ESTIMATES OF STATE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2013

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 2015, the program served 

nearly 46 million people in an average month at a total 

annual cost of almost $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 2014, 19 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 passage 

of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act placed more emphasis on work for 

public assistance recipients.

Recent studies have examined national SNAP participation 

rates, rates for members of socioeconomic and 

demographic subgroups (Eslami 2015), and State rates for 

all eligible people and for the working poor (Cunnyngham 

2015). This document presents estimates of State SNAP 

participation rates for all eligible people and for the 

working poor for fiscal year 2013. These estimates can 

be used to assess recent program performance and focus 

efforts to improve access.

Participation Rates in 2013

An estimated 85 percent of eligible people in the United 

States received SNAP benefits in fiscal year 2013. 

Participation rates varied widely from State to State, 

however. In 22 States, the rates were significantly higher 

(in a statistical sense) than the national rate, and in 16 

States, the rates were significantly lower. Among the 

regions, the Midwest Region’s participation rate of 96 

percent was significantly higher than the rates for all of the 

other regions. The Western Region’s participation rate of 

74 percent was significantly lower than the rates for all of 

the other regions. (See the last page for a map that shows 

regional boundaries.)

An estimated 74 percent of eligible working poor people in 

the United States participated in SNAP in fiscal year 2013. 

As with participation rates for all eligible people, rates 

for the working poor varied widely across States. In 23 

States, SNAP participation rates for the working poor were 

significantly higher than the national rate for the working 

poor, and in 6 States they were significantly lower.

In 2013, the national SNAP participation rate for eligible 

working poor was significantly lower than the national 

rate for all eligible people. In 31 States, the participation 

rate for the working poor was likewise significantly lower 

than the rate for all eligible people. In 8 of these States, the 

difference 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 

B Y KAREN E. CUNNYNGHAM • MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH • FEBRUARY 2016

United States Department of Agriculture
How Many Were Eligible in 2013? 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 87 percent in 2013, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 82 and 91 percent.

See Estimation Method section for information on participation rates of 100 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.)

74

Eligible

People

(Thousands)

84 85 87

72 76

76 79 81

83 85 87

83 85 88

86 89 91

89 90 92

93 96 99

92 97 100

52 57 62

61 66 71

64 66 69

65 70 75

68 74 79

70 75 80

71 76 80

74

72 77

77

81

80

73 77 82

73 78 83

74 79 84

76 80 85

75 80 86

76 81 86

76 81 86

77 84 90

79 84 89

80 84 88

80 84 89

80 85 90

80 85 90

82 86 89

80 86 91

82 86

82 87 91

84 88 93

83 89 96

85 89 94

85 89 94

84 90 95

85 90 95

86 90 95

86 90 95

89 93 96

89 93 96

88 93 98

90 95

91

89

100

96 100

96 100

91 96 100

94 98

94 99

94 100

95 100

95 100

95 100

94

95

94

91

30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

100100

100100

100100

100

100

100

100

100

100

654

854

209

1,549

1,333

702

77

155

1,891

130

368

137

1,719

819

985

1,939

3,529

397

1,757

744

101

1,020

989

115

924

526

1,049

245

3,363

755

115

977

1,791

1,122

482

1,169

583

308

740

213

407

402

645

4,750

1,037

226

156

64

5,861

461

65

7,406

12,237

5,135

5,334

3,260

7,666

9,573

50,611

Oregon

Washington

Maine

Michigan

Tennessee

Wisconsin

Vermont

Rhode Island

Illinois

Delaware

Iowa

District of Columbia

Ohio

Massachusetts

Missouri

Georgia

Florida

Connecticut

Pennsylvania

Maryland

Alaska

Indiana

Alabama

South Dakota

Kentucky

Minnesota

Louisiana

Idaho

New York

Mississippi

New Hampshire

South Carolina

North Carolina

Virginia

New Mexico

Arizona

Colorado

Utah

Oklahoma

Nebraska

West Virginia

Kansas

Arkansas

Texas

New Jersey

Hawaii

Montana

North Dakota

California

Nevada

Wyoming

Midwest Region

Southeast Region

Northeast Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Mountain Plains Region

Southwest Region

Western Region

United States
How Many Working Poor Were Eligible in 2013? 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 Minnesota’s working 

poor participation rate was 78 percent in 2013, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 71 and 85 percent.

See Estimation Method section for information on participation rates of 100 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.)

61

Eligible

Working Poor

(Thousands)

72 74 76

58 65

67 71 74

74 77 80

72 77 82

74 77 81

74 78 81

82 86 91

80

78 86 93

77 86 94

77 87 96

81 91 100

85 94 100

86 94

87 97

90 99

90 100

85

52

53

57

60

65

68

70

70

71

71

71

72

72

73

73

73

75

75

76

77

77

77

77

78

78

78

79

79

80

80

80

80

81

81

81

82

82

84

84

84

77

48

46

49

47

58

63

63

63

64

65

64

65

64

67

66

66

68

67

69

68

69

70

70

69

71

72

73

71

73

72

73

73

74

74

74

74

75

76

75

75

92

56

60

65

72

73

73

78

76

77

76

78

79

81

79

80

82

83

82

85

85

84

84

85

85

85

88

87

88

87

87

87

88

88

90

89

91

93

94

86

252

641

80

210

364

60

60

36

461

346

723

230

300

147

546

57

389

442

903

667

487

49

413

47

895

460

260

131

176

331

275

629

1,488

77

918

293

276

1,674

29

118

462

220

352

173

430

2,663

127

47

29

238

3,233

3,344

1,652

2,186

2,159

5,573

3,981

5,021

23,916

Oregon

Michigan

Maine

Iowa

Wisconsin

South Dakota

Delaware

Vermont

Indiana

Washington

Ohio

New Mexico

Mississippi

Idaho

Tennessee

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Missouri

Georgia

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Alaska

Alabama

New Hampshire

Illinois

Louisiana

Minnesota

West Virginia

Connecticut

Maryland

Massachusetts

Arizona

New York

Montana

North Carolina

Colorado

Arkansas

Florida

North Dakota

Nebraska

New Jersey

Kansas

Oklahoma

Utah

Kentucky

Texas

Hawaii

District of Columbia

Wyoming

Nevada

California

Midwest Region

Mountain Plains Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Northeast Region

Southeast Region

Southwest Region

Western Region

United States

100

100

100

100

78 85 93
rates. In no State was the rate for the working poor 

significantly higher than the rate for all eligible people.

State Comparisons 

The estimated SNAP 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 2013 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. Oregon was very likely at the top, with a 

higher rate 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 2013. 

Oregon, Michigan, and Maine were very likely at the top, 

with higher rates for the working poor than most States. 

In contrast, California, Nevada, and Wyoming 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 2011 

to 2013, Maine, Michigan, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, 

Washington, and Wisconsin had significantly higher 

participation rates for all eligible people than two-thirds of 

the States. The District of Columbia, Delaware, Georgia, 

Massachusetts, and Missouri had significantly higher rates 

than half of the States. Arkansas, Colorado, and Nebraska 

had significantly lower rates than half of the States in all 3 

years, while California, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, North 

Dakota, 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 SNAP 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. Yet, 

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. Seven States (Iowa, 

Indiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, and West Virginia) 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—Florida, 

Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Tennessee, 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. 2015, 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 with 

predictions from a regression model. To further improve 

precision, the shrinkage estimator used data for all the 

States, all 3 years, and both groups (all eligible individuals 

and the working poor) to derive each estimate.

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 2011 and 2012 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 2013 estimates.

See Estimation Method section for information on participation rates of 100 percent.

5

All Eligible People Working Poor 

 2011 2012 2013 2011 2012 2013

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 (2015) presents 

details on the estimation methods used to derive the direct 

sample estimates.

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. Because of 

differences between the years being estimated, the 

regression model differs slightly from the one developed 

for Cunnyngham (2015). The regression model developed 

for this year’s report was chosen for its strong predictive 

ability for all 3 years and its consistency with the model 

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 2011 and 

2012 differ from estimates presented in Cunnyngham 

(2015) because of differences in the 3 years being jointly 

estimated and 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.

An estimated State participation rate of 100 percent is the 

result of differences between the data used to estimate the 

number of eligible people and the number of participants 

and should not be interpreted to mean that every eligible 

person in the State is participating in SNAP. Using different 

data sources to estimate rate denominators and numerators 

can result in a preliminary estimate of eligible people in 

a particular State that is lower than the corresponding 

estimate of participants, leading to a participation rate that 

exceeds 100 percent. We capped participation rates at 100 

percent by adjusting estimates of eligible people so no 

Alabama 84 89 89 75 81 80

Alaska 79 83 90 63 69 80

Arizona 78 82 81 71 75 77

Arkansas 72 77 77 69 74 73

California 55 63 66 40 49 52

Colorado 67 74 81 58 66 73

Connecticut 81 86 90 67 73 77

Delaware 86 96 97 77 86 87

District of Columbia 92 97 96 43 52 60

Florida 83 89 93 68 73 73

Georgia 87 92 93 77 81 81

Hawaii 63 66 75 48 53 65

Idaho 80 85 86 76 81 84

Illinois 84 93 98 68 75 79

Indiana 79 87 89 78 87 86

Iowa 84 96 96 84 94 94

Kansas 67 72 77 62 67 71

Kentucky 84 91 88 67 74 70

Louisiana 76 84 86 71 76 78

Maine 100 100 100 95 97 97

Maryland 78 85 90 61 69 77

Massachusetts 87 92 95 66 71 77

Michigan 100 100 100 100 99 99

Minnesota 75 85 87 71 80 78

Mississippi 79 85 85 76 84 84

Missouri 90 91 93 79 82 81

Montana 71 74 74 67 70 75

Nebraska 70 76 79 62 69 72

Nevada 61 65 66 51 51 53

New Hampshire 79 83 85 72 79 79

New Jersey 67 73 76 62 70 71

New Mexico 81 86 84 77 81 84

New York 79 80 86 64 67 76

North Carolina 79 84 84 67 74 75

North Dakota 70 70 70 66 69 72

Ohio 86 90 96 74 79 85

Oklahoma 78 80 80 67 72 71

Oregon 100 100 100 87 91 100

Pennsylvania 85 90 90 76 81 80

Rhode Island 84 91 99 69 74 82

South Carolina 79 86 84 77 83 81

South Dakota 82 89 89 79 87 91

Tennessee 95 100 100 75 81 82

Texas 72 74 77 65 69 68

Utah 78 84 80 67 75 70

Vermont 94 97 100 77 81 86

Virginia 75 81 84 69 76 80

Washington 98 100 100 73 77 85

West Virginia 80 80 78 78 81 78

Wisconsin 91 98 100 84 90 94

Wyoming 58 61 57 54 61 57

Mid-Atlantic Region 78 84 85 69 75 77

Midwest Region 87 93 96 79 84 86

Mountain Plains Region 78 83 85 69 76 78

Northeast Region 81 84 89 66 70 77

Southeast Region 84 90 90 72 77 77

Southwest Region 73 77 79 67 71 71

Western Region 66 72 74 51 58 61

United States 78 83 85 67 72 74
How Did Your State Rank in 2013?

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 Minnesota had the 26th highest participation rate in 2013, the true rank may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true 

rank was between 19 and 35 among all of the States. To determine how Minnesota 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.) 

1

515151

48 5050

48 49 50

45 48 50

40 47 48

38 46 48

39 45 47

38 44 46

37

36 42

43

46

47

35 41 47

32 40 46

31 39 44

29 38 44

29 37 43

29 36 44

21 35 43

24 34 40

24 33 38

24 32 38

22 31 38

21 30 38

22 29 36

19 28 38

19 27 36

19 26 35

16 25 33

13 24 34

15 23 30

15 22 31

13 21 32

14 20 29

14 19 28

13 18 29

11 17 23

11 16 23

10 15 24

7 14 21

7 13

5

7

19

12 23

11 19

5 10 18

5 9 14

4 8 14

4 7 14

3 6 11

2 5 11

2 4 8

2 3

2 2

1 1

6

9

Participation

Rate for

 All Eligible 

People (Percent)

 Oregon

 Washington

 Maine

 Michigan

 Tennessee

 Wisconsin

 Vermont

99 Rhode Island

98 Illinois

97 Delaware

96 Iowa

96 District of Columbia

96 Ohio

95 Massachusetts

93 Missouri

93 Georgia

93 Florida

90 Connecticut

90 Pennsylvania

90 Maryland

90 Alaska

89 Indiana

89 Alabama

89 South Dakota

88 Kentucky

87 Minnesota

86 Louisiana

86 Idaho

86 New York

85 Mississippi

85 New Hampshire

84 South Carolina

84 North Carolina

84 Virginia

84 New Mexico

81 Arizona

81 Colorado

80 Utah

80 Oklahoma

79 Nebraska

78 West Virginia

77 Kansas

77 Arkansas

77 Texas

76 New Jersey

75 Hawaii

74 Montana

70 North Dakota

66 California

66 Nevada

57 Wyoming

100

100

100

100

100

100

100
How Did Your State Compare with Other States in 2013 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 Minnesota, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it had a significantly lower participation rate than 17 other States (Oregon, 

Washington, Maine, Michigan, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Vermont, Rhode Island, Illinois, Delaware, Iowa, the District of Columbia, Ohio, Massachusetts, Missouri, 

Georgia, and Florida) and a significantly higher rate than 16 other States (Wyoming, Nevada, California, North Dakota, Montana, Hawaii, New Jersey, Texas, 

Arkansas, Kansas, West Virginia, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona). Its rate was neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates 

for the other 17 States, suggesting that Minnesota is probably in the broad center of the distribution, unlike, for example, Oregon 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.

See Estimation Method section for information on participation rates of 100 percent.

7

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

Rate for row State significantly higher

Rate for row State significantly lower

OR

WA

ME

MI

TN

WI

VT

RI

IL

DE

IA

DC

OH

MA

MO

GA

FL

CT

PA

MD

AK

IN

AL

SD

KY

MN

LA

ID

NY

MS

NH

SC

NC

VA

NM

AZ

CO

UT

OK

NE

WV

KS

AR

TX

NJ

HI

MT

ND

CA

NV

WY

Rates not significantly different

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

99%

98%

97%

96%

96%

96%

95%

93%

93%

93%

90%

90%

90%

90%

89%

89%

89%

88%

87%

86%

86%

86%

85%

85%

84%

84%

84%

84%

81%

81%

80%

80%

79%

78%

77%

77%

77%

76%

75%

74%

70%

66%

66%

57%

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-15-0007.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

1About 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, about 700,000 more California residents would be eligible for SNAP.

 2013 Participation Rate

 for All Eligible People

 Above 93% (top quarter)

 80% to 93%

 Below 80% (bottom quarter)

 National Rate = 85%

FEBRUARY 2016

State had fewer eligible 

people than participants. 

See Cunnyngham et al. 

(2015) and Cunnyngham 

et al. (forthcoming) 

for details on how the 

adjustments were made.

Because the Current 

Population Survey 

does not collect data on 

participation in the Food 

Distribution Program 

on 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 2015). The Food 

Distribution Program 

on Indian Reservations 

served about 76,000 

Year 2011 to Fiscal Year 2013 for All Eligible People and 

the Working Poor.” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy 

Research, forthcoming.

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

Castner. “Empirical Bayes Shrinkage Estimates of State 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Rates in Fiscal 

Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2012 for All Eligible People and 

the Working Poor.” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy 

Research, February 2015.

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

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation 

Rates in 2012.” Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, February 2015.

Eslami, Esa. “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 

2013.” Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, August 2015.

Estimates of Participation Rates Varied Widely

people in 2013, so the effects of such adjustments would 

be negligible in almost all States. Because the focus in 

this document is on participation among people who 

were eligible for SNAP, the estimates of eligible 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 However, in some other contexts it 

might be useful 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 Fiscal