ESTIMATES OF STATE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2012

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

is a central component of American policy to alleviate 

hunger and poverty. The program’s main purpose is “to 

permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious 

diet...by increasing their purchasing power” (Food and 

Nutrition Act of 2008). SNAP is the largest of the domestic 

food and nutrition assistance programs administered by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition 

Service. During fiscal year 2014, the program served over 

46 million people in an average month at a total annual 

cost of about $70 billion in benefits.

The national SNAP participation rate is the percentage 

of eligible people in the United States who actually 

participate in the program. SNAP provides an important 

support for the “working poor”—people who are eligible 

for SNAP benefits and live in households in which 

someone earns income from a job. On average during 

fiscal year 2013, 20 million SNAP participants—42 

percent of all SNAP participants—lived in households 

that had income from earnings, up from 30 percent of all 

participants in 1996, the year in which more emphasis was 

placed on work for public assistance recipients through 

the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Reconciliation Act.

Recent studies have examined national participation 

rates as well as participation rates for socioeconomic 

and demographic subgroups (Eslami 2014), and State 

rates for all eligible people and for the working poor 

(Cunnyngham 2013). This document presents estimates 

of SNAP participation rates for all eligible people and 

for the working poor by States for fiscal year 2012. 

These estimates can be used to assess recent program 

performance and focus efforts to improve access.

Participation Rates in 2012

Eighty-three percent of eligible people in the United States 

received SNAP benefits in fiscal year 2012. Participation 

rates varied widely from State to State, however. Twentytwo States had rates that were significantly higher (in a 

statistical sense) than the national rate, and 15 States had 

rates that were significantly lower. Among the regions, 

the Midwest Region had the highest participation rate. 

Its 91 percent rate was significantly higher than the rates 

for all of the other regions except the Southeast Region. 

The Western Region’s participation rate of 71 percent 

was significantly lower than the rates for all of the other 

regions. (See the last page for a map showing regional 

boundaries.)

In 2012, 72 percent of eligible working poor in the United 

States participated in SNAP, but as with participation rates 

for all eligible people, rates for the working poor varied 

widely across States. Twenty-two States had rates for 

the working poor that were significantly higher than the 

national rate for the working poor, and 7 States had rates 

that were significantly lower.

While 83 percent of all eligible people in the United 

States participated in 2012, only 72 percent of the eligible 

working poor participated, a significant difference of 11 

percentage points. In 33 States, the participation rate for 

the working poor in 2012 was—like the national rate for 

the working poor—significantly lower than the rate for 

all eligible people. In 10 of these States, the difference 

B Y KAREN E. CUNNYNGHAM • MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH • FEBRUARY 2015

United States Department of Agriculture
How Many Were Eligible in 2012? What Percentage Participated?

A confidence interval expresses our uncertainty about the true value of a participation rate. Each interval displayed here is a 90-percent confidence interval. One interpretation 

of such an interval is that there is a 90-percent chance that the true participation rate falls within the estimated bounds. For example, while our best estimate is that Minnesota’s 

participation rate was 86 percent in 2012, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 81 and 91 percent.

2

Participation Rates and Confidence Intervals (Percent)

(Participation Rate = 100 x Number of People Participating ÷ Number of People Eligible)

(Estimated participation rates are in red; estimated bounds of confidence intervals are in black.)

Maine

Oregon

Michigan

District of Columbia

Vermont

Washington

Delaware

Tennessee

Iowa

Wisconsin

Massachusetts

Illinois

Kentucky

Rhode Island

Connecticut

New Mexico

Florida

Pennsylvania

Georgia

Missouri

Alabama

Ohio

Maryland

Minnesota

North Carolina

West Virginia

South Carolina

New Hampshire

Mississippi

Idaho

Louisiana

Virginia

Indiana

Oklahoma

Utah

Arizona

New York

South Dakota

Arkansas

New Jersey

Colorado

Nebraska

Montana

Texas

Alaska

Kansas

North Dakota

Hawaii

Nevada

California

Wyoming

Midwest Region

Southeast Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Northeast Region

Mountain Plains Region

Southwest Region

Western Region

United States

213

631

1,575

132

74

854

125

1,323

360

724

802

1,867

877

157

378

441

3,451

1,741

2,012

1,039

991

1,906

729

507

1,710

366

952

113

743

257

1,023

1,085

1,071

707

337

1,174

3,504

129

637

951

604

214

144

4,770

124

409

65

236

443

5,972

59

7,651

12,059

5,128

5,240

3,361

7,578

9,692

50,708

71

Eligible

People

(Thousands)

82 83 84

70 73

76 78 80

79 82 84

81 84 87

83 86 88

87 89 92

89 91 94

89 94 99

51 56 62

60 63 65

61 66 70

61 66 71

65 70 76

68 72 77

66 73 80

72

69 75

75

82

78

70 76 81

71 76 81

72 77 82

72 77 82

73 78 84

76 80 83

76 81 86

76 81 87

78 82 87

79 84 88

79 84 89

79 84 89

79 84 90

79 84 90

79 85 90

81 86

78 86 93

82 86 90

81 86 91

81 86 92

83 88 92

83 88 93

84 89 94

85 89 94

86 90 94

86 90 93

84 90 95

85 91 96

86 91

86

88

95

91 96

92 96

88 93 98

90 96

93 98

93 98

92 98

92 98

91 99

95

94

94

90

100100

100100

100100

100

100

100

100

100

100
How Many Working Poor Were Eligible in 2012? What Percentage Participated?

3

A confidence interval expresses our uncertainty about the true value of a participation rate. Each interval displayed here is a 90-percent confidence interval. One interpretation of 

such an interval is that there is a 90-percent chance that the true participation rate falls within the estimated bounds. For example, while our best estimate is that Virginia’s working 

poor participation rate was 77 percent in 2012, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 70 and 84 percent.

Participation Rates and Confidence Intervals (Percent)

(Participation Rate = 100 x Number of People Participating ÷ Number of People Eligible)

(Estimated participation rates are in red; estimated bounds of confidence intervals are in black.)

58

Eligible

Working Poor

(Thousands)

70 72 74

55 61

65 70 75

69 73 76

72 75 79

73 77 81

74 77 81

78 82 85

76 83 91

46 49 53

40 50 61

45 51 57

46 53 59

51 59 66

56 66 76

61 66 71

60

61 67

67

74

74

59 68 77

62 69 77

63 69 76

66 71 75

63 71 78

63 71 79

65 72 79

65 73 80

66 73 80

66 73 80

66 73 80

67 73 79

67 73 80

67 74 81

68 74 80

69 74

69 76 84

70 77 83

70 77 84

69 77 85

70 77 85

71 78 85

71 78 85

72 79 86

71 79 88

71 81 90

74 81 88

73 81 89

74 82

74

73

89

82 89

82 90

76 83 90

77 84 92

77 85 93

76 86 95

77 86 96

79 86 94

76 88

82 90

87 95

88 98

80

82

677

187

124

56

308

209

349

362

503

573

303

244

603

384

489

33

47

928

420

150

65

384

504

808

157

836

1,646

366

287

807

58

618

196

311

355

64

256

2,631

120

417

29

1,630

299

218

58

28

216

135

39

3,203

3,403

5,398

2,025

1,708

3,901

2,262

5,072

23,770

Maine

Michigan

Iowa

West Virginia

Delaware

Oregon

New Mexico

Wisconsin

South Carolina

Missouri

Pennsylvania

Mississippi

Minnesota

Tennessee

Alabama

Indiana

Vermont

New Hampshire

Georgia

Louisiana

Idaho

South Dakota

Washington

Virginia

Ohio

Connecticut

Illinois

Florida

Kentucky

Arkansas

North Carolina

Rhode Island

Arizona

Utah

Maryland

Oklahoma

Montana

Massachusetts

Texas

Nebraska

New Jersey

North Dakota

New York

Colorado

Kansas

Alaska

Wyoming

Nevada

Hawaii

District of Columbia

California

Midwest Region

Southeast Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Mountain Plains Region

Southwest Region

Northeast Region

Western Region

United States

100

100

98

100
between the rate for the working poor and the rate for 

all eligible people was significantly greater than the 11 

percentage point difference between the national rates. In 

no State was the rate for the working poor significantly 

higher than the rate for all eligible people.

State Comparisons 

The estimated participation rates presented here are based 

on fairly small samples of households in each State. 

Although there is substantial uncertainty associated with 

the estimates for some States and with comparisons of 

estimates from different States, the estimates for 2012 

show whether a State’s participation rate for all eligible 

people was probably at the top, at the bottom, or in the 

middle of the distribution. Maine and Oregon were very 

likely at the top, with higher rates for all eligible people 

than all other States. In contrast, Wyoming likely had a 

lower rate than other States. 

Similarly, it is possible to determine that some States were 

probably at the top, at the bottom, or in the middle of the 

distribution of rates for the working poor in 2012. Maine 

and Michigan were very likely at the top, with higher 

rates for the working poor than most States. In contrast, 

California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Nevada 

likely had lower rates than most States. 

How a State compares with other States may fluctuate 

over time due to statistical variability in estimated rates 

and true changes in rates. The statistical variability is 

sufficiently great that a large change in a State’s rate from 

the prior year should be interpreted cautiously, as should 

differences between the rates of that State and other States. 

It may be incorrect to conclude that program performance 

in the State has improved or deteriorated dramatically. 

Despite this uncertainty, the estimated participation rates 

for all eligible people and the working poor suggest that 

some States have been fairly consistently in the top or 

bottom of the distribution of rates in recent years. In all 3 

years from 2010 to 2012, the District of Columbia, Maine, 

Michigan, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington 

had significantly higher participation rates for all eligible 

people than two-thirds of the States. Iowa, Massachusetts, 

and Wisconsin had significantly higher rates than half 

of the States. Alaska, Arkansas, and North Dakota had 

significantly lower rates than half of the States in all 3 

years, while California, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, New 

Jersey, Nevada, Texas, and Wyoming had significantly 

lower rates than two-thirds of the States.

A State ranked near the top or bottom of the distribution 

of participation rates for all eligible people is likely to 

be ranked near the top or bottom, respectively, of the 

distribution of participation rates for the working poor. 

Although the rankings of States by participation rates 

for the working poor and for all eligible people are 

generally similar, they do not exactly match. Eight States 

(Arkansas, Indiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, South 

Carolina, South Dakota,West Virginia, and Wyoming) are 

ranked significantly higher for all 3 years when ranked 

by their participation rate for the working poor than when 

ranked by their participation rate for all eligible people. 

In contrast, 6 States—Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, 

Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington—and the District 

of Columbia are ranked significantly lower for all 3 years 

when ranked by their participation rate for the working 

poor than when ranked by their participation rate for all 

eligible people.

Estimation Method 

The estimates presented here were derived using shrinkage 

estimation methods developed to improve precision when 

sample sizes are small, as they are for most states in the 

Current Population Survey (Cunnyngham et al. 2014, and 

Cunnyngham et al. forthcoming). Drawing on data from 

the Current Population Survey, the American Community 

Survey, and administrative records, the shrinkage estimator 

averaged direct sample estimates of participation rates 

4
Estimates of Participation Rates (Percent)

There is substantial uncertainty associated with most of these estimates. Confidence intervals that measure the uncertainty in the estimates for 2010 and 

2011 are presented in Cunnyngham et al. (forthcoming). These confidence 

intervals are generally about as wide as the confidence intervals that are presented in this document for the 2012 estimates.

5

All Eligible People Working Poor 

 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012

with predictions from a regression model. To further 

improve precision, the shrinkage estimator used data for 

all the states, all three years, and both groups (all eligible 

individuals and the working poor) to derive each estimate.

The direct sample estimates were obtained by applying 

SNAP eligibility rules to households in the Current 

Population Survey to estimate numbers of eligible people 

and by using SNAP administrative data to estimate 

numbers of participating people. Eslami (2014) presents 

details on the estimation methods used to derive the 

direct sample estimates. The direct sample estimates 

differ slightly from estimates developed for prior reports. 

The estimates developed for this report use more recent 

Survey of Income and Program Participation data to 

estimate asset eligibility.

The regression predictions of participation rates 

were based on observed indicators of socioeconomic 

conditions, such as the percentage of the total State 

population receiving SNAP benefits. The regression 

model was chosen for its strong predictive ability for all 

three years. Because of differences between the years 

being estimated as well as the change in Survey of Income 

and Program Participation data, the regression model 

differs slightly from the one developed for the prior 

report.

The shrinkage estimates presented here are substantially 

more precise than the direct sample estimates from the 

Current Population Survey. Estimates for 2010 and 

2011 differ from estimates presented in Cunnyngham 

(2013) because of differences in (1) the three years being 

jointly estimated, (2) the Survey of Income and Program 

Participation data used for the direct sample estimation 

methodology, and (3) the regression model. 

The estimates for all eligible people include individuals 

in households that pass all applicable federal SNAP 

income and asset tests or in which all members receive 

cash public assistance. People eligible solely through 

State categorical eligibility policies are not included in 

the estimates presented here. The estimates for eligible 

working poor include people who are eligible for SNAP 

as defined above and live in a household in which a 

member earns money from a job.

Because the Current Population Survey does not collect 

data on participation in the Food Distribution Program on 

Alabama 73 83 88 68 76 81

Alaska 67 67 73 60 57 66

Arizona 74 77 81 67 68 73

Arkansas 68 72 77 66 68 73

California 51 55 63 39 42 49

Colorado 65 69 76 57 58 67

Connecticut 75 84 91 60 67 76

Delaware 78 90 98 70 79 86

District of Columbia 85 96 99 38 41 50

Florida 74 83 90 63 70 74

Georgia 75 83 89 67 73 79

Hawaii 60 61 66 47 45 51

Idaho 75 80 84 72 74 78

Illinois 79 84 92 62 67 74

Indiana 72 74 84 70 72 81

Iowa 84 87 96 80 82 90

Kansas 63 68 72 57 62 66

Kentucky 84 89 91 68 71 74

Louisiana 70 77 84 65 71 78

Maine 100 100 100 97 98 98

Maryland 67 79 86 53 61 73

Massachusetts 81 88 93 57 64 71

Michigan 94 100 100 90 96 95

Minnesota 72 79 86 69 75 82

Mississippi 69 79 84 66 73 82

Missouri 86 86 89 80 79 83

Montana 69 72 75 69 67 71

Nebraska 69 69 76 63 62 69

Nevada 56 64 66 45 52 53

New Hampshire 79 79 85 73 71 79

New Jersey 62 69 77 53 59 69

New Mexico 73 84 90 72 77 86

New York 72 78 80 59 64 67

North Carolina 70 80 86 59 66 73

North Dakota 67 68 70 66 64 68

Ohio 76 83 88 66 72 77

Oklahoma 76 81 82 65 69 72

Oregon 99 100 100 82 86 86

Pennsylvania 78 84 90 74 78 83

Rhode Island 77 84 91 61 67 73

South Carolina 73 80 86 71 77 84

South Dakota 76 76 78 74 73 77

Tennessee 89 93 98 75 78 82

Texas 63 71 75 58 65 71

Utah 72 77 81 64 67 73

Vermont 90 96 98 74 77 81

Virginia 72 78 84 66 68 77

Washington 91 97 98 72 75 77

West Virginia 88 87 86 93 87 88

Wisconsin 84 91 94 78 83 85

Wyoming 60 56 56 58 55 59

Mid-Atlantic Region 73 80 86 65 69 77

Midwest Region 80 86 91 71 77 82

Mountain Plains Region 75 77 82 69 69 75

Northeast Region 75 81 84 60 66 70

Southeast Region 75 84 89 66 72 77

Southwest Region 66 74 78 61 67 73

Western Region 61 66 71 48 52 58

United States 72 78 83 62 67 72
How Did Your State Rank in 2012?

A confidence interval expresses our uncertainty about the true value of a State’s rank. Each interval displayed here is a 90-percent confidence interval. One interpretation of such an interval is that there is a 90-percent chance that the true rank falls within the estimated bounds. For example, while our best estimate is that West 

Virginia had the 26th highest participation rate in 2012, the true rank may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rank was 

between 11 and 38 among all of the States. To determine how West Virginia or your State compares with any other State, see the chart on page 7.

6

Ranks and Confidence Intervals

(Estimated ranks are in red; estimated bounds of confidence intervals are in black.) 

50 51 51

49 5050

46 49 50

47 48 50

42 47 49

41 46 47

37 45 48

39 44 46

34

36 42

43

46

47

35 41 46

34 40 46

34 39 45

30 38 45

31 37 41

26 36 41

24 35 41

24 34 39

21 33 38

20 32 38

19 31 37

17 30 37

17 29 38

17 28 37

17 27 34

11 26 38

17 25 33

15 24 34

14 23 35

13 22 32

12 21 32

10 20 30

10 19 27

11 18 27

11 17 26

9 16 29

9 15 27

9 14 26

8 13

8

6

26

12 21

11 22

5 10 19

4 9 17

3 8 12

3 7 11

3 6 12

3 5 14

2 4 14

2 3

1 2

1 1 3

3

9

Participation

Rate for

 All Eligible 

People (Percent)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 

 Maine

 Oregon

 Michigan

99 District of Columbia

98 Vermont

98 Washington

98 Delaware

98 Tennessee

96 Iowa

94 Wisconsin

93 Massachusetts

92 Illinois

91 Kentucky

91 Rhode Island

91 Connecticut

90 New Mexico

90 Florida

90 Pennsylvania

89 Georgia

89 Missouri

88 Alabama

88 Ohio

86 Maryland

86 Minnesota

86 North Carolina

86 West Virginia

86 South Carolina

85 New Hampshire

84 Mississippi

84 Idaho

84 Louisiana

84 Virginia

84 Indiana

82 Oklahoma

81 Utah

81 Arizona

80 New York

78 South Dakota

77 Arkansas

77 New Jersey

76 Colorado

76 Nebraska

75 Montana

75 Texas

73 Alaska

72 Kansas

70 North Dakota

66 Hawaii

66 Nevada

63 California

56 Wyoming

100

100

100
How Did Your State Compare with Other States in 2012 for All Eligibles?

Whether one State has a significantly higher participation rate than a second State can be determined from this figure by finding the row for the first State at the left 

of the figure and the column for the second State at the top of the figure. If the box where the row and column intersect is red, there is at least a 90-percent chance 

that the first State (the row State) has a higher true participation rate. If the box is blue, there is at least a 90-percent chance that the second State (the column State) 

has a higher true participation rate. Equivalently, there is less than a 10-percent chance that the first State has a higher rate. If the box is tan, 

there is more than a 10-percent chance but less than a 90-percent chance that the first State has a higher rate; thus, we conclude that neither estimated rate is significantly higher.

Taking West Virginia, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it had a significantly lower participation rate than 10 other States 

(Maine, Oregon, Michigan, the District of Columbia, Vermont, Washington, Delaware, Tennessee, Iowa, and Wisconsin) and a significantly higher rate than 

13 other States (Wyoming, California, Nevada, Hawaii, North Dakota, Kansas, Alaska, Texas, Montana, Nebraska, Colorado, New Jersey, and Arkansas). Its rate 

was neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 27 States, suggesting that West Virginia is probably in the broad center 

of the distribution, unlike, for example, Maine and Wyoming, which were surely at or near the top and bottom of the distribution, respectively. Although we 

use the statistical definition of “significance” here, most of the significant differences were at least 10 percentage points, a difference that seems important as well 

as significant, and all of them were at least 5 percentage points.

7

ME OR MI DC VT WA DE TN IA WI MA IL KY RI CT NM FL PA GA MO AL OH MD MN NC WV SC NH MS ID LA VA IN OK UT AZ NY SD AR NJ CO NE MT TX AK KS ND HI NV CA WY Rate

Rate for row State significantly higher

Rate for row State significantly lower

ME

OR

MI

DC

VT

WA

DE

TN

IA

WI

MA

IL

KY

RI

CT

NM

FL

PA

GA

MO

AL

OH

MD

MN

NC

WV

SC

NH

MS

ID

LA

VA

IN

OK

UT

AZ

NY

SD

AR

NJ

CO

NE

MT

TX

AK

KS

ND

HI

NV

CA

WY

Rates not significantly different

100%

99%

98%

98%

98%

98%

96%

94%

93%

92%

91%

91%

91%

90%

90%

90%

89%

89%

88%

88%

86%

86%

86%

86%

86%

85%

84%

84%

84%

84%

84%

82%

81%

81%

80%

78%

77%

77%

76%

76%

75%

75%

73%

72%

70%

66%

66%

63%

56%

100%

100%
Northeast

Southeast

Southwest

Mid-Atlantic Mountain

Plains

Western

Midwest

Produced by Mathematica Policy Research, for the Food and Nutrition Service under contract no. AG-3198-K-14-0007.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

1

About 1.3 million Supplemental Security Income recipients in California receive 

a small food assistance benefit through the State supplement. In the absence of 

the state rule excluding these individuals from receiving SNAP benefits, slightly 

less than half this number would become eligible for SNAP under current program rules.

 2012 Participation Rate

 for All Eligible People

 Above 91% (top quarter)

 78% to 91%

 Below 78% (bottom quarter)

 National Rate = 83%

FEBRUARY 2015

Indian Reservations, 

the estimates 

presented here were 

not adjusted to 

reflect the fact that 

participants in that 

program were not 

eligible to receive 

SNAP benefits 

at the same time 

(Eslami 2014). The 

Food Distribution 

Program on Indian 

Reservations served 

about 77,000 people 

in 2012, so the effects 

of such adjustments 

would be negligible 

in almost all States. 

Because our focus in 

this document is on 

participation among 

people who were 

eligible for SNAP, the 

estimates of eligible 

Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 

forthcoming.

Cunnyngham, Karen E., Amang Sukasih, and Laura A. 

Castner. “Empirical Bayes Shrinkage Estimates of State 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Rates in 

2009-2011 for All Eligible People and the Working Poor.” 

Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 

March 2014.

Cunnyngham, Karen E. “Reaching Those in Need: State 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation 

Rates in 2011.” Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, February 2014.

Eslami, Esa. “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 

2012.” Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, July 2014.

Estimates of Participation Rates Varied Widely

people were adjusted using available data to reflect the fact 

that Supplemental Security Income recipients in California 

are not legally eligible to receive SNAP benefits because 

they receive cash instead.1 It might be useful in some other 

contexts, however, to consider participation rates among 

those eligible for SNAP benefits or a cash substitute.

References

Cunnyngham, Karen E., Amang Sukasih, and Laura A. 

Castner. “Empirical Bayes Shrinkage Estimates of State 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Rates in 

2010-2012 for All Eligible People and the Working Poor.”