1 53.5 47.4 29.4 33.4

Virginia 58.9 54.1 53.2 57.0 51.1 56.6 56.1 50.7

Washington 55.0 45.3 47.2 64.9 58.7 57.0 58.5 64.5

West Virginia 59.6 66.6 59.3 56.4 65.1 58.3 66.7 45.6

Wisconsin 19.3 26.2 25.0 33.0 33.5 36.1 32.0 27.3

Wyoming 44.4 47.1 58.0 40.9 54.1 37.9 53.4 52.4

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

115

Table A.21c. Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants with Benefits of $101 or More by State and 

Year 

SNAP Participants with Benefits of $101 or more (Percent of Elderly SNAP 

Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 23.7 23.5 27.4 27.1 37.1 38.8 41.1 39.4

Alabama 15.6 24.9 21.4 28.9 27.8 29.8 26.6 26.2

Alaska 53.1 43.8 43.4 45.7 35.6 45.9 46.2 42.5

Arizona 31.7 38.0 26.6 44.3 51.2 49.2 53.9 48.6

Arkansas 18.0 19.2 15.2 19.6 24.9 20.8 26.6 19.6

California 65.8 59.5 66.0 75.4 78.7 66.3 63.3 54.8

Colorado 9.1 8.4 11.8 11.7 14.9 37.1 35.2 35.1

Connecticut 12.2 14.1 15.2 17.5 32.2 38.6 42.3 55.3

Delaware 22.8 11.8 28.9 37.1 36.6 43.6 40.6 38.2

District of Columbia 26.8 27.9 24.5 24.8 31.6 39.6 32.0 29.4

Florida 22.9 21.5 24.0 27.2 37.8 44.4 43.4 46.3

Georgia 15.2 19.0 20.5 29.0 33.1 28.4 42.0 38.4

Hawaii 74.3 68.4 68.1 76.9 75.4 88.0 80.9 88.3

Idaho 14.8 9.7 8.0 25.5 13.7 36.1 32.1 19.7

Illinois 21.2 18.1 23.4 30.5 35.0 44.1 46.9 35.9

Indiana 9.0 13.9 21.9 33.1 31.8 41.1 33.4 30.8

Iowa 10.3 11.4 8.3 19.4 18.9 26.5 29.9 25.8

Kansas 9.8 8.9 6.5 10.5 23.5 25.0 21.9 19.6

Kentucky 12.9 11.1 12.8 19.1 25.2 27.9 28.4 29.5

Louisiana 22.9 14.0 31.7 29.6 38.0 38.1 44.1 29.1

Maine 15.4 17.0 21.4 31.1 31.9 31.0 34.6 26.9

Maryland 21.6 21.9 25.6 27.0 34.2 35.2 30.9 28.5

Massachusetts 16.6 18.5 19.2 28.4 42.1 32.2 30.4 31.9

Michigan 20.8 23.8 25.5 32.6 38.9 45.9 54.5 50.5

Minnesota 9.4 14.8 10.2 14.6 17.9 20.7 17.5 20.3

Mississippi 15.4 16.0 14.7 15.5 13.7 15.3 21.9 20.3

Missouri 14.4 13.8 15.8 19.6 21.6 21.5 14.9 18.0

Montana 13.4 19.9 13.8 22.6 28.2 42.5 41.4 37.6

Nebraska 7.1 12.5 9.9 10.4 15.0 15.2 21.2 20.9

Nevada 25.5 19.4 31.0 31.7 21.0 34.7 32.5 38.0

New Hampshire 15.6 9.9 18.4 11.7 27.6 34.9 29.2 30.0

New Jersey 28.8 30.9 39.5 33.1 42.6 40.6 46.6 53.6

New Mexico 22.8 21.5 23.0 24.2 20.9 36.7 28.9 29.4

New York 48.5 52.2 63.6 40.6 80.1 70.0 76.5 74.8

North Carolina 12.3 13.9 18.7 17.1 25.0 23.8 23.2 24.0

North Dakota 15.0 9.6 26.7 30.6 49.1 61.5 46.6 59.0

Ohio 14.9 19.7 16.0 28.4 31.5 40.9 51.9 33.6

Oklahoma 10.5 15.4 11.2 11.6 15.2 16.6 17.8 15.6

Oregon 14.5 13.2 14.4 25.6 29.6 34.5 33.2 27.9

Pennsylvania 16.4 12.6 16.1 22.9 28.9 35.6 35.8 44.0

Rhode Island 17.1 16.0 16.4 20.3 26.7 28.2 41.2 55.6

South Carolina 22.4 21.4 16.2 19.1 18.2 24.1 23.3 25.7

South Dakota 17.2 20.7 17.9 39.7 43.0 44.1 47.9 48.0

Tennessee 10.1 15.6 16.8 17.6 17.6 28.6 22.7 27.1

Texas 27.9 22.0 28.2 25.3 29.7 27.5 31.9 28.1

Utah 11.0 13.1 16.2 20.4 29.3 21.4 36.7 34.4

Vermont 14.8 23.7 16.2 19.5 25.8 38.0 54.6 50.6

Virginia 17.4 15.4 15.7 16.1 25.8 19.3 23.3 20.6

Washington 12.4 9.1 19.0 27.4 32.6 35.7 29.8 25.0

West Virginia 22.3 12.8 19.9 16.1 18.5 23.6 14.0 20.5

Wisconsin 10.0 4.6 10.9 13.4 11.2 15.0 20.5 20.0

Wyoming 14.2 9.1 6.0 24.3 25.5 32.1 27.6 27.9

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

116

Table A.22. Average Benefit Among Elderly SNAP Units by State and Year 

Average Benefit Among Elderly SNAP Units ($)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 61 60 66 72 86 87 91 90

Alabama 53 67 68 82 84 92 66 70

Alaska 275 216 196 164 186 155 162 170

Arizona 84 91 73 109 112 108 113 114

Arkansas 60 55 50 64 64 66 70 61

California 115 115 116 129 187 145 123 122

Colorado 36 36 40 46 54 89 87 86

Connecticut 41 53 46 55 77 84 87 102

Delaware 62 46 67 78 84 95 91 90

District of Columbia 65 67 63 70 74 85 74 78

Florida 65 61 66 71 85 91 96 92

Georgia 51 53 60 84 88 83 105 97

Hawaii 135 135 136 147 152 162 168 169

Idaho 34 31 35 63 53 89 75 75

Illinois 61 53 67 83 89 94 104 89

Indiana 37 43 56 77 82 86 76 79

Iowa 37 39 39 57 58 72 71 66

Kansas 40 38 35 46 60 75 61 61

Kentucky 42 45 50 60 76 87 84 78

Louisiana 76 59 79 100 94 98 102 82

Maine 51 53 58 74 76 76 79 70

Maryland 67 64 66 69 83 83 82 80

Massachusetts 46 47 47 65 82 77 75 76

Michigan 57 59 71 82 92 91 103 103

Minnesota 33 42 46 48 49 65 57 59

Mississippi 55 52 50 57 53 57 65 59

Missouri 46 42 51 66 66 62 57 58

Montana 53 52 48 57 73 106 97 81

Nebraska 36 44 40 37 45 51 56 62

Nevada 60 55 72 75 60 77 73 82

New Hampshire 47 46 54 46 63 78 62 67

New Jersey 67 72 81 78 87 95 96 112

New Mexico 62 56 67 73 64 89 78 78

New York 93 93 110 80 136 118 132 134

North Carolina 44 41 57 55 67 71 69 84

North Dakota 53 38 64 66 95 107 109 109

Ohio 43 51 52 69 77 93 98 79

Oklahoma 34 43 35 46 55 53 57 52

Oregon 42 41 43 65 68 79 75 70

Pennsylvania 44 45 46 68 77 81 86 98

Rhode Island 46 49 46 59 64 64 85 102

South Carolina 56 55 53 57 67 65 79 79

South Dakota 61 64 64 108 95 115 103 100

Tennessee 38 50 46 54 56 68 69 73

Texas 72 65 69 75 80 80 78 81

Utah 53 43 62 59 72 60 82 87

Vermont 45 54 44 63 72 82 99 103

Virginia 56 49 50 53 69 61 62 66

Washington 48 40 56 80 84 83 84 73

West Virginia 66 49 62 54 62 65 57 63

Wisconsin 28 26 32 45 37 43 51 54

Wyoming 52 40 42 61 85 69 79 73

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

117

Table A.23. Average Benefit Among Elderly SNAP Units with SSI Income by State and Year 

Average Benefit Among Elderly SNAP Units with SSI Income ($)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 59 59 66 69 85 87 91 88

Alabama 47 63 67 78 72 93 66 77

Alaska 246 120 65 149 130 74 145 51

Arizona 85 89 65 109 112 122 118 125

Arkansas 53 49 50 59 57 71 70 67

Californiaa - - - - - - - -

Colorado 38 34 37 40 48 78 70 79

Connecticut 34 50 39 49 78 95 87 111

Delaware 47 49 70 80 92 115 87 93

District of Columbia 47 57 41 51 67 55 58 74

Florida 70 67 68 75 88 96 98 95

Georgia 50 54 58 85 82 80 106 107

Hawaii 145 135 144 157 151 162 174 171

Idaho 29 26 41 55 53 81 78 66

Illinois 60 52 62 75 88 93 102 93

Indiana 39 38 49 72 80 88 83 91

Iowa 38 40 37 67 54 81 84 76

Kansas 51 40 40 52 58 69 79 59

Kentucky 38 43 42 58 78 97 80 78

Louisiana 70 55 75 93 86 91 91 72

Maine 62 59 56 85 103 106 96 93

Maryland 54 63 60 69 78 81 75 70

Massachusetts 43 42 46 57 76 69 61 71

Michigan 58 63 79 98 105 96 111 125

Minnesota 28 32 32 37 33 51 41 41

Mississippi 51 45 50 60 50 51 61 52

Missouri 46 45 52 63 74 75 61 52

Montana 62 59 61 57 80 98 96 99

Nebraska 40 56 49 43 51 51 67 67

Nevada 59 54 80 78 57 82 80 80

New Hampshire 59 54 52 45 60 73 71 87

New Jersey 63 72 82 83 82 86 94 103

New Mexico 57 54 64 67 67 83 82 81

New York 91 86 107 57 137 114 131 125

North Carolina 40 45 45 62 63 81 73 77

North Dakota 45 36 61 55 95 102 94 109

Ohio 38 55 49 69 75 89 102 85

Oklahoma 25 38 31 42 48 41 46 41

Oregon 40 44 45 74 80 88 99 85

Pennsylvania 42 49 57 69 76 89 98 87

Rhode Island 51 44 41 51 54 68 71 107

South Carolina 48 47 41 50 58 64 80 81

South Dakota 50 78 65 108 102 110 119 115

Tennessee 36 57 51 56 58 74 72 83

Texas 64 57 62 66 68 63 63 61

Utah 43 42 72 54 74 49 93 85

Vermont 56 45 60 70 74 108 113 131

Virginia 52 45 41 53 67 61 63 62

Washington 44 42 51 92 90 83 72 72

West Virginia 62 51 64 54 66 72 65 78

Wisconsin 24 22 26 44 27 33 47 67

Wyoming 37 39 35 40 117 90 97 66

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 

a In California, SSI recipients are ineligible for SNAP. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

118

Table A.24. Elderly SNAP Participants by Benefit as a Percentage of Maximum Benefit and Year 

All Elderly 

SNAP 

Participants

Elderly Participants by Benefit as a Percentage of Maximum Benefit

1 to 

25 Percent

26 to 

50 Percent

51 to 

75 Percent

76 to 

99 Percent

100 

Percent

Number (000s)

Fiscal year 2000 1,626 829 300 242 105 150

Fiscal year 2001 1,562 800 299 213 107 143

Fiscal year 2002 1,575 766 298 215 121 175

Fiscal year 2003 1,689 716 404 286 139 145

Fiscal year 2004 1,918 691 431 311 212 272

Fiscal year 2005 2,045 735 487 336 212 274

Fiscal year 2006 2,226 777 506 365 232 345

Fiscal year 2007 2,263 801 532 378 223 329

Percent of Elderly 

SNAP Participants

Fiscal year 2000 100.0 51.0 18.5 14.9 6.5 9.2

Fiscal year 2001 100.0 51.2 19.1 13.6 6.8 9.2

Fiscal year 2002 100.0 48.6 18.9 13.7 7.7 11.1

Fiscal year 2003 100.0 42.4 23.9 16.9 8.2 8.6

Fiscal year 2004 100.0 36.0 22.5 16.2 11.1 14.2

Fiscal year 2005 100.0 36.0 23.8 16.5 10.4 13.4

Fiscal year 2006 100.0 34.9 22.8 16.4 10.4 15.5

Fiscal year 2007 100.0 35.4 23.5 16.7 9.8 14.6

Standard Error of 

Percentage

Fiscal year 2000 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7

Fiscal year 2001 1.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.9

Fiscal year 2002 1.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9

Fiscal year 2003 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5

Fiscal year 2004 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Fiscal year 2005 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6

Fiscal year 2006 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6

Fiscal year 2007 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

119

Table A.25a. Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants with Benefits Between 1 to 25 Percent of the 

Maximum Benefit by State and Year 

Participants with Benefits Between 1 to 25 of Maximum (Percent of Elderly 

Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 51.0 15.7 48.6 42.4 36.0 36.0 34.9 35.4

Alaska 45.2 14.2 51.9 54.3 61.3 46.1 44.1 55.8

Arizona 36.4 16.8 43.2 26.7 21.2 20.6 26.3 28.1

Arkansas 61.3 6.5 66.1 54.8 54.5 50.3 48.2 61.4

California 23.1 47.1 21.6 15.4 10.0 22.7 20.3 17.8

Colorado 69.7 3.9 68.0 65.8 55.7 38.1 37.9 37.4

Connecticut 59.6 9.6 61.3 57.1 34.3 30.4 34.1 26.4

Delaware 38.0 21.3 42.0 36.5 34.0 31.0 31.2 36.2

District of Columbia 45.0 19.6 49.6 38.7 34.8 38.2 41.5 46.7

Florida 36.0 12.8 40.9 39.1 29.7 26.0 26.4 20.1

Georgia 53.8 5.6 56.6 42.2 41.5 37.6 24.3 32.0

Hawaii 9.4 14.3 10.5 5.7 8.0 3.0 8.6 7.0

Idaho 76.5 7.1 73.6 43.2 43.5 37.1 35.7 39.3

Illinois 50.7 14.4 44.4 30.8 24.9 25.2 23.3 29.6

Indiana 68.8 7.4 54.5 30.9 34.1 27.2 33.2 37.8

Iowa 71.5 7.0 68.7 45.8 45.5 34.9 39.4 37.7

Kansas 63.3 4.3 67.3 52.8 42.5 41.8 47.3 49.1

Kentucky 71.1 2.9 65.5 51.2 45.5 41.0 40.4 33.4

Louisiana 46.3 13.1 33.2 21.9 21.9 16.5 23.0 43.7

Maine 51.8 12.2 53.1 39.5 33.5 35.6 32.4 37.5

Maryland 48.0 14.9 40.2 41.8 31.9 28.0 40.2 35.2

Massachusetts 58.4 12.6 63.4 49.5 37.6 52.4 45.7 39.4

Michigan 42.1 15.2 34.6 35.2 29.3 31.3 32.1 34.9

Minnesota 78.9 5.9 75.4 61.9 65.7 54.6 61.2 54.9

Mississippi 66.9 6.0 69.2 41.2 62.0 61.1 55.7 54.4

Missouri 58.6 8.0 57.6 42.8 50.0 48.0 56.1 64.2

Montana 40.3 8.7 67.4 52.9 43.1 26.9 23.1 37.7

Nebraska 70.5 6.3 65.5 75.0 66.5 62.5 51.4 54.6

Nevada 44.9 21.3 32.7 35.6 49.1 40.6 38.9 36.5

New Hampshire 55.0 15.6 55.2 58.1 49.5 43.4 51.6 53.9

New Jersey 42.3 22.8 35.5 36.6 32.2 30.9 31.8 21.5

New Mexico 61.9 7.3 61.9 54.1 61.5 40.9 45.0 51.9

New York 25.8 44.2 21.4 26.5 12.2 24.9 15.3 15.7

North Carolina 68.0 5.2 61.5 52.8 50.3 46.5 52.4 50.8

North Dakota 45.7 11.3 47.8 42.2 25.8 16.4 29.1 28.0

Ohio 63.0 11.4 53.8 39.7 36.6 32.8 28.8 37.8

Oklahoma 75.7 4.1 76.1 71.4 63.4 65.2 61.1 66.7

Oregon 63.8 11.8 65.1 40.6 37.2 35.3 44.5 41.9

Pennsylvania 65.1 10.9 63.0 42.5 37.5 31.4 30.1 30.9

Rhode Island 63.4 13.7 56.9 58.7 51.7 51.9 35.7 23.9

South Carolina 66.3 8.0 64.1 61.5 61.8 50.3 38.8 42.3

South Dakota 43.3 5.6 29.2 25.7 28.2 26.7 28.5 29.3

Tennessee 72.1 5.6 64.5 61.3 59.0 52.2 52.6 49.9

Texas 51.6 12.2 52.7 48.1 38.6 43.9 44.6 39.5

Utah 61.4 8.5 53.7 47.9 47.9 52.2 37.7 42.1

Vermont 53.6 10.7 59.3 47.2 40.1 32.3 22.5 25.9

Virginia 61.1 7.5 55.8 55.1 47.7 47.0 48.0 49.7

Washington 58.3 6.5 54.3 25.7 23.0 31.7 26.8 44.1

West Virginia 49.4 12.7 49.2 59.7 47.9 56.7 52.9 56.0

Wisconsin 83.4 5.5 79.5 69.7 74.4 69.0 66.5 65.9

Wyoming 59.7 8.6 72.0 63.2 29.6 41.3 40.8 27.5

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

120

Table A.25b. Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants with Benefits Between 26 to 75 Percent of the 

Maximum Benefit by State and Year 

Participants with Benefits Between 26 to 75 of Maximum (Percent of Elderly 

Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 33.4 32.8 32.6 40.8 38.7 40.3 39.2 40.2

Alabama 38.9 36.1 38.0 44.3 46.5 53.9 36.5 41.9

Alaska 40.6 43.0 31.4 33.7 24.6 28.8 36.6 19.0

Arizona 46.8 48.9 41.2 48.8 49.6 58.2 36.2 40.9

Arkansas 32.1 28.4 26.1 37.8 36.9 38.0 41.0 33.4

California 29.8 21.1 21.1 24.8 28.9 28.5 30.2 40.8

Colorado 26.4 26.0 26.0 25.9 34.6 37.2 38.6 44.2

Connecticut 30.8 36.0 27.3 30.2 42.0 44.5 40.8 33.9

Delaware 40.8 37.5 35.6 39.8 35.8 40.3 41.7 34.8

District of Columbia 35.3 33.1 31.7 46.6 44.0 34.3 40.1 29.4

Florida 51.2 49.6 42.7 43.2 45.0 52.2 50.2 59.3

Georgia 40.6 33.1 35.8 41.2 40.4 46.1 53.4 49.5

Hawaii 76.3 72.2 70.8 76.3 72.2 75.6 71.8 69.4

Idaho 16.4 13.1 22.7 39.8 50.7 41.7 49.8 51.0

Illinois 34.9 30.6 37.5 49.2 52.4 46.4 46.5 45.2

Indiana 23.8 25.0 35.3 41.1 43.7 51.1 46.4 42.4

Iowa 21.5 28.5 26.4 47.6 43.2 57.1 46.3 48.7

Kansas 32.5 36.4 29.4 40.4 45.4 44.5 42.9 38.3

Kentucky 26.0 27.0 30.1 43.8 42.6 44.9 45.9 53.2

Louisiana 40.6 43.0 47.2 60.2 55.2 68.3 56.9 42.2

Maine 36.0 28.2 30.1 37.4 45.0 49.1 48.0 48.8

Maryland 37.1 39.2 43.5 42.2 46.2 51.5 39.7 49.2

Massachusetts 29.0 24.8 26.9 30.4 32.3 24.7 32.4 40.2

Michigan 42.7 34.2 44.1 40.5 46.1 36.3 30.9 24.6

Minnesota 15.2 19.3 15.9 27.6 19.1 31.8 26.5 34.6

Mississippi 27.0 25.9 27.9 50.9 33.8 32.7 37.8 35.9

Missouri 33.4 34.2 34.0 46.4 37.9 43.2 38.7 31.1

Montana 51.1 40.4 26.2 34.1 35.3 50.4 53.9 42.1

Nebraska 23.2 32.7 26.7 18.2 23.6 32.1 37.9 34.1

Nevada 33.8 41.2 48.7 38.6 37.5 37.8 41.0 42.7

New Hampshire 29.3 34.8 27.5 30.1 29.3 29.8 26.5 28.2

New Jersey 34.9 37.3 35.0 40.3 40.0 39.6 34.6 41.7

New Mexico 30.8 28.9 27.1 38.6 28.4 44.0 44.4 39.6

New York 30.0 28.1 22.2 44.6 15.8 21.4 23.9 27.1

North Carolina 26.8 28.3 28.3 37.0 38.1 39.8 34.0 35.6

North Dakota 43.0 28.2 31.9 37.2 45.3 35.5 40.0 30.1

Ohio 25.6 29.8 33.5 40.3 44.0 42.3 35.5 41.5

Oklahoma 20.3 22.5 18.5 23.4 30.4 27.1 28.2 25.7

Oregon 24.4 27.1 23.4 38.7 46.2 43.8 34.6 38.9

Pennsylvania 24.0 27.1 28.7 43.3 43.6 44.1 47.4 43.3

Rhode Island 22.9 28.2 31.6 23.4 30.1 29.5 34.1 39.9

South Carolina 25.7 29.4 29.4 29.4 27.0 40.5 51.8 46.1

South Dakota 51.1 51.1 52.9 56.1 50.0 48.4 40.8 31.4

Tennessee 22.4 31.0 29.7 29.4 30.9 33.6 34.7 38.6

Texas 36.3 32.3 35.6 39.6 47.2 39.7 41.3 43.6

Utah 30.1 35.1 37.2 39.0 36.0 33.8 41.3 34.6

Vermont 35.7 39.0 27.7 35.6 42.1 41.0 41.3 32.6

Virginia 31.4 32.4 36.7 36.3 39.3 41.0 43.3 37.5

Washington 35.2 26.5 36.4 56.7 55.2 48.5 51.6 43.4

West Virginia 37.9 33.1 41.5 31.7 43.5 33.2 39.2 36.8

Wisconsin 11.2 15.6 14.3 20.8 17.4 23.1 20.5 21.7

Wyoming 31.7 22.1 23.8 23.3 60.1 49.4 41.0 55.3

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

121

Table A.25c. Percentage of Elderly SNAP Participants with Benefits Between 76 to 100 Percent of 

the Maximum Benefit by State and Year 

Participants with Benefits Between 76 to 100 of Maximum (Percent of Elderly 

Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 15.7 16.0 18.8 16.8 25.2 23.7 25.9 24.4

Alabama 8.4 11.5 11.4 12.7 16.7 10.4 11.0 12.2

Alaska 14.2 10.5 16.7 12.0 14.2 25.1 19.2 25.2

Arizona 16.8 18.0 15.6 24.6 29.2 21.2 37.5 31.0

Arkansas 6.5 7.1 7.8 7.4 8.6 11.7 10.8 5.2

California 47.1 59.1 57.3 59.8 61.1 48.7 49.5 41.4

Colorado 3.9 4.7 6.1 8.4 9.7 24.7 23.4 18.4

Connecticut 9.6 10.8 11.4 12.7 23.8 25.1 25.1 39.8

Delaware 21.3 6.1 22.4 23.8 30.2 28.6 27.1 29.0

District of Columbia 19.6 20.0 18.7 14.8 21.2 27.5 18.4 23.9

Florida 12.8 11.5 16.4 17.7 25.3 21.8 23.4 20.7

Georgia 5.6 8.4 7.7 16.6 18.1 16.3 22.3 18.5

Hawaii 14.3 20.3 18.7 17.9 19.8 21.4 19.6 23.6

Idaho 7.1 4.8 3.7 16.9 5.8 21.3 14.4 9.7

Illinois 14.4 12.9 18.0 20.1 22.8 28.4 30.2 25.2

Indiana 7.4 8.9 10.1 28.0 22.3 21.7 20.3 19.9

Iowa 7.0 5.0 4.9 6.6 11.3 8.0 14.3 13.6

Kansas 4.3 3.6 3.3 6.9 12.1 13.7 9.8 12.6

Kentucky 2.9 4.9 4.4 5.0 11.9 14.2 13.7 13.4

Louisiana 13.1 8.5 19.6 17.9 22.9 15.2 20.1 14.1

Maine 12.2 13.8 16.8 23.1 21.6 15.3 19.6 13.7

Maryland 14.9 15.9 16.3 16.1 21.9 20.5 20.0 15.6

Massachusetts 12.6 15.1 9.7 20.2 30.1 23.0 21.9 20.4

Michigan 15.2 20.6 21.3 24.3 24.6 32.3 37.0 40.5

Minnesota 5.9 10.4 8.7 10.5 15.3 13.6 12.4 10.5

Mississippi 6.0 8.3 2.9 7.8 4.2 6.3 6.5 9.7

Missouri 8.0 7.5 8.3 10.7 12.1 8.8 5.2 4.7

Montana 8.7 8.7 6.4 13.1 21.6 22.7 23.1 20.2

Nebraska 6.3 6.3 7.8 6.8 10.0 5.4 10.8 11.3

Nevada 21.3 14.7 18.6 25.9 13.4 21.5 20.1 20.8

New Hampshire 15.6 9.2 17.3 11.7 21.2 26.8 21.9 18.0

New Jersey 22.8 25.1 29.5 23.1 27.8 29.5 33.6 36.8

New Mexico 7.3 8.2 11.0 7.3 10.0 15.1 10.5 8.6

New York 44.2 46.4 56.3 28.8 72.0 53.7 60.9 57.2

North Carolina 5.2 3.0 10.2 10.1 11.6 13.7 13.6 13.6

North Dakota 11.3 6.6 20.4 20.6 28.9 48.1 31.0 41.9

Ohio 11.4 13.0 12.7 20.0 19.4 24.9 35.7 20.7

Oklahoma 4.1 6.4 5.4 5.1 6.2 7.7 10.7 7.6

Oregon 11.8 8.5 11.5 20.7 16.6 20.9 20.9 19.2

Pennsylvania 10.9 8.3 8.2 14.2 18.9 24.5 22.5 25.8

Rhode Island 13.7 15.1 11.4 17.9 18.2 18.6 30.2 36.2

South Carolina 8.0 9.2 6.5 9.1 11.2 9.3 9.4 11.6

South Dakota 5.6 11.6 17.9 18.1 21.9 24.8 30.7 39.3

Tennessee 5.6 7.7 5.7 9.3 10.1 14.1 12.6 11.4

Texas 12.2 11.9 11.7 12.3 14.2 16.4 14.1 17.0

Utah 8.5 8.6 9.2 13.1 16.1 14.1 21.0 23.3

Vermont 10.7 13.4 12.9 17.2 17.8 26.7 36.1 41.5

Virginia 7.5 8.9 7.5 8.6 12.9 12.0 8.7 12.8

Washington 6.5 5.8 9.3 17.5 21.8 19.9 21.7 12.5

West Virginia 12.7 7.3 9.3 8.7 8.6 10.2 7.9 7.2

Wisconsin 5.5 2.9 6.2 9.5 8.2 8.0 13.0 12.4

Wyoming 8.6 7.2 4.2 13.5 10.3 9.3 18.2 17.2

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

122

Table A.26. Elderly Participants in SNAP Units with Earned Income by Age Cohort and Average 

Earnings by Year 

Elderly Participants in SNAP Units with Earned Income

Total Age 60 to 64 Age 65 to 74 Age 75 or Older

Number (000s)

Fiscal year 2000 60 33 20 7

Fiscal year 2001 49 23 20 6

Fiscal year 2002 61 32 22 7

Fiscal year 2003 72 36 27 9

Fiscal year 2004 89 51 27 11

Fiscal year 2005 85 51 28 6

Fiscal year 2006 98 56 31 10

Fiscal year 2007 116 66 38 11

Percent of Elderly Participants 

in SNAP Units with Earned 

Income

Fiscal year 2000 100.0 54.4 33.2 12.5

Fiscal year 2001 100.0 45.7 41.4 12.9

Fiscal year 2002 100.0 53.0 35.6 11.4

Fiscal year 2003 100.0 49.7 37.4 12.9

Fiscal year 2004 100.0 57.7 30.1 12.2

Fiscal year 2005 100.0 60.2 32.7 7.1

Fiscal year 2006 100.0 57.8 32.1 10.1

Fiscal year 2007 100.0 57.2 33.1 9.6

Standard Error of Percentage

Fiscal year 2000 3.9 3.1 2.4

Fiscal year 2001 3.8 3.8 2.2

Fiscal year 2002 3.9 3.8 2.4

Fiscal year 2003 3.7 3.7 2.7

Fiscal year 2004 3.5 3.3 2.4

Fiscal year 2005 3.8 3.7 1.4

Fiscal year 2006 3.6 3.5 2.1

Fiscal year 2007 3.3 3.3 2.0

Average Monthly Unit Earnings 

Among Units with Earnings ($)

Fiscal year 2000 432 482 409 373

Fiscal year 2001 374 376 386 262

Fiscal year 2002 394 440 352 317

Fiscal year 2003 508 610 314 491

Fiscal year 2004 552 600 479 480

Fiscal year 2005 453 470 400 471

Fiscal year 2006 546 579 581 376

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

123

Table A.27. Elderly Participants in SNAP Units Receiving Earned Income by Age Cohort and State, 

Average FY 2000-2007

Elderly Participants in SNAP Units with Earned Income

Percent of All 

Elderly 

Participants

Total 

Number 

(000s)

By Age (Percent of Elderly with Earnings)

60 to 64 65 to 74 75 or Older

United States 4.2 79 55.3 33.9 10.8

Alabama 2.8 1 66.4 23.6 10.1

Alaska 11.9 0 54.1 37.5 8.5

Arizona 6.5 1 80.1 14.5 5.4

Arkansas 4.5 1 54.3 35.3 10.3

California 12.9 3 76.7 14.0 9.3

Colorado 5.3 1 48.6 37.5 13.9

Connecticut 2.7 1 54.5 28.7 16.8

Delaware 4.6 0 65.1 25.3 9.6

District of Columbia 4.2 0 46.3 34.0 19.6

Florida 3.8 7 46.6 40.7 12.7

Georgia 4.6 3 51.3 41.7 7.0

Hawaii 6.8 1 45.6 42.7 11.8

Idaho 5.4 0 73.4 23.3 3.3

Illinois 4.3 3 44.9 45.4 9.7

Indiana 4.0 1 69.7 19.6 10.7

Iowa 7.2 1 67.7 21.6 10.7

Kansas 4.7 1 52.2 31.9 15.9

Kentucky 3.6 2 39.4 44.1 16.5

Louisiana 4.7 2 56.4 34.6 9.0

Maine 3.7 1 46.4 45.6 7.9

Maryland 4.1 1 57.8 27.5 14.7

Massachusetts 2.7 1 46.4 46.4 7.2

Michigan 5.7 4 61.5 27.0 11.5

Minnesota 4.3 1 54.3 32.4 13.3

Mississippi 2.8 1 58.4 24.2 17.4

Missouri 3.3 1 53.4 40.0 6.6

Montana 5.9 0 66.1 26.9 7.0

Nebraska 5.4 0 51.1 32.0 16.9

Nevada 1.9 0 47.2 49.4 3.4

New Hampshire 2.7 0 53.7 28.1 18.2

New Jersey 2.8 1 45.3 40.7 14.1

New Mexico 5.5 1 58.8 26.0 15.2

New York 2.9 7 49.6 39.6 10.8

North Carolina 3.9 3 59.9 25.1 15.0

North Dakota 8.6 0 50.4 38.0 11.6

Ohio 4.2 3 47.6 38.9 13.6

Oklahoma 2.2 1 63.4 17.4 19.2

Oregon 6.8 2 62.1 32.3 5.6

Pennsylvania 4.1 3 55.5 27.5 17.0

Rhode Island 2.5 0 53.7 31.9 14.4

South Carolina 3.7 1 57.7 25.9 16.4

South Dakota 6.0 0 52.9 29.9 17.2

Tennessee 3.6 2 52.1 42.0 5.9

Texas 6.2 10 59.1 34.9 5.9

Utah 5.2 0 56.2 33.6 10.3

Vermont 6.3 0 44.9 36.0 19.1

Virginia 3.9 2 51.1 33.9 15.0

Washington 2.0 1 67.0 24.4 8.6

West Virginia 2.2 0 63.5 31.7 4.9

Wisconsin 4.9 1 49.3 40.7 10.0

Wyoming 4.5 0 43.2 52.0 4.8

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

124

Table A.28. Elderly Participants by SNAP Unit Receipt of Unearned Income and Average Unearned 

Income by Year 

All Elderly 

SNAP Participants, 

All Unearned Income

Elderly Participants in SNAP Units with Unearned 

Income

SSI

Social 

Security Other

Number (000s)

Fiscal year 2000 1,626 979 1,108 397

Fiscal year 2001 1,562 966 1,059 364

Fiscal year 2002 1,575 946 1,064 351

Fiscal year 2003 1,689 965 1,149 344

Fiscal year 2004 1,918 1,115 1,283 384

Fiscal year 2005 2,045 1,152 1,379 434

Fiscal year 2006 2,226 1,231 1,515 444

Fiscal year 2007 2,263 1,267 1,575 486

Percent of Elderly 

Participants in SNAP Units 

with Unearned Income

Fiscal year 2000 100.0 60.2 68.1 24.4

Fiscal year 2001 100.0 61.9 67.8 23.3

Fiscal year 2002 100.0 60.1 67.6 22.3

Fiscal year 2003 100.0 57.1 68.1 20.4

Fiscal year 2004 100.0 58.1 66.9 20.0

Fiscal year 2005 100.0 56.4 67.4 21.2

Fiscal year 2006 100.0 55.3 68.1 19.9

Fiscal year 2007 100.0 56.0 69.6 21.5

Standard Error of 

Percentage

Fiscal year 2000 0.7 0.8 0.6

Fiscal year 2001 0.7 0.8 0.6

Fiscal year 2002 0.8 0.8 0.6

Fiscal year 2003 0.7 0.8 0.6

Fiscal year 2004 0.8 0.7 0.6

Fiscal year 2005 0.8 0.9 0.7

Fiscal year 2006 0.8 0.8 0.6

Fiscal year 2007 0.8 0.8 0.7

Average Monthly Unit 

Unearned Income Among 

Units with Unearned 

Income ($)

Fiscal year 2000 611 333 516 182

Fiscal year 2001 625 349 522 174

Fiscal year 2002 645 356 548 187

Fiscal year 2003 657 357 562 227

Fiscal year 2004 677 375 582 221

Fiscal year 2005 695 377 610 228

Fiscal year 2006 722 395 629 218

Fiscal year 2007 740 391 636 206

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

125

Table A.29. Percentage of Elderly Participants in SNAP Units Receiving SSI by State and Year 

Elderly Participants in Units Receiving SSI (Percent of Elderly Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 60.2 61.9 60.1 57.1 58.1 56.4 55.3 56.0

Alabama 66.0 68.2 64.7 57.0 55.8 58.7 52.8 63.6

Alaska 36.9 38.9 43.5 45.3 24.2 30.0 42.4 32.3

Arizona 66.2 60.8 56.2 58.4 48.5 48.8 51.5 43.5

Arkansas 62.1 60.8 53.9 61.1 50.6 47.8 49.5 50.3

California 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Colorado 61.5 60.6 61.9 52.0 55.8 44.5 54.4 48.5

Connecticut 53.4 55.9 64.3 60.2 64.5 59.5 55.3 51.9

Delaware 46.4 40.3 52.0 33.1 47.4 38.6 38.5 35.6

District of Columbia 58.6 53.6 47.5 38.5 37.4 41.2 44.0 46.6

Florida 62.2 63.5 59.4 60.8 57.3 57.7 59.3 59.6

Georgia 54.0 66.1 52.4 49.8 61.2 50.7 44.3 45.0

Hawaii 60.7 52.2 53.0 61.3 56.7 61.1 54.4 60.4

Idaho 59.8 50.8 47.4 44.3 61.1 47.4 51.5 47.6

Illinois 68.2 68.8 64.1 52.4 70.5 60.0 53.2 60.4

Indiana 50.7 46.2 40.7 32.8 32.6 38.6 35.5 37.6

Iowa 52.9 52.7 56.7 58.0 46.1 53.7 42.6 49.2

Kansas 53.9 53.4 49.0 43.6 51.4 40.3 41.1 43.4

Kentucky 62.1 73.0 68.3 65.0 62.9 63.0 59.5 65.7

Louisiana 65.3 74.1 60.6 61.5 52.4 56.3 56.4 59.6

Maine 39.2 46.6 49.5 46.6 41.1 38.5 34.7 29.1

Maryland 62.2 60.1 54.9 60.8 55.8 54.9 54.4 63.7

Massachusetts 69.7 72.5 81.2 64.4 68.6 72.6 76.0 75.7

Michigan 51.7 46.5 49.9 49.1 52.0 40.8 43.5 37.4

Minnesota 68.6 73.3 70.8 73.0 69.1 69.0 66.7 71.2

Mississippi 64.1 69.0 67.1 74.6 70.5 68.1 65.3 66.3

Missouri 54.7 52.5 57.1 57.6 44.4 44.6 48.5 43.2

Montana 41.8 50.3 49.5 43.8 45.4 37.6 42.8 41.2

Nebraska 45.3 45.8 47.8 49.1 33.3 40.3 51.6 40.4

Nevada 57.7 58.4 64.3 58.0 55.3 54.9 48.0 59.3

New Hampshire 35.1 41.0 32.1 39.1 40.5 29.4 34.6 35.9

New Jersey 58.4 63.8 61.1 65.3 68.8 59.4 63.0 60.1

New Mexico 57.4 55.6 54.2 57.3 59.7 54.8 49.7 53.5

New York 68.6 73.9 76.2 57.8 72.8 76.1 76.4 70.4

North Carolina 53.7 54.0 57.4 52.7 50.7 40.7 52.6 50.0

North Dakota 51.1 46.3 39.3 39.2 43.6 44.4 31.4 35.1

Ohio 52.2 58.3 61.0 58.4 53.5 55.2 52.1 51.9

Oklahoma 62.1 59.9 56.1 60.0 47.2 61.0 43.9 59.2

Oregon 45.9 41.3 38.2 34.9 35.9 35.0 33.8 33.4

Pennsylvania 53.8 64.0 54.3 53.5 64.9 55.1 52.2 62.8

Rhode Island 63.2 75.8 69.1 62.1 58.1 59.0 67.5 65.4

South Carolina 66.3 63.2 63.2 57.0 58.0 53.8 57.0 51.1

South Dakota 51.6 38.0 51.4 45.6 38.8 36.8 41.0 34.0

Tennessee 52.1 47.7 48.8 43.8 38.9 38.5 38.7 40.4

Texas 73.3 71.5 67.2 76.8 72.0 73.6 61.2 64.9

Utah 61.8 63.6 61.5 56.4 48.2 55.2 50.8 56.6

Vermont 42.3 35.6 23.9 37.7 42.1 38.7 38.2 43.4

Virginia 67.0 57.2 61.9 57.0 58.9 47.2 54.9 54.2

Washington 73.4 65.5 60.6 68.9 57.0 58.3 55.3 62.2

West Virginia 61.6 61.6 61.6 57.8 64.7 54.5 58.3 53.6

Wisconsin 45.8 46.0 45.3 47.6 34.1 35.0 38.7 32.6

Wyoming 31.9 41.8 57.5 20.8 52.1 43.5 48.7 46.3

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

126

Table A.30. Percentage of Elderly Participants in SNAP Units Receiving Social Security by State 

and Year 

Elderly Participants in Units Receiving Social Security (Percent of Elderly 

Participants)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 68.1 67.8 67.6 68.1 66.9 67.4 68.1 69.6

Alabama 83.3 84.3 81.7 81.0 81.5 81.9 80.9 78.0

Alaska 69.4 77.7 65.3 67.1 75.2 62.7 58.8 75.8

Arizona 57.4 60.7 66.1 69.9 64.9 64.6 66.0 63.0

Arkansas 87.0 86.7 85.5 85.1 81.4 83.0 82.4 83.2

California 20.9 36.9 37.1 26.6 28.5 32.4 38.0 58.0

Colorado 71.9 70.2 67.2 72.2 67.1 66.3 62.0 66.1

Connecticut 68.5 68.4 61.6 60.2 61.8 61.5 66.8 58.9

Delaware 63.8 81.0 70.4 78.7 69.3 75.5 73.1 79.4

District of Columbia 61.7 64.3 60.0 67.0 67.1 69.1 64.1 67.7

Florida 61.7 60.6 64.4 64.1 61.0 61.4 60.3 58.8

Georgia 78.6 82.8 79.0 76.9 77.9 79.2 79.3 82.1

Hawaii 48.8 54.1 58.1 54.1 57.4 57.6 59.5 56.3

Idaho 81.3 73.8 83.7 79.8 80.3 81.8 73.6 80.1

Illinois 52.9 54.7 54.3 56.7 56.2 58.9 58.7 59.2

Indiana 79.5 80.3 82.9 86.4 88.3 76.0 84.1 82.8

Iowa 75.2 79.1 83.2 81.7 75.2 80.2 80.4 77.2

Kansas 79.2 81.6 84.3 78.1 71.3 76.0 78.4 78.4

Kentucky 78.3 68.9 72.4 78.4 75.8 73.5 77.5 73.4

Louisiana 83.4 73.7 72.5 77.9 79.3 79.6 73.0 76.9

Maine 90.9 88.6 89.8 82.0 84.0 88.4 84.4 90.8

Maryland 58.6 56.6 56.9 56.2 53.7 59.5 62.0 52.1

Massachusetts 55.2 51.5 55.2 47.6 59.0 51.1 59.3 55.3

Michigan 68.8 76.4 76.9 74.2 63.5 76.5 74.4 81.5

Minnesota 64.1 52.5 63.4 57.3 54.9 54.9 59.5 46.6

Mississippi 83.7 80.9 82.2 79.0 83.1 83.3 77.2 83.8

Missouri 85.6 82.4 78.0 81.4 81.7 71.3 84.4 85.4

Montana 86.0 77.6 82.9 85.5 81.2 75.7 80.8 79.3

Nebraska 86.2 83.4 79.9 80.9 83.8 85.5 80.0 72.8

Nevada 74.6 74.4 73.4 73.3 72.3 68.0 73.1 64.1

New Hampshire 85.9 83.7 79.7 89.1 80.9 75.4 78.4 87.0

New Jersey 58.0 53.3 63.5 57.4 52.4 54.1 50.8 61.5

New Mexico 75.1 83.7 75.5 78.5 76.9 77.9 81.6 73.7

New York 49.9 51.3 46.0 39.2 50.6 52.2 49.4 57.8

North Carolina 87.2 86.0 84.1 85.7 81.6 87.4 82.3 82.7

North Dakota 84.2 86.5 87.1 83.9 84.0 84.8 89.5 85.7

Ohio 66.4 70.4 67.4 65.5 66.8 75.4 73.5 73.0

Oklahoma 79.6 79.9 84.7 79.7 80.8 73.5 83.6 72.3

Oregon 74.9 76.9 67.2 74.5 78.2 68.8 75.6 84.3

Pennsylvania 67.1 68.3 69.8 69.3 64.3 66.4 67.2 72.0

Rhode Island 72.7 62.5 72.1 59.6 69.3 65.8 63.3 61.5

South Carolina 61.1 55.3 58.2 63.3 70.5 75.6 76.4 78.1

South Dakota 78.0 90.0 93.8 79.3 84.0 86.7 83.3 89.5

Tennessee 85.8 82.4 76.2 81.9 86.3 82.9 87.8 84.3

Texas 82.4 71.7 76.9 74.3 70.3 67.0 73.6 75.4

Utah 67.5 63.7 62.3 58.9 62.8 63.7 66.9 64.6

Vermont 78.4 87.9 88.8 94.8 85.3 85.3 92.7 85.1

Virginia 66.1 74.2 74.5 77.5 69.0 70.1 71.2 67.7

Washington 47.3 52.2 56.6 49.0 51.0 53.7 53.1 50.7

West Virginia 77.6 77.1 79.4 74.3 73.0 79.3 75.9 76.9

Wisconsin 81.5 85.1 81.0 75.3 83.3 83.2 79.1 77.2

Wyoming 87.0 89.9 83.6 88.6 84.9 88.5 88.0 88.4

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

127

Table A.31. Percentage of Elderly Participants in SNAP Units with Other Unearned Income by State 

and Year 

Elderly Participants in Units with Other Unearned Income (Percent of Elderly 

Participants)a

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 24.4 23.3 22.3 20.4 20.0 21.2 19.9 21.5

Alabama 20.3 16.9 16.0 16.0 15.4 17.9 8.7 13.4

Alaska 91.2 83.3 81.3 81.4 81.6 83.1 88.9 83.4

Arizona 24.8 22.5 24.9 15.9 19.3 15.4 16.0 20.0

Arkansas 23.9 18.0 17.6 16.7 11.7 12.3 14.6 12.9

California 63.5 37.5 48.9 38.3 44.7 50.9 40.8 22.9

Colorado 77.2 80.4 75.2 77.7 70.7 63.6 72.4 64.6

Connecticut 41.7 42.7 43.8 43.2 35.9 34.8 34.8 31.6

Delaware 22.4 11.1 20.2 22.9 17.5 27.2 26.2 18.8

District of Columbia 14.9 23.7 22.6 20.3 14.0 15.7 17.7 11.2

Florida 19.4 17.7 15.8 10.4 10.4 11.1 10.6 11.2

Georgia 27.9 19.4 19.5 19.9 16.2 15.2 12.1 21.5

Hawaii 23.4 27.6 19.4 18.8 23.1 19.5 18.3 25.2

Idaho 64.0 52.2 55.0 49.0 60.1 49.1 55.2 58.1

Illinois 39.3 37.4 36.7 36.6 29.5 29.1 28.4 25.5

Indiana 21.7 23.9 23.4 14.1 19.3 22.9 11.5 14.1

Iowa 13.4 22.3 17.6 16.1 19.4 15.9 11.8 14.0

Kansas 13.7 16.4 18.9 16.8 17.2 16.1 13.5 16.9

Kentucky 23.4 12.6 21.1 16.9 13.7 16.5 13.6 16.3

Louisiana 27.0 26.2 20.8 16.3 21.0 21.5 23.6 20.7

Maine 30.5 29.8 26.5 22.9 18.4 21.8 41.9 50.6

Maryland 15.6 13.7 14.8 19.4 15.4 15.4 15.4 10.6

Massachusetts 20.4 18.3 13.2 21.0 24.4 19.4 15.5 14.0

Michigan 18.6 16.0 16.1 17.3 18.4 20.8 55.6 49.8

Minnesota 16.7 12.9 10.5 14.0 14.6 12.4 13.9 8.2

Mississippi 18.6 20.5 21.8 15.4 13.9 13.5 13.3 14.3

Missouri 15.3 14.8 20.4 16.1 16.6 18.6 13.7 18.0

Montana 24.9 23.0 21.2 12.2 26.8 18.0 17.4 23.5

Nebraska 28.9 32.2 33.7 31.2 28.5 33.1 23.9 31.7

Nevada 18.2 15.0 13.1 9.6 15.4 20.4 14.0 16.1

New Hampshire 33.7 46.3 36.9 43.7 44.5 29.8 39.2 35.0

New Jersey 15.0 15.7 17.9 20.8 18.3 22.3 19.6 18.4

New Mexico 25.9 16.1 16.2 14.9 16.4 17.9 16.6 12.1

New York 19.5 23.7 17.1 25.7 14.5 21.6 12.4 25.6

North Carolina 19.0 30.7 17.3 16.9 17.7 21.4 15.5 12.4

North Dakota 17.5 28.0 31.2 20.5 14.4 13.1 25.1 19.8

Ohio 16.2 18.2 12.8 19.3 27.8 17.4 18.2 12.8

Oklahoma 75.8 73.2 77.2 78.6 72.3 77.8 67.2 73.6

Oregon 30.5 33.6 40.5 25.1 31.0 22.9 39.1 27.6

Pennsylvania 34.6 26.3 24.0 22.3 21.7 18.4 19.8 13.2

Rhode Island 12.1 9.5 5.5 14.2 15.2 15.3 12.5 15.8

South Carolina 17.3 15.4 15.5 15.9 16.5 11.7 10.8 13.6

South Dakota 37.5 42.4 31.7 36.0 40.8 36.9 18.3 23.1

Tennessee 29.9 27.0 26.7 14.8 21.1 20.1 17.7 14.3

Texas 20.6 16.3 24.6 12.6 12.7 15.2 11.0 17.5

Utah 14.2 11.2 18.4 16.8 12.8 14.0 11.2 11.3

Vermont 44.2 43.0 36.6 36.4 26.3 27.3 21.4 30.0

Virginia 18.0 18.2 13.7 12.0 15.3 13.6 14.8 12.9

Washington 14.3 15.7 16.1 16.1 38.8 57.4 60.8 60.4

West Virginia 19.1 15.8 17.9 16.8 15.1 17.2 16.3 19.0

Wisconsin 17.8 19.8 23.6 13.5 22.3 19.3 19.1 16.5

Wyoming 21.4 21.7 20.5 21.1 15.2 17.0 6.7 13.2

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 

a

 Other unearned income is unearned income other than SSI or Social Security.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

128

Table A.32. Average Gross Income Among Elderly SNAP Units by State and Year 

Average Gross Income Among Elderly SNAP Units ($)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 613 624 642 653 679 690 716 736

Alabama 625 628 647 690 660 730 691 706

Alaska 1,066 1,133 940 1,094 1,127 966 1,027 1,087

Arizona 580 611 627 636 656 689 679 740

Arkansas 644 625 666 661 683 680 733 733

California 420 394 464 459 537 578 495 599

Colorado 654 670 703 727 696 714 744 799

Connecticut 631 624 624 652 692 701 774 722

Delaware 529 680 620 678 647 800 730 778

District of Columbia 524 576 571 595 591 565 641 635

Florida 585 602 599 632 627 632 641 679

Georgia 604 621 635 662 685 706 689 719

Hawaii 641 631 653 630 651 671 699 706

Idaho 628 642 744 665 656 724 738 758

Illinois 603 629 622 684 652 666 698 727

Indiana 613 644 661 703 721 743 739 773

Iowa 622 621 646 700 692 730 745 746

Kansas 613 638 665 634 670 704 730 737

Kentucky 619 616 630 665 676 677 717 732

Louisiana 595 624 631 673 697 684 717 706

Maine 652 651 671 683 706 728 772 792

Maryland 598 593 603 646 647 645 706 730

Massachusetts 684 690 734 773 748 765 752 799

Michigan 614 621 668 741 748 774 802 825

Minnesota 634 606 675 655 671 677 716 731

Mississippi 611 594 639 634 641 635 671 695

Missouri 600 621 651 666 696 712 763 843

Montana 620 598 648 656 669 675 721 744

Nebraska 633 645 654 671 703 726 713 755

Nevada 580 592 661 633 668 679 701 734

New Hampshire 644 631 644 709 692 708 743 799

New Jersey 611 612 648 667 662 685 684 714

New Mexico 635 663 643 705 704 695 719 808

New York 641 641 673 543 719 707 744 768

North Carolina 627 665 646 689 686 721 743 755

North Dakota 602 714 702 701 667 660 800 818

Ohio 580 615 584 620 675 702 712 731

Oklahoma 601 631 658 662 683 676 707 711

Oregon 591 636 657 737 778 744 818 842

Pennsylvania 603 641 656 699 678 709 753 744

Rhode Island 624 590 652 652 728 691 693 767

South Carolina 590 569 625 617 668 674 680 716

South Dakota 662 713 638 693 718 728 718 773

Tennessee 631 637 645 663 707 726 750 753

Texas 606 597 632 645 640 623 692 653

Utah 579 644 624 641 619 624 658 658

Vermont 668 653 738 738 751 758 803 811

Virginia 602 606 618 632 650 671 679 716

Washington 617 645 650 648 678 693 673 741

West Virginia 612 635 669 685 673 707 739 755

Wisconsin 734 743 746 739 795 841 888 842

Wyoming 627 625 661 740 687 733 726 704

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

129

Table A.33. Average SSI Income Among Elderly SNAP Units with SSI by State and Year 

Average SSI Income Among Elderly SNAP Units with SSI ($)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 198 216 212 201 217 211 217 218

Alabama 174 150 163 168 161 186 161 200

Alaska 107 131 118 180 78 92 153 123

Arizona 206 227 180 204 176 192 186 181

Arkansas 143 128 140 148 133 139 151 153

Californiaa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Colorado 173 184 212 165 164 157 208 196

Connecticut 197 182 225 234 247 268 237 225

Delaware 143 125 159 117 167 134 135 122

District of Columbia 180 158 176 107 146 128 157 169

Florida 218 247 216 235 231 229 236 269

Georgia 139 166 143 152 165 157 133 137

Hawaii 250 228 240 252 231 252 238 267

Idaho 130 168 136 118 167 145 162 120

Illinois 255 283 249 234 293 235 226 264

Indiana 138 137 111 99 89 139 116 126

Iowa 162 131 143 177 154 155 131 140

Kansas 140 128 132 129 182 144 139 153

Kentucky 166 247 205 199 198 198 189 227

Louisiana 153 210 208 170 142 148 203 192

Maine 76 98 98 118 115 89 113 81

Maryland 222 231 221 242 254 208 240 290

Massachusetts 315 334 350 349 314 377 357 392

Michigan 171 148 155 181 206 124 168 121

Minnesota 228 260 250 310 282 278 265 383

Mississippi 163 181 178 221 183 180 205 190

Missouri 125 141 172 161 122 167 183 134

Montana 99 130 129 136 121 136 128 136

Nebraska 115 119 146 137 85 102 146 150

Nevada 152 169 197 182 182 187 161 249

New Hampshire 107 114 97 95 138 105 127 101

New Jersey 224 259 235 270 289 259 279 269

New Mexico 168 158 166 178 174 159 140 198

New York 299 326 362 270 374 360 403 334

North Carolina 130 134 155 144 142 110 146 138

North Dakota 115 125 100 111 126 135 108 101

Ohio 178 192 214 211 197 190 180 200

Oklahoma 161 158 131 171 140 190 139 198

Oregon 138 141 142 110 131 144 152 106

Pennsylvania 193 238 196 208 250 237 243 259

Rhode Island 203 253 224 241 236 228 268 289

South Carolina 244 261 282 222 194 189 191 186

South Dakota 150 98 95 132 112 87 100 86

Tennessee 124 133 168 130 116 127 102 122

Texas 196 237 186 226 219 222 180 189

Utah 190 228 219 233 182 193 191 242

Vermont 129 72 57 84 142 100 100 132

Virginia 209 166 189 166 201 169 200 212

Washington 310 283 235 312 266 264 225 287

West Virginia 172 195 187 211 199 200 216 214

Wisconsin 167 145 161 181 120 143 179 163

Wyoming 67 73 146 28 166 104 137 107

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 

a In California, SSI recipients are ineligible for SNAP.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

130

Table A.34. Average Social Security Income Among Elderly SNAP Units with Social Security by 

State and Year 

Average Social Security Income Among Elderly SNAP Units with Social Security ($)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 355 357 374 385 393 414 431 447

Alabama 417 416 439 459 458 485 490 458

Alaska 381 437 380 375 576 418 395 557

Arizona 281 304 368 364 375 392 422 407

Arkansas 443 447 477 476 474 508 528 527

California 123 216 226 164 221 260 279 453

Colorado 363 347 357 398 389 396 381 431

Connecticut 352 356 313 312 349 370 414 393

Delaware 337 510 412 478 404 545 517 574

District of Columbia 288 314 298 379 352 383 365 402

Florida 320 326 349 359 347 360 365 365

Georgia 410 407 439 446 438 488 505 523

Hawaii 268 310 337 314 339 330 361 355

Idaho 443 416 511 455 431 505 470 511

Illinois 273 292 296 374 310 350 390 412

Indiana 419 469 508 562 591 517 582 585

Iowa 417 436 464 464 468 495 556 526

Kansas 437 468 484 451 436 484 538 517

Kentucky 391 333 375 402 435 437 476 440

Louisiana 395 348 370 388 475 461 419 433

Maine 521 508 533 514 546 607 581 649

Maryland 321 316 332 320 322 359 389 333

Massachusetts 320 296 338 316 345 318 335 345

Michigan 390 429 458 474 432 595 538 614

Minnesota 350 302 388 308 328 355 392 306

Mississippi 418 375 406 380 429 431 429 463

Missouri 442 438 427 445 527 466 551 636

Montana 481 382 468 482 469 473 502 503

Nebraska 463 488 471 490 546 551 508 496

Nevada 382 381 409 420 421 419 481 415

New Hampshire 461 468 488 546 499 524 547 654

New Jersey 337 301 366 349 306 343 321 392

New Mexico 385 441 405 431 434 438 493 504

New York 279 264 258 195 284 288 296 356

North Carolina 452 477 449 512 499 559 527 527

North Dakota 410 470 520 506 503 493 605 606

Ohio 347 375 341 343 403 464 450 472

Oklahoma 385 404 457 415 458 427 500 431

Oregon 401 453 422 517 579 520 563 660

Pennsylvania 348 360 422 419 374 422 435 439

Rhode Island 377 313 412 355 438 378 380 428

South Carolina 291 266 291 358 390 454 454 481

South Dakota 413 543 495 439 488 526 566 624

Tennessee 451 456 424 493 534 527 594 573

Texas 370 308 368 367 346 341 436 399

Utah 318 367 327 324 369 377 417 378

Vermont 463 517 611 598 562 602 653 589

Virginia 338 392 387 420 393 449 444 434

Washington 265 323 349 294 335 367 345 359

West Virginia 384 381 423 391 419 457 469 480

Wisconsin 510 545 511 496 571 630 604 619

Wyoming 469 495 446 587 498 583 571 558

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

131

Table A.35. Average Other Unearned Income Among Elderly SNAP Units with Other Unearned 

Income by State and Year 

Average Other Unearned Income Among Elderly Units with Other Unearned Income 

($)a

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 45 40 42 46 44 47 44 44

Alabama 28 38 36 52 34 28 26 34

Alaska 528 377 401 448 395 360 385 353

Arizona 59 54 62 50 65 51 61 55

Arkansas 40 33 38 27 28 17 30 23

California 224 146 161 162 192 258 170 73

Colorado 102 116 124 147 120 130 139 131

Connecticut 73 79 85 99 76 58 99 74

Delaware 48 29 49 59 52 77 48 52

District of Columbia 55 91 87 98 64 47 67 47

Florida 27 19 21 17 24 24 28 31

Georgia 42 30 42 41 39 41 28 43

Hawaii 68 53 40 46 68 54 62 49

Idaho 48 42 92 39 42 46 71 56

Illinois 55 40 60 47 33 53 54 39

Indiana 40 30 35 24 37 60 25 31

Iowa 30 43 33 27 50 40 23 41

Kansas 24 39 46 44 36 47 36 54

Kentucky 49 21 40 39 31 37 30 44

Louisiana 43 52 47 67 44 50 78 71

Maine 44 34 31 39 39 21 61 59

Maryland 46 32 43 65 42 43 50 51

Massachusetts 45 47 42 82 75 59 45 45

Michigan 36 38 43 54 52 39 69 56

Minnesota 43 26 24 30 33 28 43 25

Mississippi 22 31 40 27 24 16 16 24

Missouri 27 30 28 47 31 66 20 59

Montana 30 42 33 24 49 53 49 76

Nebraska 28 32 24 41 48 60 43 84

Nevada 41 35 31 29 44 66 44 66

New Hampshire 43 49 59 52 32 67 46 42

New Jersey 30 37 43 43 50 68 45 42

New Mexico 71 49 57 59 51 48 51 67

New York 50 49 37 72 39 52 26 45

North Carolina 28 44 35 26 32 38 34 48

North Dakota 48 47 53 53 20 28 51 49

Ohio 39 44 20 47 62 44 53 40

Oklahoma 53 58 54 73 67 54 55 55

Oregon 38 28 69 33 47 50 71 31

Pennsylvania 58 33 30 51 39 41 45 29

Rhode Island 31 25 12 42 52 47 33 45

South Carolina 33 30 25 26 34 21 29 32

South Dakota 28 71 30 78 109 115 51 61

Tennessee 52 44 45 21 44 55 37 31

Texas 20 32 39 25 36 30 30 29

Utah 53 22 49 45 47 38 19 29

Vermont 63 49 46 52 30 31 29 58

Virginia 31 31 37 26 30 27 29 26

Washington 33 34 50 39 65 56 96 89

West Virginia 51 45 46 69 47 41 45 60

Wisconsin 47 49 57 43 59 53 63 43

Wyoming 30 46 34 81 23 27 18 34

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 

a Other unearned income is unearned income other than SSI or Social Security.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

132

Table A.36. Elderly SNAP Participants by Receipt of Income Deductions and Average Deduction by 

Year 

Elderly SNAP 

Participants

Elderly Participants Receiving Deduction

Medical Shelter SSI CAP or MFIPa

Number (000s)

Fiscal year 2000 1,626 228 960 0

Fiscal year 2001 1,562 201 925 0

Fiscal year 2002 1,575 217 944 0

Fiscal year 2003 1,689 263 1,186 0

Fiscal year 2004 1,918 286 1,347 191

Fiscal year 2005 2,045 307 1,420 225

Fiscal year 2006 2,226 328 1,587 232

Fiscal year 2007 2,263 299 1,626 288

Percent of Elderly SNAP Participants

Fiscal year 2000 100.0 14.0 59.0 0.0

Fiscal year 2001 100.0 12.9 59.3 0.0

Fiscal year 2002 100.0 13.7 60.0 0.0

Fiscal year 2003 100.0 15.6 70.3 0.0

Fiscal year 2004 100.0 14.9 70.3 10.0

Fiscal year 2005 100.0 15.0 69.5 11.0

Fiscal year 2006 100.0 14.8 71.3 10.4

Fiscal year 2007 100.0 13.2 71.8 12.7

Standard Error of Percentage

Fiscal year 2000 0.4 0.8 -

Fiscal year 2001 0.5 1.3 -

Fiscal year 2002 0.5 1.1 -

Fiscal year 2003 0.5 0.7 -

Fiscal year 2004 0.5 0.7 0.5

Fiscal year 2005 0.5 0.8 0.6

Fiscal year 2006 0.6 0.7 0.5

Fiscal year 2007 0.6 0.7 0.6

Average Deduction Among Units with 

Deduction ($)

Fiscal year 2000 282.5 112.6 214.5 0.0

Fiscal year 2001 287.5 117.9 225.0 0.0

Fiscal year 2002 308.2 124.5 251.5 0.0

Fiscal year 2003 312.1 116.0 213.9 0.0

Fiscal year 2004 363.2 135.8 254.8 0.0

Fiscal year 2005 360.4 146.8 254.4 0.0

Fiscal year 2006 384.7 133.8 286.1 0.0

Fiscal year 2007 412.6 163.3 308.4 0.0

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 

a

 Deductions are not used to calculate benefit levels for these units eligible through an SSI CAP or 

Minnesota's FIP. 
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

133

Table A.37. Percentage of Elderly Participants in SNAP Units with a Medical Expense Deduction by 

State and Year 

Elderly Participants in Units with a Medical Deduction (Percent of Elderly 

Participants)a

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 14.0 12.9 13.7 15.6 14.9 15.0 14.8 13.2

Alabama 28.1 28.4 34.7 34.3 37.6 30.2 31.1 19.7

Alaska 12.3 0.0 0.0 4.8 2.3 7.7 2.2 8.8

Arizona 7.9 11.1 10.2 17.1 20.0 11.4 10.9 8.5

Arkansas 21.1 23.3 23.2 25.7 17.9 24.5 24.0 11.7

California 3.4 8.9 1.6 4.2 11.0 16.4 5.0 10.5

Colorado 8.5 10.1 14.1 8.9 10.0 10.7 9.1 8.7

Connecticut 0.6 2.2 2.1 3.9 5.6 5.5 6.5 3.0

Delaware 1.4 11.1 10.8 16.9 13.5 11.9 16.6 8.4

District of Columbia 7.5 7.6 9.9 12.5 13.7 12.9 6.3 7.9

Florida 4.8 1.9 4.6 2.9 2.8 3.4 1.4 2.7

Georgia 23.6 16.0 22.6 29.8 16.6 27.6 23.9 14.6

Hawaii 5.5 5.3 6.1 7.5 4.5 5.4 6.3 4.9

Idaho 14.1 21.7 17.2 15.0 9.1 23.0 16.7 14.0

Illinois 9.0 10.3 10.9 6.6 5.6 10.8 10.2 6.1

Indiana 28.8 29.6 34.3 45.5 44.9 37.5 35.1 22.9

Iowa 24.2 25.5 22.9 17.6 25.4 21.2 24.5 16.1

Kansas 19.9 21.9 21.2 27.1 12.4 25.2 23.1 19.6

Kentucky 21.3 13.5 15.6 18.4 18.7 26.2 17.5 19.0

Louisiana 32.5 23.4 26.3 29.2 40.2 28.9 41.8 26.5

Maine 11.9 12.0 11.3 16.9 13.1 21.8 15.7 9.8

Maryland 7.0 11.1 9.1 13.3 7.1 10.3 7.4 7.6

Massachusetts 3.0 8.3 6.0 12.8 12.0 5.0 4.5 6.4

Michigan 16.0 10.6 16.6 17.6 19.0 29.1 17.8 23.3

Minnesota 9.2 6.2 3.9 6.3 4.2 5.0 6.7 2.1

Mississippi 15.7 10.5 12.7 9.3 5.4 9.3 6.0 7.7

Missouri 27.9 31.4 30.4 37.4 24.9 30.1 28.1 32.2

Montana 24.9 23.8 21.3 23.7 30.4 35.7 30.0 17.2

Nebraska 19.9 14.1 16.6 17.4 20.5 27.5 20.7 19.0

Nevada 4.5 5.2 3.8 3.4 10.9 5.7 7.8 10.8

New Hampshire 28.8 11.4 28.3 41.4 26.6 25.7 22.2 31.1

New Jersey 6.8 4.1 5.6 12.3 5.8 3.1 5.3 5.2

New Mexico 8.9 12.7 10.2 14.2 14.0 7.1 11.4 6.0

New York 6.4 5.7 5.8 11.2 14.2 9.1 12.0 12.4

North Carolina 20.4 18.4 23.7 21.4 26.5 20.5 16.6 16.6

North Dakota 35.1 36.1 48.1 46.5 43.2 43.4 43.3 41.3

Ohio 23.5 23.8 17.0 18.7 24.1 23.1 15.8 15.0

Oklahoma 8.4 7.7 9.8 14.1 10.4 5.0 6.3 5.3

Oregon 25.2 31.7 27.9 34.7 31.1 30.9 36.0 37.4

Pennsylvania 10.3 5.9 7.8 11.0 8.1 12.8 14.2 14.4

Rhode Island 7.5 3.5 5.1 6.0 13.8 7.8 5.0 9.0

South Carolina 11.4 9.5 12.3 9.8 6.2 15.2 8.3 14.7

South Dakota 29.5 39.0 30.8 30.5 33.0 24.4 23.8 29.1

Tennessee 14.6 14.2 14.3 10.7 8.8 10.8 9.0 13.2

Texas 21.9 24.7 22.4 15.3 17.7 8.9 20.4 14.2

Utah 6.5 9.4 10.7 3.7 11.0 9.8 6.8 6.4

Vermont 16.9 15.1 21.0 18.2 24.8 26.3 26.7 28.7

Virginia 14.7 20.7 19.5 18.6 11.1 17.6 14.8 8.7

Washington 5.3 5.5 4.8 6.3 11.6 10.0 9.7 9.6

West Virginia 19.8 16.8 20.7 17.8 14.5 21.5 16.9 10.7

Wisconsin 29.6 22.4 22.1 19.2 25.8 33.1 30.1 29.6

Wyoming 30.8 32.8 14.5 20.8 20.3 21.3 20.5 20.3

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 

a Deductions are not used to calculate benefit levels for units eligible through an SSI CAP or Minnesota's 

FIP.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

134

Table A.38. Percentage of Elderly Participants in SNAP Units with an Excess Shelter Expense 

Deduction by State and Year 

Elderly Participants in Units with a Shelter Deduction (Percent of Elderly 

Participants)a

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 59.0 59.3 60.0 70.3 70.3 69.5 71.3 71.8

Alabama 60.6 59.9 59.7 77.3 81.9 65.9 70.8 81.5

Alaska 23.7 50.9 31.8 21.7 39.4 58.7 52.9 45.9

Arizona 63.1 58.9 57.7 70.9 72.0 69.5 78.8 82.6

Arkansas 46.2 46.0 50.5 53.8 57.2 71.3 64.2 64.5

California 71.4 54.5 80.1 45.6 80.8 63.5 59.6 76.2

Colorado 47.5 53.7 51.9 60.0 73.6 78.9 78.2 79.1

Connecticut 57.9 59.8 50.8 53.9 79.2 81.0 79.3 78.8

Delaware 64.5 62.1 58.4 74.9 82.0 81.0 85.2 74.3

District of Columbia 52.6 44.3 50.4 48.7 65.8 54.2 54.2 60.5

Florida 70.7 72.0 69.5 76.5 84.9 80.3 80.5 84.9

Georgia 51.8 51.4 46.7 76.9 80.2 74.3 85.5 89.3

Hawaii 50.0 57.7 59.1 58.5 54.8 56.6 53.7 56.9

Idaho 41.5 24.0 53.9 80.6 82.2 88.0 79.0 80.6

Illinois 62.0 53.4 64.6 83.1 91.0 88.9 83.5 94.4

Indiana 46.9 48.7 52.4 86.6 85.6 79.6 78.3 82.0

Iowa 44.4 46.2 46.0 67.1 79.9 77.7 83.5 79.4

Kansas 57.0 55.0 61.6 70.3 76.7 81.4 73.8 75.8

Kentucky 32.2 37.6 41.1 61.8 77.0 79.3 76.0 69.1

Louisiana 62.7 66.2 69.5 82.8 89.8 91.0 90.5 70.0

Maine 71.3 66.6 65.2 73.6 92.5 91.3 92.2 92.6

Maryland 58.6 59.1 69.3 67.4 78.0 80.8 73.3 71.2

Massachusetts 62.9 63.4 54.0 71.5 82.7 71.5 87.5 83.2

Michigan 76.8 76.8 82.1 83.0 81.8 80.1 89.8 84.4

Minnesota 31.3 38.9 44.8 63.8 63.3 63.1 73.4 69.6

Mississippi 32.2 34.1 34.2 65.9 33.8 39.8 43.5 42.4

Missouri 60.7 62.0 56.9 76.7 74.1 71.0 68.9 59.4

Montana 75.0 52.4 47.0 56.3 78.0 72.5 80.2 74.7

Nebraska 56.3 64.4 58.7 46.4 60.7 56.1 69.4 69.8

Nevada 76.9 76.6 79.0 83.5 77.6 85.2 86.2 84.0

New Hampshire 62.0 65.6 61.4 67.6 70.8 76.2 71.9 80.7

New Jersey 70.1 70.6 72.8 75.4 75.9 81.9 82.0 84.6

New Mexico 32.5 35.6 35.7 53.7 57.9 65.1 67.7 64.5

New York 83.5 82.8 85.8 70.9 51.2 45.9 55.3 60.8

North Carolina 40.1 41.6 49.1 73.4 78.0 73.8 76.3 57.1

North Dakota 62.2 55.2 75.5 68.6 88.4 89.1 84.9 83.4

Ohio 43.1 54.8 49.3 71.4 73.8 75.5 79.2 76.3

Oklahoma 35.3 45.6 42.8 53.7 58.3 55.8 70.4 61.9

Oregon 43.9 49.8 43.1 90.9 86.8 85.5 76.7 82.4

Pennsylvania 58.9 50.6 51.4 78.5 81.2 80.7 85.4 81.4

Rhode Island 45.2 49.8 52.0 49.4 57.3 57.9 64.0 84.9

South Carolina 63.3 59.4 48.2 57.7 39.7 53.4 35.7 60.5

South Dakota 60.5 61.7 82.7 75.0 84.5 77.1 87.5 82.6

Tennessee 40.1 47.4 44.0 56.8 66.3 68.4 66.2 74.4

Texas 52.5 47.6 42.6 58.9 43.9 51.7 50.6 45.9

Utah 53.1 56.3 48.1 66.9 64.4 55.6 70.1 67.7

Vermont 65.7 71.0 68.4 84.0 90.2 96.7 92.0 93.0

Virginia 44.1 49.8 46.3 61.8 66.3 64.6 65.2 67.5

Washington 51.0 47.4 52.2 88.1 91.3 94.8 92.4 91.9

West Virginia 63.9 59.7 64.1 57.2 67.0 65.0 74.9 66.9

Wisconsin 34.3 42.4 44.6 63.0 70.7 67.5 73.5 70.4

Wyoming 42.0 40.4 27.7 61.7 70.5 80.4 85.9 77.7

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 

a Deductions are not used to calculate benefit levels for units eligible through an SSI CAP or Minnesota's 

FIP.
Appendix A Mathematica Policy Research 

135

Table A.39. Average Shelter Expense Deduction Among Elderly SNAP Units with Deduction by 

State and Year 

Average Shelter Expense Deduction Among Elderly SNAP Units with Deduction ($)

FY 

2000

FY 

2001

FY 

2002

FY 

2003

FY 

2004

FY 

2005

FY 

2006

FY 

2007

United States 214 225 251 214 255 254 286 308

Alabama 131 145 152 159 171 158 159 176

Alaska 209 142 203 143 181 352 226 363

Arizona 191 204 203 228 266 245 320 285

Arkansas 112 107 131 123 131 145 155 142

California 155 200 172 256 354 241 324 365

Colorado 169 183 255 214 214 322 333 372

Connecticut 216 218 230 249 289 331 373 418

Delaware 161 209 197 233 266 290 306 372

District of Columbia 240 263 178 192 213 253 238 235

Florida 198 199 207 220 247 234 251 282

Georgia 140 155 138 176 209 191 265 273

Hawaii 120 149 146 138 155 168 190 194

Idaho 130 177 161 189 165 255 268 236

Illinois 209 202 232 252 236 271 297 285

Indiana 130 186 170 258 289 312 281 309

Iowa 120 131 141 177 181 209 227 251

Kansas 124 132 116 134 175 186 179 206

Kentucky 112 129 116 141 164 178 196 203

Louisiana 151 158 192 225 237 193 216 203

Maine 216 236 272 300 276 252 308 302

Maryland 226 190 194 191 226 248 247 248

Massachusetts 265 253 442 293 374 339 337 367

Michigan 178 203 259 313 347 344 407 484

Minnesota 155 166 186 176 199 220 194 216

Mississippi 111 129 114 150 159 142 173 201

Missouri 133 118 172 169 183 163 161 186

Montana 178 156 162 204 225 253 271 287

Nebraska 128 143 150 140 166 184 195 201

Nevada 204 191 229 276 194 252 246 303

New Hampshire 228 239 246 220 240 339 372 354

New Jersey 246 262 313 449 287 299 314 388

New Mexico 172 192 149 175 160 193 196 201

New York 406 439 508 227 532 520 500 560

North Carolina 131 153 167 164 166 184 184 232

North Dakota 171 171 219 241 269 319 340 421

Ohio 168 184 174 247 292 290 397 314

Oklahoma 116 121 127 115 159 144 166 153

Oregon 141 168 165 238 228 255 279 277

Pennsylvania 154 183 188 244 260 298 342 346

Rhode Island 218 244 236 297 342 313 413 452

South Carolina 106 109 115 130 173 157 206 191

South Dakota 194 206 238 284 241 322 346 421

Tennessee 107 159 149 147 175 190 186 193

Texas 163 139 154 166 183 176 220 255

Utah 159 165 172 208 205 198 231 263

Vermont 234 256 278 296 305 347 442 466

Virginia 142 157 152 142 181 167 181 213

Washington 156 171 165 248 254 227 244 220

West Virginia 144 132 140 137 158 165 158 184

Wisconsin 142 179 153 168 183 191 243 225

Wyoming 114 111 112 184 217 221 263 261

Sources: Revised FY 2000–2004 SNAP QC data files and FY 2005–2007 SNAP QC data files. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
APPENDIX B 

TABLES SHOWING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS 

ELIGIBLE FOR SNAP, FISCAL YEAR 2009 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

139

Table B.1. All SNAP-Eligible Individuals and Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by State, 2009 

All SNAP-Eligible 

Individuals

Individuals in Units 

with Eligible Elderly

Eligible Elderly 

Individuals Percent of 

Eligible 

Individuals Age 

60 or Over

Number

(000s) Percent

Number

(000s) Percent

Number

(000s) Percent

United States 53,288 100.0 10,063 100.0 8,622 100.0 16.2

Alabama 888 1.7 154 1.5 128 1.5 14.4

Alaska 122 0.2 13 0.1 11 0.1 9.0

Arizona 1,754 3.3 334 3.3 287 3.3 16.3

Arkansas 522 1.0 96 1.0 80 0.9 15.3

California 5,176 9.7 417 4.1 338 3.9 6.5

Colorado 586 1.1 84 0.8 73 0.8 12.4

Connecticut 428 0.8 81 0.8 73 0.8 17.1

Delaware 191 0.4 47 0.5 41 0.5 21.4

District of Columbia 113 0.2 19 0.2 17 0.2 14.7

Florida 2,436 4.6 513 5.1 436 5.1 17.9

Georgia 1,966 3.7 469 4.7 404 4.7 20.5

Hawaii 188 0.4 45 0.5 37 0.4 19.6

Idaho 197 0.4 27 0.3 22 0.3 11.3

Illinois 1,705 3.2 270 2.7 229 2.7 13.4

Indiana 959 1.8 131 1.3 112 1.3 11.7

Iowa 361 0.7 59 0.6 52 0.6 14.3

Kansas 354 0.7 56 0.6 48 0.6 13.6

Kentucky 799 1.5 135 1.3 115 1.3 14.3

Louisiana 894 1.7 163 1.6 134 1.6 15.0

Maine 265 0.5 41 0.4 33 0.4 12.6

Maryland 900 1.7 135 1.3 109 1.3 12.1

Massachusetts 949 1.8 217 2.2 190 2.2 20.1

Michigan 2,712 5.1 558 5.5 485 5.6 17.9

Minnesota 539 1.0 138 1.4 121 1.4 22.4

Mississippi 665 1.2 127 1.3 100 1.2 15.0

Missouri 828 1.6 134 1.3 115 1.3 13.8

Montana 145 0.3 24 0.2 21 0.2 14.4

Nebraska 207 0.4 35 0.3 31 0.4 14.8

Nevada 336 0.6 61 0.6 52 0.6 15.3

New Hampshire 101 0.2 23 0.2 21 0.2 20.5

New Jersey 846 1.6 169 1.7 145 1.7 17.2

New Mexico 389 0.7 65 0.6 55 0.6 14.0

New York 4,287 8.0 1,203 12.0 1,058 12.3 24.7

North Carolina 1,470 2.8 257 2.6 217 2.5 14.7

North Dakota 131 0.2 28 0.3 26 0.3 19.6

Ohio 1,706 3.2 264 2.6 228 2.6 13.4

Oklahoma 609 1.1 109 1.1 92 1.1 15.1

Oregon 988 1.9 207 2.1 180 2.1 18.3

Pennsylvania 2,490 4.7 796 7.9 704 8.2 28.3

Rhode Island 159 0.3 25 0.3 22 0.3 13.9

South Carolina 1,271 2.4 318 3.2 273 3.2 21.5

South Dakota 108 0.2 22 0.2 20 0.2 18.2

Tennessee 1,074 2.0 194 1.9 160 1.9 14.9

Texas 6,004 11.3 877 8.7 722 8.4 12.0

Utah 271 0.5 27 0.3 21 0.2 7.8

Vermont 126 0.2 32 0.3 29 0.3 22.9

Virginia 846 1.6 158 1.6 134 1.6 15.9

Washington 1,467 2.8 309 3.1 274 3.2 18.7

West Virginia 334 0.6 77 0.8 64 0.7 19.1

Wisconsin 1,363 2.6 309 3.1 277 3.2 20.3

Wyoming 58 0.1 10 0.1 9 0.1 15.6

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

140

Table B.2. Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by Age Cohort and State, 2009 

Eligible Elderly

Individuals 

(Number in 000s)

Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by Age (Row Percent)

60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74 75 to 79

80 or 

Older

United States 8,622 22.5 17.8 18.0 16.2 25.5

Alabama 128 24.5 19.4 18.6 15.3 22.2

Alaska 11 25.0 18.4 17.2 15.2 24.1

Arizona 287 20.1 17.6 17.5 17.8 27.0

Arkansas 80 26.2 19.8 18.2 14.7 21.1

California 338 35.6 16.0 17.9 11.5 19.1

Colorado 73 25.3 18.6 18.6 14.5 22.9

Connecticut 73 23.3 17.3 18.8 16.3 24.4

Delaware 41 18.7 17.8 17.6 17.6 28.3

District of Columbia 17 24.2 19.8 19.7 15.3 21.0

Florida 436 25.1 18.6 18.9 14.8 22.6

Georgia 404 20.2 18.0 17.8 17.3 26.8

Hawaii 37 24.2 18.3 20.2 13.8 23.5

Idaho 22 26.3 19.8 18.0 13.3 22.5

Illinois 229 24.6 18.5 18.5 14.9 23.6

Indiana 112 24.8 19.2 17.7 15.0 23.2

Iowa 52 25.4 18.3 18.3 13.7 24.3

Kansas 48 25.7 18.9 18.2 13.6 23.6

Kentucky 115 24.5 18.8 18.1 14.8 23.7

Louisiana 134 25.6 19.7 18.4 14.8 21.4

Maine 33 23.4 18.8 18.3 14.9 24.6

Maryland 109 25.7 19.8 18.3 14.5 21.7

Massachusetts 190 22.7 16.6 17.5 16.6 26.6

Michigan 485 18.4 16.9 17.6 17.6 29.4

Minnesota 121 21.2 17.2 17.8 16.8 27.0

Mississippi 100 25.0 19.4 18.6 15.7 21.4

Missouri 115 24.7 19.2 18.0 14.5 23.6

Montana 21 25.2 18.6 18.3 13.4 24.4

Nebraska 31 25.7 18.2 18.2 13.7 24.1

Nevada 52 25.3 18.8 18.6 14.4 22.9

New Hampshire 21 21.9 18.1 18.3 15.4 26.3

New Jersey 145 24.2 19.1 19.0 14.6 23.1

New Mexico 55 25.2 17.7 18.7 16.1 22.3

New York 1,058 19.9 17.3 17.6 17.2 28.0

North Carolina 217 24.5 19.0 18.7 15.3 22.5

North Dakota 26 23.1 15.7 16.9 16.3 28.0

Ohio 228 23.9 18.6 17.9 15.2 24.5

Oklahoma 92 25.0 19.5 18.5 14.6 22.5

Oregon 180 19.8 16.6 17.0 17.5 29.1

Pennsylvania 704 18.6 16.8 17.5 17.7 29.4

Rhode Island 22 23.9 18.1 18.6 15.3 24.1

South Carolina 273 19.9 17.6 18.2 17.7 26.5

South Dakota 20 24.1 18.6 18.4 14.3 24.5

Tennessee 160 24.9 19.6 18.3 14.9 22.3

Texas 722 23.4 18.3 18.4 17.6 22.3

Utah 21 28.2 19.4 17.1 12.8 22.4

Vermont 29 19.5 15.8 16.7 17.9 30.2

Virginia 134 25.8 19.6 18.3 14.3 22.0

Washington 274 19.1 16.4 17.4 17.5 29.7

West Virginia 64 24.9 18.4 17.4 14.9 24.3

Wisconsin 277 17.7 16.2 17.5 17.8 30.8

Wyoming 9 25.0 18.2 18.5 13.6 24.7

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

141

Table B.3. Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by Type of Eligibility and State, 2009 

Eligible Elderly

Individuals

(Number in 

000s)

Elderly by Mutually Exclusive Type of Eligibility (Row Percent)

Pass Income and

Asset Tests

Categorically Eligiblea

All Pure PA Other

United States 8,622 68.0 32.0 0.6 31.4

Alabama 128 99.4 0.6 0.6 0.0

Alaska 11 99.1 0.9 0.9 0.0

Arizona 287 43.9 56.1 0.5 55.7

Arkansas 80 99.2 0.8 0.8 0.0

California 338 98.3 1.7 1.7 0.0

Colorado 73 97.7 2.3 2.3 0.0

Connecticut 73 99.4 0.6 0.6 0.0

Delaware 41 37.7 62.3 0.2 62.1

District of Columbia 17 99.3 0.7 0.7 0.0

Florida 436 98.9 1.1 1.1 0.0

Georgia 404 42.2 57.8 0.2 57.6

Hawaii 37 99.5 0.5 0.5 0.0

Idaho 22 98.9 1.1 1.1 0.0

Illinois 229 99.3 0.7 0.7 0.0

Indiana 112 99.5 0.5 0.5 0.0

Iowa 52 99.4 0.6 0.6 0.0

Kansas 48 99.2 0.8 0.8 0.0

Kentucky 115 99.5 0.5 0.5 0.0

Louisiana 134 99.4 0.6 0.6 0.0

Maine 33 96.7 3.3 0.4 2.9

Maryland 109 96.2 3.8 0.7 3.1

Massachusetts 190 63.3 36.7 0.7 36.0

Michigan 485 38.8 61.2 0.2 61.0

Minnesota 121 50.9 49.1 0.2 49.0

Mississippi 100 99.3 0.7 0.7 0.0

Missouri 115 99.3 0.7 0.7 0.0

Montana 21 99.4 0.6 0.6 0.0

Nebraska 31 99.3 0.7 0.7 0.0

Nevada 52 98.9 1.1 1.1 0.0

New Hampshire 21 99.4 0.6 0.6 0.0

New Jersey 145 98.8 1.2 1.2 0.0

New Mexico 55 98.4 1.6 1.6 0.0

New York 1,058 47.1 52.9 0.5 52.4

North Carolina 217 99.2 0.8 0.8 0.0

North Dakota 26 56.8 43.2 0.2 42.9

Ohio 228 99.5 0.5 0.5 0.0

Oklahoma 92 99.1 0.9 0.9 0.0

Oregon 180 39.9 60.1 0.3 59.8

Pennsylvania 704 37.4 62.6 0.2 62.4

Rhode Island 22 99.1 0.9 0.9 0.0

South Carolina 273 43.5 56.5 0.2 56.4

South Dakota 20 99.4 0.6 0.6 0.0

Tennessee 160 99.4 0.6 0.6 0.0

Texas 722 69.5 30.5 0.8 29.7

Utah 21 99.2 0.8 0.8 0.0

Vermont 29 43.5 56.5 0.2 56.4

Virginia 134 99.2 0.8 0.8 0.0

Washington 274 34.6 65.4 0.2 65.2

West Virginia 64 99.5 0.5 0.5 0.0

Wisconsin 277 32.2 67.8 0.2 67.6

Wyoming 9 99.2 0.8 0.8 0.0

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 

a

 These categorically eligible households would have failed the SNAP income and asset tests had they been 

subject to them. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

142

Table B.4. Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by FSP Unit Composition and State, 2009 

Eligible Elderly

Individuals

(Number in 

000s)

Elderly by SNAP Unit Composition (Row Percent)

Single

Elderly 

Person

Multiple

Elderly 

People

Mixed Elderly and Nonelderly

All

Elderly and Children 

under Age 18 Only

United States 8,622 59.0 29.1 11.9 0.2

Alabama 128 60.1 25.3 14.6 0.1

Alaska 11 67.9 21.0 11.0 0.3

Arizona 287 50.1 37.6 12.2 0.3

Arkansas 80 55.2 31.0 13.7 0.1

California 338 69.5 15.7 14.8 0.8

Colorado 73 67.1 21.9 11.0 0.3

Connecticut 73 74.4 17.4 8.2 0.3

Delaware 41 55.6 33.4 11.0 0.1

District of Columbia 17 77.9 11.6 10.5 0.1

Florida 436 62.1 25.8 12.1 0.2

Georgia 404 55.8 32.3 11.9 0.1

Hawaii 37 54.7 32.2 13.1 0.5

Idaho 22 56.0 29.9 14.1 0.5

Illinois 229 66.7 21.3 12.0 0.2

Indiana 112 69.3 18.8 12.0 0.2

Iowa 52 59.3 29.4 11.3 0.1

Kansas 48 66.4 23.1 10.5 0.1

Kentucky 115 57.7 29.1 13.2 0.0

Louisiana 134 53.4 30.9 15.8 0.1

Maine 33 61.3 24.4 14.2 0.3

Maryland 109 62.3 22.2 15.5 0.2

Massachusetts 190 62.1 27.3 10.5 0.3

Michigan 485 56.1 33.0 11.0 0.1

Minnesota 121 61.8 28.3 9.9 0.2

Mississippi 100 55.1 27.9 17.0 0.1

Missouri 115 64.4 22.7 12.9 0.2

Montana 21 60.6 27.2 12.2 0.5

Nebraska 31 65.6 24.2 10.3 0.5

Nevada 52 61.2 25.1 13.7 0.4

New Hampshire 21 65.2 25.2 9.6 0.1

New Jersey 145 66.1 22.2 11.7 0.2

New Mexico 55 56.5 29.3 14.2 0.7

New York 1,058 58.5 31.4 10.1 0.3

North Carolina 217 62.9 24.0 13.1 0.1

North Dakota 26 60.4 31.5 8.1 0.3

Ohio 228 68.8 19.4 11.8 0.1

Oklahoma 92 61.3 26.4 12.3 0.1

Oregon 180 55.2 34.1 10.7 0.2

Pennsylvania 704 55.0 35.1 9.9 0.1

Rhode Island 22 70.7 18.8 10.4 0.4

South Carolina 273 51.2 36.4 12.4 0.0

South Dakota 20 63.0 27.3 9.7 0.4

Tennessee 160 58.9 26.1 15.0 0.2

Texas 722 54.2 30.8 15.0 0.6

Utah 21 56.1 28.5 15.4 0.8

Vermont 29 57.0 33.4 9.6 0.1

Virginia 134 62.3 25.0 12.6 0.1

Washington 274 57.2 33.4 9.4 0.2

West Virginia 64 53.4 31.1 15.5 0.0

Wisconsin 277 57.3 34.1 8.6 0.1

Wyoming 9 62.4 26.5 11.0 0.4

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

143

Table B.5. Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by Poverty Level and State, 2009 

Eligible Elderly

Individuals

(Number in 

000s)

Elderly by Gross Income as a Percentage of Poverty (Row 

Percent)

At or Below 100% of Poverty Above 100% of Poverty

All

0 to 

75%

76% to 

100% All

101% to 

130%

Above 

130%

United States 8,622 41.7 18.7 23.0 58.3 24.8 33.5

Alabama 128 59.8 25.6 34.2 40.2 27.1 13.1

Alaska 11 55.0 17.3 37.6 45.0 30.0 15.0

Arizona 287 32.9 19.6 13.3 67.1 22.6 44.5

Arkansas 80 57.0 24.1 32.9 43.0 28.0 15.0

California 338 32.0 20.6 11.4 68.0 42.8 25.2

Colorado 73 49.1 21.3 27.8 50.9 31.7 19.1

Connecticut 73 46.9 18.6 28.4 53.1 26.7 26.4

Delaware 41 26.2 14.4 11.8 73.8 20.8 53.0

District of Columbia 17 63.7 32.1 31.6 36.3 25.0 11.3

Florida 436 56.8 27.4 29.4 43.2 27.9 15.3

Georgia 404 30.1 15.1 15.0 69.9 20.6 49.4

Hawaii 37 65.1 41.2 23.9 34.9 24.9 10.0

Idaho 22 47.9 17.7 30.2 52.1 30.9 21.2

Illinois 229 56.2 28.3 27.9 43.8 28.0 15.8

Indiana 112 52.1 28.3 23.8 47.9 28.6 19.3

Iowa 52 54.8 31.6 23.3 45.2 27.8 17.3

Kansas 48 54.0 30.9 23.1 46.0 28.3 17.6

Kentucky 115 59.8 23.6 36.2 40.2 27.5 12.7

Louisiana 134 59.8 27.6 32.3 40.2 26.6 13.6

Maine 33 45.2 16.6 28.6 54.8 28.8 26.1

Maryland 109 59.2 31.7 27.6 40.8 24.5 16.3

Massachusetts 190 43.7 16.1 27.6 56.3 30.6 25.7

Michigan 485 28.5 12.5 16.0 71.5 20.7 50.8

Minnesota 121 30.4 8.7 21.8 69.6 21.7 47.8

Mississippi 100 64.9 27.7 37.2 35.1 24.3 10.8

Missouri 115 54.0 26.1 27.9 46.0 30.6 15.4

Montana 21 46.1 25.1 21.1 53.9 31.3 22.6

Nebraska 31 54.0 24.8 29.2 46.0 29.6 16.4

Nevada 52 56.1 20.5 35.6 43.9 27.7 16.2

New Hampshire 21 50.5 22.8 27.7 49.5 27.2 22.3

New Jersey 145 56.0 11.0 44.9 44.0 25.7 18.4

New Mexico 55 59.0 28.9 30.1 41.0 25.6 15.4

New York 1,058 35.3 10.3 25.0 64.7 19.7 45.1

North Carolina 217 61.2 30.0 31.2 38.8 26.0 12.8

North Dakota 26 36.7 19.8 16.9 63.3 31.7 31.6

Ohio 228 46.1 22.9 23.2 53.9 30.4 23.5

Oklahoma 92 56.2 17.2 39.1 43.8 28.4 15.4

Oregon 180 29.0 16.0 13.0 71.0 23.8 47.3

Pennsylvania 704 27.8 9.8 18.0 72.2 21.0 51.2

Rhode Island 22 52.2 8.5 43.7 47.8 28.0 19.9

South Carolina 273 35.5 18.8 16.7 64.5 20.4 44.1

South Dakota 20 47.9 17.7 30.1 52.1 28.9 23.3

Tennessee 160 57.6 27.2 30.4 42.4 27.4 15.0

Texas 722 43.7 21.2 22.5 56.3 25.4 30.9

Utah 21 51.5 27.2 24.3 48.5 30.3 18.2

Vermont 29 29.5 11.9 17.6 70.5 22.9 47.6

Virginia 134 56.0 26.9 29.1 44.0 27.1 16.9

Washington 274 27.7 14.8 12.9 72.3 21.0 51.3

West Virginia 64 56.4 28.0 28.4 43.6 28.2 15.4

Wisconsin 277 28.2 13.2 15.0 71.8 20.4 51.5

Wyoming 9 53.2 24.6 28.6 46.8 30.8 16.0

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

144

Table B.6. Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals with SSI Income by Poverty Level and State, 2009 

Eligible Elderly in

Units with SSI

Income (Number

in 000s)

Elderly in Units with SSI Income by Gross Income as a 

Percentage of Poverty Level (Row Percent)

At or Below 100% of Poverty Above 100%

All 0 or 75% 76% to 100% of Poverty

United States 1,598 86.6 41.0 45.6 13.4

Alabama 38 89.6 61.0 28.6 10.4

Alaska 3 72.7 3.2 69.4 27.3

Arizona 29 82.0 53.7 28.2 18.0

Arkansas 23 86.9 52.7 34.2 13.1

California 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Colorado 15 67.7 26.8 40.9 32.3

Connecticut 13 79.9 3.3 76.7 20.1

Delaware 3 82.5 62.8 19.7 17.5

District of Columbia 5 92.5 75.6 16.9 7.5

Florida 130 90.6 58.7 32.0 9.4

Georgia 55 84.8 52.0 32.8 15.2

Hawaii 10 95.1 83.4 11.7 4.9

Idaho 4 86.7 7.5 79.3 13.3

Illinois 63 91.9 64.0 27.9 8.1

Indiana 16 88.6 78.3 10.3 11.4

Iowa 9 89.9 60.9 29.0 10.1

Kansas 8 90.6 73.9 16.7 9.4

Kentucky 40 86.7 48.8 37.9 13.3

Louisiana 39 89.3 56.7 32.6 10.7

Maine 6 85.7 26.6 59.1 14.3

Maryland 27 92.2 65.9 26.3 7.8

Massachusetts 46 74.9 4.2 70.7 25.1

Michigan 48 80.6 24.8 55.8 19.4

Minnesota 18 81.9 4.3 77.7 18.1

Mississippi 32 89.4 60.1 29.3 10.6

Missouri 24 89.9 65.2 24.7 10.1

Montana 3 90.3 59.9 30.3 9.7

Nebraska 5 90.6 36.7 53.9 9.4

Nevada 10 90.8 7.8 82.9 9.2

New Hampshire 2 88.1 4.0 84.1 11.9

New Jersey 46 91.2 6.8 84.5 8.8

New Mexico 17 90.9 55.7 35.2 9.1

New York 217 85.9 6.2 79.7 14.1

North Carolina 56 91.8 66.1 25.7 8.2

North Dakota 2 89.6 65.7 24.0 10.4

Ohio 44 89.7 65.6 24.1 10.3

Oklahoma 20 89.7 5.9 83.8 10.3

Oregon 17 80.7 54.1 26.6 19.3

Pennsylvania 78 81.0 5.3 75.7 19.0

Rhode Island 7 88.0 3.6 84.5 12.0

South Carolina 32 85.9 61.0 24.9 14.1

South Dakota 4 88.2 25.0 63.1 11.8

Tennessee 41 88.7 59.1 29.6 11.3

Texas 177 85.7 54.4 31.3 14.3

Utah 4 88.6 54.8 33.9 11.4

Vermont 3 76.4 4.0 72.4 23.6

Virginia 38 90.1 59.0 31.1 9.9

Washington 30 81.9 53.0 28.9 18.1

West Virginia 17 82.9 53.7 29.2 17.1

Wisconsin 21 82.3 3.4 78.9 17.7

Wyoming 1 89.8 31.9 57.9 10.2

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

145

Table B.7. Median Poverty Level of Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by State, 2009 

Median Poverty Level of Eligible Elderly

All Eligible Elderly Eligible Elderly in SNAP Units with SSI Income

United States 109 80

Alabama 90 74

Alaska 95 95

Arizona 122 74

Arkansas 93 74

California 111 -

a

Colorado 101 77

Connecticut 104 95

Delaware 133 74

District of Columbia 87 74

Florida 92 74

Georgia 129 74

Hawaii 85 70

Idaho 102 81

Illinois 93 74

Indiana 98 74

Iowa 95 74

Kansas 96 74

Kentucky 90 80

Louisiana 90 74

Maine 105 76

Maryland 89 74

Massachusetts 104 90

Michigan 131 76

Minnesota 126 82

Mississippi 88 74

Missouri 96 74

Montana 104 74

Nebraska 96 75

Nevada 93 79

New Hampshire 99 78

New Jersey 94 78

New Mexico 88 74

New York 123 85

North Carolina 89 74

North Dakota 113 74

Ohio 104 74

Oklahoma 94 80

Oregon 127 75

Pennsylvania 131 78

Rhode Island 98 81

South Carolina 121 74

South Dakota 102 76

Tennessee 92 74

Texas 107 74

Utah 98 74

Vermont 127 86

Virginia 93 74

Washington 131 74

West Virginia 93 74

Wisconsin 132 85

Wyoming 97 76

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 

a In California, SSI recipients are ineligible for SNAP. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

146

Table B.8. Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by Benefit Level and State, 2009 

Eligible Elderly

Individuals 

(Number in 

000s)

Elderly by Benefit Level (Row Percent)a

$1 to

Minimum

Above Minimum 

to $50

$51 to 

$100

$101 to 

$150

$151 or 

more

United States 8,622 36.7 10.1 13.5 9.5 30.2

Alabama 128 22.1 15.1 22.1 11.0 29.7

Alaska 11 29.7 9.6 14.2 10.2 36.2

Arizona 287 46.9 7.5 10.1 7.6 27.9

Arkansas 80 20.2 17.7 17.6 11.0 33.5

California 338 37.7 7.6 12.9 8.3 33.5

Colorado 73 22.7 12.6 19.5 10.1 35.1

Connecticut 73 17.1 9.7 12.7 17.3 43.2

Delaware 41 53.4 6.6 8.9 7.7 23.3

District of Columbia 17 25.5 15.5 22.5 11.0 25.6

Florida 436 24.6 16.3 16.4 11.6 31.1

Georgia 404 54.8 7.1 10.0 6.6 21.5

Hawaii 37 1.7 4.2 9.2 9.2 75.8

Idaho 22 21.5 11.8 16.8 10.2 39.7

Illinois 229 25.6 12.0 18.8 12.0 31.6

Indiana 112 21.2 11.5 16.4 15.9 35.0

Iowa 52 20.9 9.5 15.4 13.4 40.9

Kansas 48 24.1 11.1 18.1 11.4 35.2

Kentucky 115 22.4 12.5 20.2 12.7 32.1

Louisiana 134 18.1 14.0 20.9 10.7 36.3

Maine 33 14.0 10.0 13.6 13.5 48.9

Maryland 109 19.8 11.3 20.2 13.0 35.6

Massachusetts 190 18.2 8.4 17.4 11.0 45.0

Michigan 485 47.5 6.2 9.3 8.0 28.9

Minnesota 121 55.1 10.5 7.6 6.8 20.0

Mississippi 100 18.1 16.0 23.1 10.3 32.5

Missouri 115 26.7 12.8 19.6 10.0 31.0

Montana 21 18.8 9.6 14.1 14.2 43.2

Nebraska 31 23.4 11.5 18.1 11.2 35.8

Nevada 52 24.0 16.9 13.8 10.2 35.1

New Hampshire 21 17.5 10.1 12.6 13.8 46.0

New Jersey 145 21.4 13.5 17.9 13.8 33.3

New Mexico 55 20.0 13.1 17.9 12.3 36.6

New York 1,058 44.0 8.4 11.4 8.8 27.5

North Carolina 217 22.5 13.9 20.7 10.2 32.7

North Dakota 26 14.7 10.9 13.3 11.2 50.0

Ohio 228 19.6 11.1 14.5 11.3 43.5

Oklahoma 92 23.1 21.0 13.5 8.6 33.8

Oregon 180 48.4 7.5 10.6 7.6 25.9

Pennsylvania 704 49.7 7.2 8.6 9.0 25.6

Rhode Island 22 19.1 12.7 14.4 19.0 34.9

South Carolina 273 50.9 9.8 10.2 6.3 22.9

South Dakota 20 15.0 10.4 12.3 13.5 48.9

Tennessee 160 21.5 13.3 20.3 11.0 33.9

Texas 722 38.5 10.7 13.7 9.2 27.8

Utah 21 22.8 10.6 17.9 11.0 37.8

Vermont 29 32.6 7.3 10.0 9.0 41.1

Virginia 134 22.9 12.7 19.6 11.5 33.2

Washington 274 53.3 6.9 9.4 7.2 23.2

West Virginia 64 18.1 12.1 20.8 12.9 36.0

Wisconsin 277 55.1 8.5 7.3 5.9 23.2

Wyoming 9 25.4 10.7 18.1 11.0 34.8

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 

a

 In FY 2009, post-American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the minimum benefit for one- and two-person 

units was $16 for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, $19 for most of Alaska, and $25 

for Hawaii. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

147

Table B.9. Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by Benefit as a Percentage of Maximum Benefit and 

State, 2009 

Eligible Elderly

Individuals 

(Number in 000s)

Elderly by Benefit as a Percentage of Maximum Benefit

1 to 25

Percent

26 to 50

Percent

51 to 75

Percent

76 to 99

Percent

100

Percent

United States 8,622 51.0 18.2 10.4 6.5 13.9

Alabama 128 43.5 28.1 11.2 6.0 11.1

Alaska 11 48.2 16.7 12.0 6.3 16.7

Arizona 287 58.6 14.7 8.2 5.3 13.3

Arkansas 80 44.8 23.3 12.5 7.4 12.0

California 338 50.0 19.3 8.9 5.2 16.6

Colorado 73 39.4 22.8 10.8 9.3 17.7

Connecticut 73 29.3 14.7 19.3 8.6 28.1

Delaware 41 63.8 10.6 8.3 5.7 11.6

District of Columbia 17 43.3 28.0 11.2 6.2 11.4

Florida 436 46.0 25.0 11.9 6.8 10.3

Georgia 404 65.4 13.8 6.8 4.5 9.6

Hawaii 37 10.2 28.0 33.3 14.9 13.5

Idaho 22 38.3 23.2 10.8 9.5 18.4

Illinois 229 41.6 26.4 11.3 7.0 13.8

Indiana 112 37.2 18.7 16.1 8.7 19.2

Iowa 52 34.5 20.5 12.6 9.4 23.1

Kansas 48 39.1 22.6 10.7 8.2 19.4

Kentucky 115 41.5 27.9 13.3 6.5 10.8

Louisiana 134 38.3 27.8 12.3 7.9 13.6

Maine 33 28.4 17.1 16.0 14.2 24.2

Maryland 109 36.3 26.2 12.8 7.8 16.8

Massachusetts 190 31.9 18.9 14.5 8.6 26.1

Michigan 485 57.6 11.1 9.9 6.1 15.3

Minnesota 121 68.3 10.9 6.4 4.0 10.5

Mississippi 100 40.8 30.8 12.0 5.7 10.7

Missouri 115 45.7 23.7 11.0 6.0 13.6

Montana 21 32.2 19.9 14.7 9.2 24.1

Nebraska 31 38.9 22.6 10.9 8.3 19.4

Nevada 52 46.1 19.7 11.2 7.8 15.2

New Hampshire 21 30.8 16.1 15.6 9.3 28.2

New Jersey 145 38.4 26.6 12.2 8.9 14.0

New Mexico 55 37.5 29.7 12.8 8.4 11.6

New York 1,058 55.1 14.9 9.9 6.0 14.0

North Carolina 217 41.2 26.8 11.1 7.5 13.3

North Dakota 26 29.9 15.9 14.3 12.0 27.9

Ohio 228 34.6 17.7 13.9 14.0 19.7

Oklahoma 92 49.2 18.1 10.5 6.7 15.5

Oregon 180 60.2 13.5 7.3 5.5 13.6

Pennsylvania 704 60.4 10.7 9.6 5.5 13.8

Rhode Island 22 35.3 18.9 19.8 8.2 17.8

South Carolina 273 64.9 13.8 6.9 4.0 10.5

South Dakota 20 28.8 15.0 16.5 13.5 26.1

Tennessee 160 40.4 26.5 12.2 7.3 13.6

Texas 722 53.0 21.8 10.8 5.7 8.7

Utah 21 40.0 23.5 12.1 8.0 16.4

Vermont 29 43.2 12.8 11.2 8.8 24.0

Virginia 134 40.3 26.4 12.0 8.1 13.2

Washington 274 63.4 12.6 6.3 5.1 12.5

West Virginia 64 38.8 24.5 13.2 8.0 15.5

Wisconsin 277 67.4 8.9 6.1 4.3 13.3

Wyoming 9 40.9 22.4 10.8 6.8 19.0

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

148

Table B.10. Average Benefit Among Elderly SNAP Units by State, 2009 

Average Benefit Among Eligible Elderly SNAP Units ($)

All Eligible Elderly Units Eligible Elderly SNAP Units with SSI Income

United States 102 135

Alabama 107 135

Alaska 126 85

Arizona 94 127

Arkansas 113 138

California 108 -

a

Colorado 117 121

Connecticut 134 121

Delaware 83 138

District of Columbia 93 113

Florida 103 123

Georgia 79 142

Hawaii 265 324

Idaho 127 139

Illinois 109 134

Indiana 118 136

Iowa 131 145

Kansas 118 128

Kentucky 107 142

Louisiana 122 148

Maine 145 192

Maryland 123 143

Massachusetts 138 133

Michigan 96 159

Minnesota 73 107

Mississippi 116 135

Missouri 102 125

Montana 135 175

Nebraska 117 118

Nevada 113 106

New Hampshire 139 160

New Jersey 114 132

New Mexico 117 133

New York 94 128

North Carolina 110 129

North Dakota 143 189

Ohio 128 176

Oklahoma 109 102

Oregon 89 136

Pennsylvania 89 139

Rhode Island 118 140

South Carolina 81 123

South Dakota 144 188

Tennessee 115 141

Texas 96 134

Utah 132 138

Vermont 122 168

Virginia 113 136

Washington 81 136

West Virginia 123 145

Wisconsin 78 80

Wyoming 114 110

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 

a In California, SSI recipients are ineligible for SNAP. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

149

Table B.11. Elderly Eligible Individuals in SNAP Units Receiving Earned Income by Age Cohort and 

State, 2009 

Eligible Elderly in SNAP Units with Earned Income

Total Number

(000s)

By Age (Row Percent)

60 to 64 65 to 74 75 or Older

United States 993 54.1 31.9 14.1

Alabama 12 57.4 29.8 12.8

Alaska 2 55.0 33.4 11.6

Arizona 35 49.7 33.3 16.9

Arkansas 10 58.1 30.7 11.2

California 56 67.2 24.0 8.8

Colorado 9 55.0 32.7 12.3

Connecticut 8 55.5 32.2 12.4

Delaware 5 50.3 34.6 15.1

District of Columbia 2 56.8 31.5 11.7

Florida 51 53.2 34.6 12.2

Georgia 44 52.6 32.9 14.5

Hawaii 6 53.2 35.9 10.9

Idaho 3 54.8 34.4 10.8

Illinois 26 55.9 31.6 12.4

Indiana 12 55.4 30.8 13.9

Iowa 7 55.7 33.1 11.1

Kansas 6 55.9 32.7 11.3

Kentucky 13 57.0 31.6 11.4

Louisiana 14 57.2 28.6 14.1

Maine 5 55.0 33.1 11.8

Maryland 13 58.7 30.1 11.3

Massachusetts 21 54.4 29.0 16.6

Michigan 49 51.0 33.3 15.7

Minnesota 16 52.9 33.9 13.2

Mississippi 10 58.0 29.6 12.3

Missouri 13 57.6 29.5 12.9

Montana 3 55.5 32.0 12.6

Nebraska 4 57.7 31.7 10.6

Nevada 7 56.0 31.8 12.2

New Hampshire 2 51.7 33.7 14.6

New Jersey 18 52.0 35.7 12.4

New Mexico 7 59.5 28.8 11.7

New York 112 52.0 33.1 14.9

North Carolina 22 57.1 30.1 12.9

North Dakota 4 58.2 27.0 14.8

Ohio 26 54.6 30.2 15.2

Oklahoma 11 55.4 32.6 12.0

Oregon 21 50.7 32.2 17.1

Pennsylvania 75 50.8 33.5 15.7

Rhode Island 2 57.0 30.9 12.0

South Carolina 29 51.5 32.5 16.0

South Dakota 3 56.4 31.8 11.8

Tennessee 17 55.7 31.1 13.2

Texas 90 52.4 31.5 16.1

Utah 4 54.3 33.4 12.4

Vermont 4 50.4 32.1 17.5

Virginia 17 57.2 32.0 10.8

Washington 31 52.6 32.4 15.0

West Virginia 7 49.6 36.0 14.4

Wisconsin 29 51.1 32.8 16.1

Wyoming 1 57.6 30.8 11.7

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

150

Table B.12. Average Earnings Among SNAP Units with Eligible Elderly Individuals and Earned 

Income by Age Cohort and State, 2009 

Average Monthly Unit Earnings Among Units with Earnings ($)

All Units with

Eligibility Elderly

By Age of Unit Head

Under 60 60 to 64 65 to 74 75 to Older

United States 932 1,275 1,017 707 589

Alabama 891 994 957 680 934

Alaska 1,005 1,521 1,142 729 496

Arizona 986 1,539 1,050 725 535

Arkansas 951 1,077 1,026 763 824

California 922 1,124 978 545 383

Colorado 984 1,242 1,101 729 698

Connecticut 966 1,307 1,135 711 487

Delaware 958 1,459 1,059 752 554

District of Columbia 787 857 865 620 809

Florida 923 1,101 1,012 725 777

Georgia 959 1,386 1,069 738 522

Hawaii 1,028 1,500 1,109 757 562

Idaho 1,049 1,264 1,196 796 698

Illinois 900 1,115 970 665 801

Indiana 945 1,219 1,067 671 717

Iowa 908 1,200 1,002 684 620

Kansas 909 1,237 1,007 628 676

Kentucky 885 972 984 685 726

Louisiana 909 979 972 731 979

Maine 1,076 1,542 1,205 681 516

Maryland 999 1,450 979 733 880

Massachusetts 826 1,152 910 702 366

Michigan 885 1,335 990 614 520

Minnesota 949 1,550 1,046 668 480

Mississippi 871 940 914 669 1,089

Missouri 893 1,080 982 631 814

Montana 938 1,142 1,104 660 624

Nebraska 945 1,295 1,044 662 617

Nevada 1,003 1,272 1,098 752 726

New Hampshire 910 1,250 1,068 652 584

New Jersey 979 1,047 1,025 965 722

New Mexico 1,031 1,187 1,158 746 652

New York 939 1,406 1,033 744 486

North Carolina 914 1,138 961 688 900

North Dakota 872 1,329 1,004 679 318

Ohio 921 1,166 1,056 643 696

Oklahoma 952 1,148 1,031 731 805

Oregon 905 1,437 997 630 484

Pennsylvania 895 1,411 1,009 643 469

Rhode Island 999 1,440 1,047 842 614

South Carolina 912 1,223 980 784 568

South Dakota 1,004 1,564 1,142 734 512

Tennessee 948 1,123 1,011 749 874

Texas 1,006 1,300 1,059 836 623

Utah 987 1,200 1,100 707 611

Vermont 858 1,422 1,000 582 410

Virginia 946 1,200 1,008 750 785

Washington 909 1,434 1,017 640 447

West Virginia 854 768 1,002 727 784

Wisconsin 861 1,431 976 568 436

Wyoming 1,009 1,357 1,134 673 687

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

151

Table B.13. Elderly Eligible Individuals by SNAP Unit Receipt of Unearned Income and State, 2009 

All Eligible

Elderly

Elderly Eligibles in SNAP Units Receiving Unearned Income

SSI Social Security Other

Number 

(000s)

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

United States 8,622 1,485 17.2 6,900 80.0 565 6.6

Alabama 128 36 28.3 101 79.1 6 4.6

Alaska 11 3 28.0 9 77.2 1 8.0

Arizona 287 26 9.0 235 81.9 20 7.0

Arkansas 80 22 27.5 61 76.9 4 4.7

California 338 0 0.0 258 76.4 31 9.1

Colorado 73 15 20.5 55 76.3 5 6.5

Connecticut 73 13 17.9 57 77.3 6 8.1

Delaware 41 3 6.6 35 85.1 3 7.2

District of Columbia 17 5 28.1 13 76.9 1 4.4

Florida 436 124 28.5 328 75.1 23 5.4

Georgia 404 51 12.6 339 83.9 23 5.6

Hawaii 37 9 23.3 26 71.8 3 7.0

Idaho 22 4 16.1 17 75.4 2 7.0

Illinois 229 60 26.1 174 75.9 13 5.7

Indiana 112 16 13.9 89 78.8 8 7.3

Iowa 52 8 16.1 39 74.7 4 8.3

Kansas 48 8 15.7 36 75.5 4 7.7

Kentucky 115 38 32.8 87 76.1 6 4.9

Louisiana 134 37 27.8 102 76.3 6 4.5

Maine 33 6 17.4 26 78.6 2 7.3

Maryland 109 26 23.9 81 74.7 7 6.4

Massachusetts 190 43 22.7 145 76.2 20 10.3

Michigan 485 41 8.6 412 85.0 38 7.8

Minnesota 121 16 13.5 100 82.6 9 7.3

Mississippi 100 31 30.9 78 78.3 4 4.4

Missouri 115 22 19.5 90 78.7 7 6.5

Montana 21 3 12.6 16 77.9 2 8.5

Nebraska 31 5 15.0 24 76.8 3 8.2

Nevada 52 10 18.9 39 75.0 3 5.5

New Hampshire 21 2 11.0 16 77.9 2 8.0

New Jersey 145 43 29.8 109 75.1 9 6.0

New Mexico 55 16 29.9 41 74.6 3 4.8

New York 1,058 199 18.8 855 80.8 70 6.6

North Carolina 217 54 24.9 168 77.5 11 5.2

North Dakota 26 2 7.9 21 80.8 3 10.6

Ohio 228 41 17.9 182 79.8 15 6.4

Oklahoma 92 19 20.6 72 77.5 5 5.4

Oregon 180 15 8.2 150 83.3 14 7.5

Pennsylvania 704 68 9.6 593 84.2 55 7.8

Rhode Island 22 7 29.4 17 78.0 1 5.5

South Carolina 273 29 10.7 229 83.9 18 6.5

South Dakota 20 3 17.3 15 78.6 1 6.7

Tennessee 160 39 24.4 123 77.0 9 5.4

Texas 722 165 22.8 578 80.0 27 3.7

Utah 21 4 18.3 15 71.5 2 8.5

Vermont 29 3 9.2 24 83.5 3 9.4

Virginia 134 36 26.7 101 75.0 7 5.4

Washington 274 26 9.6 229 83.7 23 8.3

West Virginia 64 15 24.0 48 75.3 3 5.2

Wisconsin 277 19 6.9 237 85.4 24 8.6

Wyoming 9 1 12.1 7 78.1 1 8.0

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

152

Table B.14. Average Income Amounts Among SNAP Units with Eligible Elderly Individuals and 

Income Type by State, 2009 

Average Gross

Income ($)

Average Income from Source Among SNAP Units with 

Income Type ($)

SSI Social Security All Other

United States 1,092 429 925 434

Alabama 939 378 807 421

Alaska 1,177 543 928 473

Arizona 1,178 464 988 452

Arkansas 972 411 815 483

California 1,030 -

a 955 503

Colorado 968 470 832 439

Connecticut 993 523 865 369

Delaware 1,256 401 1,031 459

District of Columbia 872 398 785 354

Florida 946 421 802 435

Georgia 1,217 426 1,031 449

Hawaii 1,027 452 873 495

Idaho 1,028 484 859 511

Illinois 945 422 812 396

Indiana 950 393 838 419

Iowa 940 463 808 415

Kansas 936 433 829 406

Kentucky 955 427 785 436

Louisiana 945 417 812 455

Maine 1,067 432 893 468

Maryland 950 434 817 446

Massachusetts 1,021 473 863 349

Michigan 1,241 426 1,004 436

Minnesota 1,210 440 1,000 434

Mississippi 931 383 795 442

Missouri 952 393 820 406

Montana 1,006 448 880 413

Nebraska 938 423 818 400

Nevada 943 455 814 496

New Hampshire 963 486 858 378

New Jersey 976 424 818 422

New Mexico 962 437 790 501

New York 1,187 453 991 425

North Carolina 914 392 792 409

North Dakota 1,053 400 926 362

Ohio 1,012 399 865 411

Oklahoma 948 413 818 455

Oregon 1,200 439 1,010 423

Pennsylvania 1,244 438 1,020 430

Rhode Island 997 407 835 395

South Carolina 1,177 397 1,003 437

South Dakota 1,009 417 871 426

Tennessee 950 411 815 448

Texas 1,077 427 909 477

Utah 1,005 443 848 503

Vermont 1,199 462 1,000 390

Virginia 959 424 823 447

Washington 1,238 434 1,025 419

West Virginia 965 457 811 461

Wisconsin 1,233 436 1,008 406

Wyoming 941 407 824 430

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 

a In California, SSI recipients are ineligible for SNAP. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

153

Table B.15. Elderly Eligible Individuals by SNAP Unit Receipt of Deductions and State, 2009 

All Eligible

Elderly

Elderly Eligibles in SNAP Units Receiving Deduction

Medical Shelter

Number 

(000s)

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

United States 8,622 4,719 54.7 4,818 55.9

Alabama 128 60 46.6 66 51.8

Alaska 11 6 53.7 8 71.2

Arizona 287 172 59.9 127 44.2

Arkansas 80 39 49.3 40 49.5

California 338 183 54.0 182 53.8

Colorado 73 35 48.9 58 79.7

Connecticut 73 37 50.0 66 90.1

Delaware 41 25 62.0 21 51.2

District of Columbia 17 6 37.5 9 53.4

Florida 436 211 48.3 172 39.5

Georgia 404 232 57.4 159 39.5

Hawaii 37 16 44.2 17 45.2

Idaho 22 12 55.2 17 74.3

Illinois 229 111 48.3 131 57.2

Indiana 112 57 50.8 93 82.8

Iowa 52 28 54.7 39 75.4

Kansas 48 25 51.5 32 65.6

Kentucky 115 58 50.4 59 51.9

Louisiana 134 63 47.1 79 59.3

Maine 33 18 54.9 30 90.0

Maryland 109 50 45.9 74 67.5

Massachusetts 190 114 59.7 168 88.0

Michigan 485 309 63.8 317 65.5

Minnesota 121 69 57.4 49 40.9

Mississippi 100 43 43.3 44 43.8

Missouri 115 59 51.2 56 49.1

Montana 21 12 57.2 19 88.7

Nebraska 31 16 51.6 20 66.4

Nevada 52 24 47.2 29 55.5

New Hampshire 21 11 54.3 18 88.9

New Jersey 145 68 46.4 107 73.6

New Mexico 55 25 46.4 31 56.6

New York 1,058 593 56.0 673 63.6

North Carolina 217 99 45.5 115 53.0

North Dakota 26 17 67.9 24 93.8

Ohio 228 122 53.4 202 88.6

Oklahoma 92 46 49.4 46 50.0

Oregon 180 114 63.1 87 48.4

Pennsylvania 704 451 64.0 403 57.2

Rhode Island 22 11 48.0 19 86.0

South Carolina 273 157 57.7 75 27.5

South Dakota 20 10 53.6 18 91.3

Tennessee 160 77 48.1 92 57.4

Texas 722 332 46.0 336 46.6

Utah 21 11 53.7 11 53.2

Vermont 29 19 67.4 25 85.8

Virginia 134 64 48.1 79 58.7

Washington 274 177 64.8 121 44.0

West Virginia 64 34 53.6 41 63.6

Wisconsin 277 185 66.6 110 39.6

Wyoming 9 5 53.1 5 59.5

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

154

Table B.16. Average Deduction Amounts Among Eligible Elderly SNAP Units with Deductions by 

State, 2009 

Average Medical Deduction 

Among Units with 

Deduction ($)

Average Shelter Expense 

Deduction Among Units 

with Deduction ($)

United States 217 396

Alabama 219 323

Alaska 216 346

Arizona 223 397

Arkansas 230 379

California 231 440

Colorado 216 372

Connecticut 200 567

Delaware 217 371

District of Columbia 182 333

Florida 217 423

Georgia 207 362

Hawaii 216 393

Idaho 236 385

Illinois 212 371

Indiana 210 363

Iowa 229 383

Kansas 227 386

Kentucky 219 328

Louisiana 224 341

Maine 223 517

Maryland 211 362

Massachusetts 247 511

Michigan 222 399

Minnesota 197 367

Mississippi 227 325

Missouri 221 367

Montana 238 434

Nebraska 226 375

Nevada 214 362

New Hampshire 221 475

New Jersey 211 370

New Mexico 207 367

New York 211 398

North Carolina 213 343

North Dakota 264 515

Ohio 206 452

Oklahoma 224 407

Oregon 231 407

Pennsylvania 226 388

Rhode Island 202 419

South Carolina 217 400

South Dakota 221 491

Tennessee 218 353

Texas 180 348

Utah 243 414

Vermont 241 518

Virginia 218 374

Washington 228 406

West Virginia 227 330

Wisconsin 228 404

Wyoming 229 367

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

155

Table B.17. Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by Level of Shelter Expense Deductions and State, 

2009

All Eligible

Elderly with

Deduction

Eligible Elderly by Level of Shelter Expense Deduction

$1 - $200 $201 - $400 $401 or Higher

Number

(000s)

Row

Percent

Number

(000s)

Row

Percent

Number

(000s)

Row

Number (000s) Percent

United States 4,818 1,862 38.6 1,217 25.3 1,739 36.1

Alabama 66 32 48.1 15 22.2 20 29.7

Alaska 8 4 45.9 1 18.5 3 35.5

Arizona 127 50 39.7 33 25.7 44 34.6

Arkansas 40 14 35.9 11 28.5 14 35.6

California 182 54 29.9 54 29.8 73 40.3

Colorado 58 26 44.7 9 16.4 22 38.9

Connecticut 66 6 8.8 24 36.9 36 54.3

Delaware 21 9 43.9 4 20.9 7 35.2

District of Columbia 9 4 47.6 2 20.3 3 32.1

Florida 172 62 35.8 48 27.7 63 36.5

Georgia 159 71 44.4 39 24.6 49 31.0

Hawaii 17 7 43.7 4 22.6 6 33.7

Idaho 17 7 40.7 4 23.6 6 35.7

Illinois 131 56 42.8 28 21.7 47 35.6

Indiana 93 43 46.4 16 17.7 33 35.9

Iowa 39 16 40.7 10 25.9 13 33.4

Kansas 32 13 40.8 7 22.5 12 36.7

Kentucky 59 28 46.6 14 23.4 18 30.1

Louisiana 79 36 45.1 20 24.8 24 30.1

Maine 30 4 12.2 10 34.0 16 53.8

Maryland 74 34 46.7 16 21.1 24 32.2

Massachusetts 168 37 21.9 55 33.1 76 45.0

Michigan 317 121 38.0 83 26.2 113 35.7

Minnesota 49 21 42.7 11 22.9 17 34.4

Mississippi 44 20 46.2 10 23.4 13 30.5

Missouri 56 22 39.8 14 25.7 19 34.5

Montana 19 6 32.0 5 26.7 8 41.3

Nebraska 20 8 41.3 5 23.0 7 35.7

Nevada 29 11 37.8 8 26.5 10 35.7

New Hampshire 18 4 23.9 6 29.9 9 46.1

New Jersey 107 50 47.0 18 16.3 39 36.7

New Mexico 31 12 39.5 7 24.1 11 36.4

New York 673 272 40.3 157 23.3 245 36.4

North Carolina 115 50 43.3 28 24.4 37 32.2

North Dakota 24 4 17.4 8 33.0 12 49.6

Ohio 202 53 26.2 69 34.1 80 39.7

Oklahoma 46 15 32.6 14 29.7 17 37.7

Oregon 87 36 41.7 20 23.4 30 34.9

Pennsylvania 403 162 40.3 95 23.5 146 36.2

Rhode Island 19 6 29.7 6 33.8 7 36.5

South Carolina 75 27 36.6 23 31.2 24 32.1

South Dakota 18 3 15.3 7 38.2 8 46.4

Tennessee 92 39 42.8 23 25.0 30 32.2

Texas 336 151 44.9 75 22.3 111 32.9

Utah 11 4 34.2 3 26.7 4 39.1

Vermont 25 5 19.6 8 30.7 12 49.6

Virginia 79 32 40.8 18 22.8 29 36.4

Washington 121 51 42.2 28 23.2 42 34.5

West Virginia 41 19 48.0 10 24.3 11 27.7

Wisconsin 110 42 38.4 31 28.6 36 32.9

Wyoming 5 2 38.5 1 26.1 2 35.4

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

156

Table B.18. Elderly Eligible Individuals in SNAP Units with Assets by State, 2009 

All Eligible

Elderly

Elderly Eligibles in SNAP Units with Assets

Any Assets Assets Countable Toward Asset Limita

Number 

(000s)

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

United States 8,622 7,239 84.0 1,416 16.4

Alabama 128 101 78.7 42 32.8

Alaska 11 9 85.2 5 44.7

Arizona 287 252 87.8 2 0.8

Arkansas 80 64 80.2 28 34.7

California 338 265 78.5 159 47.0

Colorado 73 58 79.7 30 41.6

Connecticut 73 60 81.3 35 48.4

Delaware 41 37 89.6 0 0.0

District of Columbia 17 12 70.2 5 30.9

Florida 436 341 78.1 157 36.0

Georgia 404 348 86.3 0 0.0

Hawaii 37 27 73.9 15 41.3

Idaho 22 19 83.9 10 45.7

Illinois 229 180 78.8 90 39.3

Indiana 112 91 81.0 50 44.8

Iowa 52 44 84.8 26 49.7

Kansas 48 39 81.9 23 47.7

Kentucky 115 92 80.6 39 34.2

Louisiana 134 105 78.5 42 31.6

Maine 33 29 85.8 16 46.4

Maryland 109 85 78.3 38 35.0

Massachusetts 190 165 86.5 0 0.0

Michigan 485 442 91.3 0 0.0

Minnesota 121 107 88.8 0 0.0

Mississippi 100 78 77.9 29 29.0

Missouri 115 94 81.8 48 42.3

Montana 21 18 86.6 11 53.2

Nebraska 31 25 83.1 15 50.1

Nevada 52 40 77.1 19 37.0

New Hampshire 21 18 84.6 11 53.1

New Jersey 145 113 77.7 55 37.8

New Mexico 55 42 76.6 17 32.0

New York 1,058 899 84.9 0 0.0

North Carolina 217 169 78.0 79 36.4

North Dakota 26 24 91.9 0 0.0

Ohio 228 189 83.0 104 45.4

Oklahoma 92 74 80.6 35 38.4

Oregon 180 163 90.3 2 1.0

Pennsylvania 704 640 90.9 0 0.0

Rhode Island 22 18 79.4 9 39.4

South Carolina 273 238 87.3 0 0.0

South Dakota 20 17 84.8 10 48.9

Tennessee 160 127 79.1 57 35.4

Texas 722 565 78.3 14 2.0

Utah 21 18 83.7 10 48.7

Vermont 29 27 93.2 1 1.7

Virginia 134 105 78.1 49 36.4

Washington 274 250 91.3 0 0.0

West Virginia 64 53 83.2 24 37.0

Wisconsin 277 257 92.8 0 0.0

Wyoming 9 8 84.0 5 50.0

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 

a

 These are assets that count toward program asset limits under state rules. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

157

Table B.19. Elderly Eligible Individuals in SNAP Units with Financial Assets by State, 2009 

All Eligible

Elderly

Elderly Eligibles in SNAP Units with Financial Assets

Any Financial Assets Assets Countable Toward Asset Limita

Number 

(000s)

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

United States 8,622 6,227 72.2 1,408 16.3

Alabama 128 80 62.2 42 32.8

Alaska 11 8 73.6 5 44.6

Arizona 287 223 77.9 2 0.8

Arkansas 80 50 62.8 27 34.3

California 338 212 62.7 159 47.0

Colorado 73 48 65.7 30 41.6

Connecticut 73 52 70.7 35 48.4

Delaware 41 33 80.7 0 0.0

District of Columbia 17 10 57.7 5 30.9

Florida 436 274 62.9 154 35.2

Georgia 404 303 75.0 0 0.0

Hawaii 37 23 63.2 15 41.3

Idaho 22 15 68.5 10 45.6

Illinois 229 150 65.6 89 39.0

Indiana 112 75 67.1 50 44.8

Iowa 52 37 72.4 25 49.2

Kansas 48 34 69.7 23 47.7

Kentucky 115 74 64.6 39 34.2

Louisiana 134 82 61.2 42 31.6

Maine 33 25 74.1 15 46.0

Maryland 109 71 65.2 38 35.0

Massachusetts 190 151 79.4 0 0.0

Michigan 485 406 83.7 0 0.0

Minnesota 121 96 79.3 0 0.0

Mississippi 100 61 60.7 29 29.0

Missouri 115 78 68.0 48 42.3

Montana 21 16 74.4 11 53.2

Nebraska 31 22 71.4 15 49.7

Nevada 52 31 60.4 19 36.7

New Hampshire 21 15 73.1 11 52.9

New Jersey 145 94 64.7 55 37.8

New Mexico 55 32 58.5 17 32.0

New York 1,058 802 75.8 0 0.0

North Carolina 217 137 63.5 79 36.3

North Dakota 26 22 84.8 0 0.0

Ohio 228 160 70.3 104 45.4

Oklahoma 92 59 64.3 35 38.4

Oregon 180 148 82.2 2 1.0

Pennsylvania 704 587 83.4 0 0.0

Rhode Island 22 15 67.4 9 39.3

South Carolina 273 209 76.7 0 0.0

South Dakota 20 14 71.9 9 48.5

Tennessee 160 101 63.4 57 35.4

Texas 722 445 61.7 11 1.6

Utah 21 15 71.2 10 48.7

Vermont 29 25 87.3 1 1.7

Virginia 134 85 63.5 49 36.4

Washington 274 232 84.8 0 0.0

West Virginia 64 41 64.7 24 37.0

Wisconsin 277 241 86.9 0 0.0

Wyoming 9 6 70.4 5 49.7

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 

a

 These are financial assets that count toward program asset limits under state rules. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

158

Table B.20. Elderly Eligible Individuals in SNAP Units with Vehicle Assets by State, 2009 

All Eligible

Elderly

Elderly Eligibles in SNAP Units with Financial Assets

Any Financial Assets Assets Countable Toward Asset Limita

Number 

(000s)

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

United States 8,622 4,923 57.1 11,905 0.1

Alabama 128 66 51.4 0 0.0

Alaska 11 6 55.1 20 0.2

Arizona 287 184 64.2 0 0.0

Arkansas 80 43 53.5 422 0.5

California 338 174 51.4 0 0.0

Colorado 73 36 50.0 0 0.0

Connecticut 73 36 48.5 0 0.0

Delaware 41 26 64.7 0 0.0

District of Columbia 17 6 37.4 0 0.0

Florida 436 214 49.1 5,799 1.3

Georgia 404 249 61.6 0 0.0

Hawaii 37 16 44.0 0 0.0

Idaho 22 13 56.7 37 0.2

Illinois 229 110 48.2 800 0.3

Indiana 112 58 51.7 0 0.0

Iowa 52 29 55.5 267 0.5

Kansas 48 25 51.3 0 0.0

Kentucky 115 62 53.8 0 0.0

Louisiana 134 69 51.6 0 0.0

Maine 33 19 57.7 160 0.5

Maryland 109 52 48.0 0 0.0

Massachusetts 190 109 57.1 0 0.0

Michigan 485 325 67.0 0 0.0

Minnesota 121 73 60.8 0 0.0

Mississippi 100 50 50.5 0 0.0

Missouri 115 60 52.6 0 0.0

Montana 21 12 58.6 0 0.0

Nebraska 31 16 52.1 238 0.8

Nevada 52 25 49.2 179 0.3

New Hampshire 21 11 54.0 58 0.3

New Jersey 145 68 46.6 0 0.0

New Mexico 55 27 50.4 0 0.0

New York 1,058 614 58.0 0 0.0

North Carolina 217 105 48.7 376 0.2

North Dakota 26 17 65.5 0 0.0

Ohio 228 121 53.2 0 0.0

Oklahoma 92 49 53.3 130 0.1

Oregon 180 118 65.6 153 0.1

Pennsylvania 704 466 66.2 0 0.0

Rhode Island 22 11 47.5 36 0.2

South Carolina 273 172 62.9 0 0.0

South Dakota 20 11 55.8 98 0.5

Tennessee 160 82 51.1 0 0.0

Texas 722 380 52.6 3,082 0.4

Utah 21 11 53.2 0 0.0

Vermont 29 20 68.5 0 0.0

Virginia 134 65 48.6 0 0.0

Washington 274 181 66.0 0 0.0

West Virginia 64 37 58.5 0 0.0

Wisconsin 277 188 68.0 0 0.0

Wyoming 9 5 55.2 51 0.6

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 

a These are vehicle assets that count toward program asset limits under state rules. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

159

Table B.21. Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by Sharing of Expenses and State, 2009 

Eligible Elderly Who Do Not Pay All Expenses with Own Money

Assistance Comes

From Outside

Household

Food Expenses Housing Expenses Other Expenses

Number 

(000s)

Percent

of 

Elderly

Number 

(000s)

Percent

of 

Elderly

Number 

(000s)

Percent

of 

Elderly

Number 

(000s)

Percent of 

Elderly

United States 1,622 18.8 1,737 20.2 1,516 17.6 317 3.7

Alabama 23 18.2 25 19.6 21 16.7 4 3.3

Alaska 2 15.2 2 16.9 2 14.2 0 2.9

Arizona 65 22.6 69 24.0 61 21.4 12 4.2

Arkansas 16 19.7 17 21.2 15 18.6 3 3.7

California 48 14.1 52 15.4 44 12.9 8 2.2

Colorado 11 15.3 13 17.3 10 14.3 3 3.7

Connecticut 9 12.6 10 14.1 8 11.4 2 2.8

Delaware 8 20.8 9 21.6 8 19.4 2 3.7

District of Columbia 2 9.8 2 12.5 2 9.1 0 2.5

Florida 77 17.7 85 19.5 73 16.6 20 4.6

Georgia 79 19.6 83 20.5 75 18.5 14 3.4

Hawaii 8 20.6 8 22.4 7 19.1 2 5.3

Idaho 4 19.4 5 21.0 4 18.2 1 4.2

Illinois 35 15.5 40 17.4 32 14.2 8 3.7

Indiana 16 14.2 18 15.7 15 13.1 4 3.3

Iowa 9 17.5 10 19.0 8 15.9 2 3.6

Kansas 8 15.8 8 17.5 7 14.4 2 3.7

Kentucky 21 18.5 23 19.9 20 17.2 4 3.2

Louisiana 27 20.5 30 22.1 25 18.8 5 3.5

Maine 6 18.5 7 19.6 6 16.5 1 3.0

Maryland 18 16.7 20 18.7 17 15.3 4 3.6

Massachusetts 35 18.6 38 19.9 33 17.5 7 3.7

Michigan 101 20.8 103 21.3 94 19.4 18 3.7

Minnesota 22 18.6 23 19.1 21 17.0 4 3.6

Mississippi 20 19.5 21 20.9 18 18.1 3 3.4

Missouri 19 16.7 21 18.2 18 15.3 4 3.4

Montana 4 17.9 4 18.6 3 16.1 1 3.8

Nebraska 5 15.9 5 17.4 4 14.6 1 3.4

Nevada 9 18.1 10 19.9 9 17.0 2 4.4

New Hampshire 3 16.6 4 17.5 3 14.6 1 3.7

New Jersey 23 16.1 27 18.3 22 14.9 7 4.5

New Mexico 10 18.5 12 21.1 10 17.9 3 5.3

New York 203 19.2 217 20.5 191 18.0 40 3.8

North Carolina 36 16.6 40 18.3 33 15.2 7 3.3

North Dakota 5 19.4 5 20.0 5 18.5 1 3.1

Ohio 34 14.7 36 15.9 30 13.1 8 3.3

Oklahoma 16 17.7 18 19.2 15 16.5 3 3.8

Oregon 39 21.5 40 22.4 36 20.2 7 3.7

Pennsylvania 151 21.5 157 22.2 143 20.2 26 3.6

Rhode Island 3 13.4 3 15.2 3 12.1 1 2.9

South Carolina 61 22.2 63 23.0 57 21.0 10 3.6

South Dakota 3 16.1 3 17.1 3 14.7 1 3.0

Tennessee 30 18.5 33 20.3 27 17.1 6 3.5

Texas 136 18.8 151 20.9 128 17.8 30 4.2

Utah 5 21.7 5 23.3 4 20.3 1 5.3

Vermont 6 21.1 6 21.7 6 19.7 1 3.2

Virginia 23 17.1 26 19.2 22 16.0 5 3.7

Washington 56 20.6 58 21.3 53 19.4 10 3.5

West Virginia 14 21.7 15 22.8 13 20.3 3 4.7

Wisconsin 57 20.5 58 21.0 53 19.3 9 3.3

Wyoming 2 17.5 2 18.5 1 16.1 0 3.8

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

160

Table B.22. Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by Receipt of Housing Assistance and State, 2009 

All Eligible 

Elderly

Eligible Elderly by Receipt of Assistance

Lives in Public 

Housing

Receives Rental

Assistance

Assistance 

Includes Utilities

Number 

(000s)

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

United States 8,622 979 11.4 228 2.6 726 8.4

Alabama 128 16 12.6 4 2.8 12 9.3

Alaska 11 1 13.2 0 2.9 1 9.5

Arizona 287 24 8.3 6 2.0 18 6.3

Arkansas 80 10 12.5 2 2.9 8 9.4

California 338 36 10.7 9 2.6 26 7.8

Colorado 73 11 14.6 2 3.1 8 10.5

Connecticut 73 12 17.0 3 3.8 9 12.3

Delaware 41 3 8.0 1 1.8 2 6.0

District of Columbia 17 4 23.5 1 4.4 3 16.8

Florida 436 58 13.4 14 3.1 43 9.7

Georgia 404 39 9.6 9 2.3 29 7.2

Hawaii 37 5 14.7 1 3.9 4 9.9

Idaho 22 2 9.9 1 2.4 2 7.4

Illinois 229 34 14.9 8 3.5 25 10.9

Indiana 112 16 13.8 4 3.2 12 10.3

Iowa 52 6 12.3 2 2.9 5 9.0

Kansas 48 7 14.8 2 3.3 5 10.7

Kentucky 115 14 12.1 3 3.0 11 9.3

Louisiana 134 16 12.1 4 2.8 12 9.1

Maine 33 4 11.6 1 2.7 3 9.0

Maryland 109 17 15.2 4 3.4 12 10.9

Massachusetts 190 23 12.0 6 3.0 17 8.7

Michigan 485 38 7.7 9 1.8 28 5.7

Minnesota 121 13 10.7 3 2.3 9 7.6

Mississippi 100 11 11.3 2 2.4 8 8.4

Missouri 115 15 13.3 3 3.0 11 10.0

Montana 21 2 11.5 1 2.4 2 8.5

Nebraska 31 5 15.3 1 3.2 3 10.9

Nevada 52 7 13.1 2 3.5 5 9.9

New Hampshire 21 3 13.6 1 3.4 2 10.2

New Jersey 145 22 14.9 5 3.5 16 10.7

New Mexico 55 6 11.9 1 2.6 5 9.1

New York 1,058 125 11.9 31 2.9 92 8.6

North Carolina 217 33 15.2 7 3.4 24 11.2

North Dakota 26 2 9.2 1 2.0 2 7.0

Ohio 228 29 12.9 7 3.0 23 9.9

Oklahoma 92 12 12.9 3 3.0 9 9.7

Oregon 180 16 9.0 4 2.1 12 6.6

Pennsylvania 704 59 8.3 14 2.0 43 6.2

Rhode Island 22 4 16.2 1 3.8 3 12.3

South Carolina 273 23 8.5 5 1.9 17 6.4

South Dakota 20 3 12.9 1 2.7 2 9.6

Tennessee 160 21 12.9 5 3.0 16 9.8

Texas 722 90 12.5 20 2.8 71 9.8

Utah 21 2 11.0 1 2.6 2 7.7

Vermont 29 2 8.1 1 1.8 2 5.8

Virginia 134 20 14.6 4 3.3 14 10.7

Washington 274 26 9.4 6 2.2 19 6.8

West Virginia 64 5 8.0 1 2.2 4 6.3

Wisconsin 277 24 8.7 6 2.0 18 6.4

Wyoming 9 1 13.3 0 2.7 1 9.8

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

161

Table B.23. Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by Receipt of Energy or Transportation Assistance 

and State, 2009 

All Eligible

Elderly

Eligible Elderly by Receipt of Assistance

Energy Transportation

Number 

(000s)

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

United States 8,622 367 4.3 164 1.9

Alabama 128 7 5.6 2 1.9

Alaska 11 1 4.9 0 2.1

Arizona 287 10 3.4 4 1.5

Arkansas 80 5 5.8 2 1.9

California 338 14 4.1 9 2.7

Colorado 73 4 5.3 2 2.7

Connecticut 73 4 5.0 2 3.1

Delaware 41 1 3.2 1 1.3

District of Columbia 17 1 5.9 1 3.4

Florida 436 21 4.9 11 2.6

Georgia 404 15 3.7 6 1.4

Hawaii 37 2 4.5 1 2.3

Idaho 22 1 5.0 0 1.8

Illinois 229 12 5.0 6 2.6

Indiana 112 6 5.5 3 2.2

Iowa 52 3 4.9 1 2.2

Kansas 48 3 5.2 1 2.5

Kentucky 115 7 5.8 2 1.7

Louisiana 134 7 5.1 2 1.8

Maine 33 2 5.1 1 1.9

Maryland 109 6 5.1 3 2.6

Massachusetts 190 8 4.0 4 2.2

Michigan 485 15 3.2 6 1.3

Minnesota 121 5 3.8 2 1.6

Mississippi 100 6 5.5 2 1.9

Missouri 115 6 5.2 2 2.0

Montana 21 1 4.9 0 1.9

Nebraska 31 2 5.3 1 2.5

Nevada 52 3 5.3 1 2.3

New Hampshire 21 1 5.0 0 2.3

New Jersey 145 7 4.9 4 2.7

New Mexico 55 3 5.1 1 2.7

New York 1,058 39 3.7 21 2.0

North Carolina 217 12 5.7 5 2.5

North Dakota 26 1 4.2 0 1.3

Ohio 228 11 4.8 5 2.0

Oklahoma 92 5 5.8 2 2.0

Oregon 180 7 3.7 2 1.3

Pennsylvania 704 23 3.2 9 1.3

Rhode Island 22 1 5.5 1 2.6

South Carolina 273 10 3.6 4 1.3

South Dakota 20 1 5.7 0 1.9

Tennessee 160 9 5.6 3 1.9

Texas 722 32 4.5 15 2.1

Utah 21 1 4.4 0 1.8

Vermont 29 1 3.3 0 1.2

Virginia 134 7 5.3 3 2.3

Washington 274 9 3.3 4 1.5

West Virginia 64 3 5.3 1 1.4

Wisconsin 277 9 3.1 4 1.4

Wyoming 9 0 5.5 0 2.0

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research 

162

Table B.24. Elderly SNAP-Eligible Individuals by Health Insurance Coverage and State, 2009 

All Eligible

Elderly

Eligible Elderly by Health Insurance Coverage

Medicare Medicaid Private Insurance

Number 

(000s)

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

Number 

(000s)

Row 

Percent

United States 8,622 6,990 81.1 2,810 32.6 4,545 52.7

Alabama 128 103 80.4 57 44.5 54 41.9

Alaska 11 9 78.3 4 31.7 6 54.7

Arizona 287 236 82.4 74 26.0 168 58.6

Arkansas 80 63 78.4 34 42.4 35 44.1

California 338 240 70.9 107 31.7 159 47.1

Colorado 73 57 78.6 30 41.1 32 44.8

Connecticut 73 59 80.7 29 39.4 35 47.7

Delaware 41 34 84.5 9 21.6 26 63.3

District of Columbia 17 14 81.1 9 56.9 5 31.9

Florida 436 340 77.9 190 43.6 188 43.1

Georgia 404 338 83.6 108 26.7 228 56.4

Hawaii 37 29 77.9 16 43.0 16 44.3

Idaho 22 17 76.9 8 34.0 11 51.1

Illinois 229 182 79.3 98 42.9 101 44.3

Indiana 112 90 80.5 43 38.7 53 47.6

Iowa 52 40 77.8 18 34.1 27 52.6

Kansas 48 38 77.9 18 37.2 24 49.3

Kentucky 115 91 79.3 48 42.2 53 46.1

Louisiana 134 105 78.5 60 45.3 55 41.2

Maine 33 27 79.8 11 32.7 18 53.7

Maryland 109 85 78.4 49 45.1 44 40.4

Massachusetts 190 151 79.4 56 29.6 113 59.2

Michigan 485 409 84.5 94 19.5 324 66.9

Minnesota 121 99 82.4 29 23.9 72 59.9

Mississippi 100 80 79.5 47 46.6 40 40.3

Missouri 115 92 80.0 45 39.1 55 47.7

Montana 21 16 78.3 6 29.3 12 56.2

Nebraska 31 24 78.4 12 37.7 15 49.2

Nevada 52 40 78.0 23 44.7 21 41.3

New Hampshire 21 17 81.5 7 33.9 11 53.4

New Jersey 145 115 79.2 64 43.8 61 41.7

New Mexico 55 42 77.5 25 46.6 21 38.8

New York 1,058 877 82.9 308 29.1 596 56.3

North Carolina 217 174 80.3 100 46.1 89 41.2

North Dakota 26 20 79.3 5 20.6 17 67.4

Ohio 228 184 80.9 81 35.7 115 50.6

Oklahoma 92 73 79.3 37 40.6 43 46.2

Oregon 180 150 83.0 39 21.7 116 64.1

Pennsylvania 704 592 84.1 144 20.5 463 65.8

Rhode Island 22 18 81.1 10 43.4 10 43.9

South Carolina 273 228 83.6 73 26.9 155 56.7

South Dakota 20 16 79.5 7 34.0 10 53.0

Tennessee 160 127 79.6 70 43.5 68 42.6

Texas 722 583 80.8 306 42.4 277 38.3

Utah 21 16 73.7 7 33.5 11 52.1

Vermont 29 24 82.8 5 17.5 20 69.1

Virginia 134 105 78.4 59 43.9 56 42.1

Washington 274 229 83.5 54 19.6 183 66.9

West Virginia 64 50 78.0 24 37.8 32 49.6

Wisconsin 277 235 84.9 49 17.6 194 69.8

Wyoming 9 7 78.7 3 35.9 5 51.4

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
APPENDIX C 

TABLES SHOWING NUMBER OF ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS BELOW 

200 PERCENT OF POVERTY, NUMBER ELIGIBLE FOR SNAP, AND SNAP 

ELIGIBILITY RATES BY STATE, FISCAL YEAR 2009
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research 

165

Table C.1. Eligibility Rates for Elderly Individuals in SNAP Units with Income Below 200 Percent 

of Poverty by State, FY 2009 

Elderly Individuals Below 200 Percent of Poverty

Number

(000s)

Eligible for SNAP

Number (000s) Row Percent

United States 16,257 8,540 52.5

Alabama 309 126 40.9

Alaska 30 11 37.0

Arizona 335 284 84.8

Arkansas 204 79 38.5

California 1,807 326 18.0

Colorado 189 71 37.4

Connecticut 168 71 42.2

Delaware 43 41 94.6

District of Columbia 33 16 50.3

Florida 1,239 429 34.6

Georgia 425 404 94.9

Hawaii 92 37 39.7

Idaho 68 22 32.1

Illinois 634 225 35.5

Indiana 306 110 36.1

Iowa 158 51 32.1

Kansas 143 47 33.1

Kentucky 279 113 40.6

Louisiana 319 132 41.3

Maine 80 33 40.4

Maryland 265 107 40.4

Massachusetts 297 190 64.2

Michigan 506 485 95.8

Minnesota 205 121 58.7

Mississippi 223 99 44.3

Missouri 327 113 34.5

Montana 63 20 32.3

Nebraska 93 30 32.4

Nevada 133 51 37.9

New Hampshire 57 20 35.4

New Jersey 387 142 36.7

New Mexico 126 53 42.3

New York 1,129 1,058 93.7

North Carolina 532 214 40.2

North Dakota 39 26 66.2

Ohio 595 223 37.4

Oklahoma 243 91 37.4

Oregon 207 179 86.4

Pennsylvania 737 704 95.5

Rhode Island 54 22 40.5

South Carolina 284 273 95.9

South Dakota 49 19 39.2

Tennessee 402 158 39.2

Texas 1,223 713 58.3

Utah 74 21 27.9

Vermont 32 28 87.9

Virginia 351 132 37.5

Washington 286 274 95.6

West Virginia 161 63 39.2

Wisconsin 285 277 97.2

Wyoming 28 9 32.2

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research 

166

Table C.2. Eligibility Rates for Elderly Individuals in SNAP Units with Income Below 200 Percent 

of Poverty and SSI Income by State, FY 2009 

Elderly Individuals Below 200 Percent of Poverty and with SSI Income

Number

(000s)

Eligible for SNAP

Number (000s) Row Percent

United States 2,019 1,482 73.4

Alabama 38 36 93.9

Alaska 3 3 94.3

Arizona 26 26 97.6

Arkansas 23 22 94.3

California 470 0 0.0

Colorado 16 15 93.9

Connecticut 14 13 96.7

Delaware 3 3 98.4

District of Columbia 5 5 97.1

Florida 132 124 93.4

Georgia 53 51 96.5

Hawaii 9 9 95.4

Idaho 4 4 92.0

Illinois 63 60 95.1

Indiana 16 16 97.0

Iowa 9 8 96.7

Kansas 8 8 96.0

Kentucky 39 38 95.0

Louisiana 40 37 93.1

Maine 6 6 96.9

Maryland 27 26 96.8

Massachusetts 46 43 94.6

Michigan 42 41 98.6

Minnesota 17 16 97.9

Mississippi 34 31 92.0

Missouri 23 22 95.1

Montana 3 3 95.4

Nebraska 5 5 95.6

Nevada 10 10 93.2

New Hampshire 2 2 96.6

New Jersey 46 43 93.7

New Mexico 17 16 93.8

New York 204 199 97.6

North Carolina 56 54 95.8

North Dakota 2 2 97.0

Ohio 42 41 96.1

Oklahoma 21 19 92.7

Oregon 15 15 98.4

Pennsylvania 69 68 98.1

Rhode Island 7 6 93.2

South Carolina 30 29 98.2

South Dakota 4 3 94.7

Tennessee 41 39 95.1

Texas 171 164 95.8

Utah 4 4 93.5

Vermont 3 3 98.1

Virginia 38 36 94.8

Washington 27 26 98.4

West Virginia 16 15 94.9

Wisconsin 19 19 99.1

Wyoming 1 1 95.8

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
Appendix C Mathematica Policy Research 

167

Table C.3. Eligibility Rates for Elderly Individuals in One-Person SNAP Units with Income Below 

200 Percent of Poverty by State, FY 2009 

Elderly Individuals Below 200 Percent of Poverty and in One-Person SNAP Units

Number

(000s)

Eligible for SNAP

Number (000s) Row Percent

United States 8,635 5,045 58.4

Alabama 152 76 50.2

Alaska 16 7 47.6

Arizona 162 143 88.2

Arkansas 90 44 48.8

California 1,022 230 22.5

Colorado 110 48 43.5

Connecticut 104 53 51.2

Delaware 23 23 97.0

District of Columbia 24 13 53.2

Florida 632 267 42.2

Georgia 231 225 97.4

Hawaii 41 20 48.8

Idaho 32 12 38.8

Illinois 364 151 41.4

Indiana 176 77 43.6

Iowa 78 30 38.6

Kansas 78 32 40.4

Kentucky 141 65 46.3

Louisiana 137 71 51.7

Maine 40 20 49.9

Maryland 144 67 46.7

Massachusetts 175 118 67.8

Michigan 277 272 97.9

Minnesota 111 75 67.0

Mississippi 96 55 56.8

Missouri 175 73 41.6

Montana 30 12 41.5

Nebraska 49 20 40.3

Nevada 72 31 43.5

New Hampshire 30 13 43.8

New Jersey 219 94 42.9

New Mexico 63 30 48.1

New York 643 619 96.2

North Carolina 277 135 48.8

North Dakota 21 15 72.2

Ohio 331 154 46.4

Oklahoma 121 56 46.3

Oregon 110 99 89.9

Pennsylvania 395 387 98.0

Rhode Island 32 15 48.7

South Carolina 142 140 98.1

South Dakota 24 12 49.4

Tennessee 198 93 47.1

Texas 603 388 64.3

Utah 31 12 37.3

Vermont 18 16 91.0

Virginia 186 82 44.4

Washington 161 157 97.3

West Virginia 71 34 47.1

Wisconsin 161 159 98.5

Wyoming 14 6 40.6

Source: 2009 Baseline of the 2005 MATH SIPP+ model. 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
APPENDIX D 

TABLES SHOWING ELDERLY SNAP PARTICIPATION RATES, RANKS, 

AND NUMBER OF ELDERLY PARTICIPANTS AND ELIGIBLES BY STATE, 

FISCAL YEARS 2002 THROUGH 2006 
This page has been left blank for double-sided copying.
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research 

171

Table D.1. Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, Ranks, and Number of Elderly Participants and 

Eligibles by State, FY 2002 

Participation Rate

(Standard Error) Rank

Number of 

Participants

Number of 

Eligibles

Alabama 20 (2.2) 39 27,948 138,902

Alaska 28 (5.2) 15 2,077 7,538

Arizona 18 (2.3) 45 15,308 84,301

Arkansas 20 (2.2) 40 20,941 105,373

California 7 (2.5) 51 18,852 286,952

Colorado 20 (2.3) 37 13,340 65,849

Connecticut 31 (4.1) 7 18,124 58,096

Delaware 17 (2.5) 47 1,904 11,283

District of Columbia 28 (5.1) 12 4,680 16,504

Florida 35 (2.8) 5 165,515 469,664

Georgia 26 (3.0) 19 56,661 218,081

Hawaii 61 (6.1) 1 15,188 25,045

Idaho 20 (2.7) 38 3,949 19,600

Illinois 30 (2.4) 9 65,155 219,460

Indiana 21 (2.3) 33 23,564 110,379

Iowa 19 (2.2) 42 9,578 50,114

Kansas 23 (2.2) 26 11,707 49,970

Kentucky 28 (2.9) 13 36,962 132,587

Louisiana 23 (2.6) 28 28,399 125,209

Maine 36 (2.9) 3 14,285 39,604

Maryland 22 (2.7) 31 21,696 100,163

Massachusetts 16 (2.2) 50 20,226 126,761

Michigan 27 (2.8) 17 53,148 194,881

Minnesota 27 (3.1) 16 20,659 75,444

Mississippi 21 (3.1) 35 27,362 129,464

Missouri 29 (2.7) 10 37,322 127,596

Montana 18 (3.1) 43 4,265 23,102

Nebraska 26 (2.6) 21 7,916 30,901

Nevada 23 (2.8) 24 9,868 42,012

New Hampshire 22 (2.7) 32 4,781 22,084

New Jersey 28 (2.8) 14 38,101 136,690

New Mexico 17 (2.9) 48 12,750 76,554

New York 35 (3.0) 4 220,041 620,532

North Carolina 21 (2.1) 34 53,313 249,952

North Dakota 25 (3.0) 22 3,186 12,979

Ohio 24 (2.5) 23 51,332 212,535

Oklahoma 22 (2.4) 30 28,397 127,373

Oregon 40 (4.3) 2 23,678 59,137

Pennsylvania 23 (2.0) 27 67,569 289,339

Rhode Island 22 (2.4) 29 6,109 27,222

South Carolina 23 (2.3) 25 34,612 147,455

South Dakota 18 (2.8) 44 3,041 16,497

Tennessee 30 (3.4) 8 51,124 169,833

Texas 20 (2.2) 41 95,613 489,502

Utah 21 (3.2) 36 5,585 26,691

Vermont 35 (3.8) 6 4,646 13,453

Virginia 27 (2.5) 18 38,803 145,912

Washington 28 (2.9) 11 23,072 81,263

West Virginia 26 (3.1) 20 20,521 79,083

Wisconsin 18 (2.0) 46 15,757 89,162

Wyoming 16 (2.8) 49 1,231 7,638

Sources: SNAP QC, CPS, and administrative data for 2002; census 2000 data. 
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research 

172

Table D.2. Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, Ranks, and Number of Elderly Participants and 

Eligibles by State, FY 2003 

Participation Rate

(Standard Error) Rank

Number of 

Participants

Number of 

Eligibles

Alabama 22 (2.4) 38 32,624 145,816

Alaska 29 (6.1) 16 2,288 7,930

Arizona 24 (2.8) 33 22,562 94,447

Arkansas 23 (2.1) 37 22,203 94,624

California 7 (3.5) 51 24,361 367,954

Colorado 22 (2.5) 40 16,353 76,055

Connecticut 26 (3.7) 24 19,706 75,953

Delaware 18 (2.8) 49 2,471 13,551

District of Columbia 32 (5.4) 9 4,404 13,679

Florida 34 (2.8) 5 163,830 486,001

Georgia 27 (3.1) 20 56,213 205,321

Hawaii 52 (6.1) 1 14,473 27,951

Idaho 24 (2.9) 36 3,682 15,633

Illinois 28 (2.6) 18 68,893 245,382

Indiana 25 (2.7) 30 29,852 120,594

Iowa 21 (2.3) 43 8,788 42,561

Kansas 26 (2.4) 26 11,821 46,327

Kentucky 32 (2.9) 10 40,978 129,470

Louisiana 28 (3.3) 17 43,722 154,804

Maine 40 (3.8) 3 16,168 40,558

Maryland 18 (2.4) 48 20,469 111,796

Massachusetts 17 (2.0) 50 23,604 140,907

Michigan 29 (3.1) 14 62,948 213,439

Minnesota 26 (3.0) 23 18,472 70,829

Mississippi 26 (3.4) 22 31,668 120,681

Missouri 33 (3.2) 7 41,472 125,724

Montana 25 (3.8) 31 4,809 19,599

Nebraska 27 (2.9) 19 8,588 31,364

Nevada 25 (2.9) 28 9,988 40,073

New Hampshire 19 (2.6) 47 3,905 20,925

New Jersey 21 (2.3) 41 36,787 172,153

New Mexico 24 (3.0) 32 12,075 50,356

New York 33 (3.0) 6 152,132 456,132

North Carolina 22 (2.1) 39 57,780 265,395

North Dakota 25 (3.3) 29 3,439 13,836

Ohio 29 (2.9) 15 65,866 223,448

Oklahoma 31 (2.7) 12 27,150 88,673

Oregon 42 (4.8) 2 28,735 68,194

Pennsylvania 25 (2.3) 27 74,619 298,262

Rhode Island 21 (2.4) 42 5,217 25,164

South Carolina 27 (2.5) 21 28,998 106,859

South Dakota 20 (3.4) 44 3,555 17,553

Tennessee 35 (3.9) 4 62,256 178,544

Texas 24 (2.4) 35 163,036 690,594

Utah 24 (3.3) 34 4,588 19,304

Vermont 33 (4.1) 8 5,330 16,178

Virginia 26 (2.6) 25 41,720 162,916

Washington 30 (3.1) 13 34,372 113,798

West Virginia 32 (3.1) 11 20,986 66,397

Wisconsin 20 (2.4) 45 19,536 97,595

Wyoming 19 (3.3) 46 1,460 7,647

Sources: SNAP QC, CPS, and administrative data for 2003; census 2000 data. 
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research 

173

Table D.3. Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, Ranks, and Number of Elderly Participants and 

Eligibles by State, FY 2004 

Participation Rate

(Standard Error) Rank

Number of 

Participants

Number of 

Eligibles

Alabama 22 (2.3) 43 28,582 131,533

Alaska 25 (6.5) 35 2,275 9,048

Arizona 26 (2.7) 30 24,053 92,209

Arkansas 23 (2.6) 42 22,404 96,839

California 11 (4.0) 51 28,859 267,007

Colorado 24 (2.4) 40 17,834 75,220

Connecticut 29 (4.5) 20 20,958 72,488

Delaware 22 (2.5) 44 3,194 14,855

District of Columbia 30 (5.3) 14 6,551 21,941

Florida 43 (3.3) 2 181,203 418,190

Georgia 29 (3.0) 19 56,200 193,956

Hawaii 58 (5.8) 1 14,590 25,068

Idaho 26 (3.0) 33 4,653 18,209

Illinois 32 (2.7) 10 84,006 265,268

Indiana 26 (2.7) 32 31,532 122,765

Iowa 24 (2.5) 41 11,333 47,852

Kansas 27 (2.6) 27 11,719 43,289

Kentucky 29 (3.0) 17 45,492 154,585

Louisiana 25 (3.1) 34 39,406 154,926

Maine 38 (3.7) 4 16,117 42,060

Maryland 21 (2.6) 46 21,866 101,998

Massachusetts 20 (2.9) 49 26,571 131,856

Michigan 30 (3.0) 13 63,521 210,097

Minnesota 27 (3.3) 25 17,466 63,709

Mississippi 24 (2.9) 38 29,712 122,376

Missouri 34 (3.3) 6 42,586 126,219

Montana 24 (4.1) 39 5,143 21,427

Nebraska 30 (2.8) 15 7,139 23,934

Nevada 30 (3.3) 12 13,473 44,455

New Hampshire 21 (3.0) 47 4,249 20,171

New Jersey 29 (3.1) 22 45,656 158,851

New Mexico 25 (3.0) 37 14,205 57,714

New York 42 (3.6) 3 241,176 576,622

North Carolina 25 (2.1) 36 66,891 267,575

North Dakota 26 (3.7) 29 3,814 14,450

Ohio 30 (2.9) 11 70,898 233,410

Oklahoma 29 (2.6) 18 26,164 88,931

Oregon 38 (4.4) 5 32,173 84,863

Pennsylvania 29 (2.3) 21 97,766 339,846

Rhode Island 26 (2.9) 31 6,686 25,788

South Carolina 27 (2.5) 26 36,068 132,772

South Dakota 20 (3.6) 50 3,960 19,816

Tennessee 33 (4.1) 7 75,294 229,449

Texas 28 (2.4) 24 167,343 608,155

Utah 27 (3.6) 28 6,164 23,080

Vermont 33 (3.8) 8 5,753 17,615

Virginia 30 (2.7) 16 47,517 160,786

Washington 33 (3.1) 9 35,505 108,736

West Virginia 28 (3.1) 23 20,930 75,831

Wisconsin 21 (2.4) 45 21,008 97,787

Wyoming 21 (3.4) 48 1,264 6,106

Sources: SNAP QC, CPS, and administrative data for 2004; census 2000 data. 
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research 

174

Table D.4. Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, Ranks, and Number of Elderly Participants and 

Eligibles by State, FY 2005 

Participation Rate

(Standard Error) Rank

Number of 

Participants

Number of 

Eligibles

Alabama 21 (2.5) 44 32,599 152,532

Alaska 31 (5.6) 16 2,122 6,841

Arizona 27 (2.9) 29 28,769 106,396

Arkansas 27 (2.8) 31 25,145 93,822

California 9 (3.0) 51 30,481 357,163

Colorado 22 (2.3) 41 18,014 81,243

Connecticut 31 (3.9) 18 20,047 65,005

Delaware 23 (2.7) 37 3,319 14,163

District of Columbia 30 (4.9) 19 5,198 17,150

Florida 43 (3.4) 6 191,843 447,531

Georgia 29 (3.0) 25 58,702 200,018

Hawaii 61 (5.5) 1 14,558 23,916

Idaho 23 (3.0) 38 5,365 22,976

Illinois 37 (2.8) 10 85,724 233,922

Indiana 29 (2.9) 24 39,478 134,324

Iowa 26 (2.4) 34 11,918 45,531

Kansas 27 (2.5) 32 13,424 50,286

Kentucky 33 (3.1) 12 50,259 153,033

Louisiana 30 (3.4) 21 47,571 159,313

Maine 45 (3.7) 3 15,956 35,079

Maryland 21 (2.0) 46 24,159 117,439

Massachusetts 20 (2.9) 47 35,259 177,427

Michigan 37 (3.1) 8 67,727 181,672

Minnesota 26 (3.2) 33 19,313 73,764

Mississippi 21 (3.1) 45 26,263 125,051

Missouri 44 (3.7) 4 52,615 120,494

Montana 23 (4.1) 39 4,673 20,452

Nebraska 30 (2.8) 20 8,889 29,683

Nevada 27 (3.3) 28 13,509 49,889

New Hampshire 20 (2.6) 48 4,904 24,704

New Jersey 28 (3.2) 26 43,358 153,082

New Mexico 26 (3.1) 35 13,389 51,717

New York 43 (3.6) 5 267,002 621,048

North Carolina 24 (2.2) 36 65,091 269,294

North Dakota 22 (3.1) 40 3,447 15,413

Ohio 32 (2.9) 13 69,354 213,544

Oklahoma 32 (2.7) 14 30,141 94,019

Oregon 46 (4.4) 2 38,509 84,400

Pennsylvania 31 (2.3) 17 89,682 290,577

Rhode Island 22 (3.0) 42 6,291 28,499

South Carolina 30 (2.6) 22 38,339 128,432

South Dakota 16 (3.4) 49 3,146 19,577

Tennessee 39 (4.0) 7 73,509 186,652

Texas 28 (2.5) 27 182,310 646,968

Utah 27 (3.4) 30 5,401 20,025

Vermont 35 (3.8) 11 5,480 15,683

Virginia 29 (2.6) 23 48,340 164,303

Washington 37 (3.2) 9 43,337 118,176

West Virginia 31 (3.7) 15 24,982 80,459

Wisconsin 22 (2.1) 43 20,617 95,490

Wyoming 15 (3.4) 50 1,900 12,818

Sources: SNAP QC, CPS, and administrative data for 2005; census 2000 data. 
Appendix D Mathematica Policy Research 

175

Table D.5. Elderly SNAP Participation Rates, Ranks, and Number of Elderly Participants and 

Eligibles by State, FY 2006 

Participation Rate

(Standard Error) Rank

Number of 

Participants

Number of 

Eligibles

Alabama 26 (2.6) 42 34,357 131,561

Alaska 38 (6.2) 13 2,507 6,659

Arizona 26 (3.1) 43 27,407 105,510

Arkansas 27 (2.8) 40 23,195 86,296

California 10 (2.7) 51 40,193 412,152

Colorado 27 (2.5) 39 15,802 58,396

Connecticut 34 (4.4) 20 22,402 65,860

Delaware 27 (2.9) 38 3,959 14,417

District of Columbia 41 (6.7) 9 6,668 16,341

Florida 44 (4.0) 6 201,180 459,309

Georgia 35 (3.2) 15 64,317 181,912

Hawaii 63 (6.4) 1 14,431 22,749

Idaho 23 (2.9) 48 4,879 21,243

Illinois 40 (3.1) 10 92,629 228,735

Indiana 30 (3.0) 32 37,579 124,524

Iowa 30 (2.8) 31 15,936 52,653

Kansas 31 (2.5) 29 14,532 47,528

Kentucky 34 (3.2) 19 50,592 148,456

Louisiana 33 (3.6) 24 48,368 146,003

Maine 50 (4.2) 3 16,116 32,129

Maryland 28 (2.7) 37 25,299 90,532

Massachusetts 32 (3.5) 27 55,135 173,114

Michigan 43 (3.5) 8 72,994 169,637

Minnesota 33 (3.3) 22 21,478 64,322

Mississippi 31 (3.4) 28 32,949 105,707

Missouri 45 (3.9) 5 48,768 108,813

Montana 25 (4.1) 46 5,132 20,801

Nebraska 33 (3.0) 25 9,557 29,077

Nevada 28 (3.6) 36 12,396 44,102

New Hampshire 25 (3.0) 44 5,653 22,424

New Jersey 34 (3.5) 18 44,360 130,005

New Mexico 30 (3.5) 35 13,366 45,055

New York 50 (3.9) 2 298,748 593,149

North Carolina 30 (2.6) 33 84,219 279,438

North Dakota 25 (3.6) 45 3,810 15,200

Ohio 36 (3.0) 14 85,603 235,848

Oklahoma 34 (2.8) 21 31,174 93,025

Oregon 45 (4.6) 4 41,379 92,000

Pennsylvania 34 (2.4) 16 92,135 268,214

Rhode Island 24 (3.1) 47 6,725 27,618

South Carolina 33 (2.8) 23 37,171 112,094

South Dakota 21 (3.4) 49 4,346 21,199

Tennessee 39 (3.9) 11 73,479 188,609

Texas 32 (2.5) 26 213,551 661,216

Utah 30 (3.6) 30 7,420 24,447

Vermont 38 (4.0) 12 6,153 16,262

Virginia 34 (2.7) 17 51,512 150,078

Washington 43 (3.5) 7 43,697 101,388

West Virginia 30 (3.7) 34 20,340 68,450

Wisconsin 26 (2.4) 41 22,745 86,908

Wyoming 20 (3.5) 50 1,865 9,428

Sources: SNAP QC, CPS, and administrative data for 2006; census 2000 data. 
www.mathematica-mpr.com

Improving public well-being by conducting high-quality, objective research and surveys

Princeton, NJ ■ Ann Arbor, MI ■ Cambridge, MA ■ Chicago, IL ■ Oakland, CA ■ Washington, DC

Mathematica® is a registered trademark of Mathematica Policy Research