Reaching Those in Need:

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

STATE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2008

B Y KAREN E. CUNNYNGHAM AND LAURA A. CASTNER • MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH DECEMBER • 2010

F O O D A N D 

N U T R I T I O N 

SERVICE

A T

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—formerly 

the Food Stamp Program—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 2010, the 

program served 40 million people in 

an average month at a total annual 

cost of almost $65 billion in benefits. 

The Government Performance 

and Results Act of 1993 calls for 

policymakers to assess the effects of 

programs, and one important measure 

of a program’s performance is its 

ability to reach its target population. 

The national SNAP participation 

rate—the percentage of eligible 

people in the United States who 

actually participate in the program 

—has been a standard for assessing 

performance for about 25 years. The 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

budget request for fiscal year 2011 

includes a performance target to 

reach 68.5 percent of the eligible 

population in that year. 

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. Thirty-three million 

people received benefits in an 

average month in 2009. Thirteen 

million—almost 40 percent—

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 (Leftin 2010), and 

State rates for all eligible people 

and for the working poor (Cunnyngham and Castner 2009). 

This document presents estimates 

of SNAP participation rates for 

all eligible people and for the 

working poor by State for fiscal 

year 2008. These estimates can 

be used to assess recent program 

performance and focus efforts to 

improve performance.

Participation Rates in 2008

As reported in Leftin (2010), 

67 percent of eligible people in 

the United States received SNAP 

benefits in fiscal year 2008.1

Participation rates varied widely 

from State to State, however. 

Twenty States had rates that were 

significantly higher (in a statistical sense) than the national rate, 

and 19 States had rates that were 

significantly lower. Among the 

regions, the Midwest Region had 

the highest participation rate. Its 

74 percent rate was significantly 

higher than the rates for all of 

the other regions. The Western 

Region’s participation rate of 58 

percent was significantly lower 

than the rates for all of the other 

regions. (See the last page for a 

map showing regional boundaries.)

1

After Leftin 2010 was issued, 

corrections to Missouri participation 

data resulted in a 0.5 percentage point 

drop in the estimated national SNAP 

participation rate from 66.8 percent 

to 66.3 percent. The analysis and results 

presented here are based on the new 

data, so the corrected estimated national 

rate, rounded to 66 percent, appears in 

the subsequent tables and text.
How Many Were Eligible in 2008? 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 New Mexico’s participation rate was 66 percent in 2008, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 

100 that the true rate was between 62 and 71 percent.

2

Participation Rates and Confidence Intervals 

(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

People

(Thousands)

65% 66% 67%

56% 60%

58% 61% 63%

65% 67% 69%

66% 68% 70%

66% 69% 71%

67% 69% 71%

72% 74% 77%

75% 80% 84%

40% 46% 52%

48% 50% 53%

47% 51% 56%

48% 52% 56%

50% 54% 58%

50% 55% 59%

51% 55% 60%

53%

53% 57%

55%

61%

58%

57% 61% 66%

58% 61% 65%

58% 61% 65%

57% 61% 66%

57% 62% 66%

58% 62% 66%

58% 62% 67%

58% 63% 67%

59% 63% 67%

60% 63% 66%

60% 64% 68%

61% 64% 68%

60% 65% 70%

62% 65% 68%

61% 66% 70%

62% 66%

62% 66% 71%

63% 67% 71%

62% 67% 72%

64% 68% 71%

64% 68% 71%

66% 69% 73%

65% 70% 75%

67% 70% 73%

64% 70% 76%

67% 71% 75%

68% 72% 76%

70% 74% 78%

71% 75%

71%

73%

78%

75% 80%

78% 84%

75% 79% 83%

76% 80% 83%

79% 83% 87%

80% 86% 91%

77% 86% 94%

82% 86% 91%

83% 87% 92%

86% 91%

87% 92%

90% 94% 99%

97%

97%

70%

30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

167

456

295

1,018

717

101

1,349

829

1,612

709

66

122

325

772

1,578

890

523

78

1,624

681

871

2,813

603

67

844

354

327

102

1,444

121

1,570

692

604

849

191

457

2,333

100

102

962

136

551

320

4,344

236

180

790

479

276

4,374

49

6,518

9,389

4,292

4,265

2,720

6,714

7,157

41,055

Maine

Oregon

West Virginia

Tennessee

Kentucky

District of Columbia

Michigan

Missouri

Illinois

Washington

Vermont

Hawaii

Iowa

South Carolina

Pennsylvania

Louisiana

Arkansas

Alaska

Ohio

Massachusetts

Indiana

New York

Oklahoma

North Dakota

Alabama

New Mexico

Connecticut

Delaware

North Carolina

Montana

Georgia

Mississippi

Wisconsin

Virginia

Nebraska

Minnesota

Florida

New Hampshire

South Dakota

Arizona

Rhode Island

Maryland

Kansas

Texas

Utah

Idaho

New Jersey

Colorado

Nevada

California

Wyoming

Midwest Region

Southeast Region

Northeast Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Mountain Plains Region

Southwest Region

Western Region

United States
41%

Eligible

Working Poor

(Thousands)

52% 54% 56%

38% 44%

45% 49% 54%

49% 52% 56%

52% 56% 60%

55% 58% 61%

56% 59% 63%

64% 68% 72%

62% 68% 74%

28% 31% 35%

34% 40% 45%

29% 41% 52%

34% 41% 47%

34% 41% 48%

35% 41% 47%

39% 46% 53%

39%

43% 47%

46%

51%

53%

42% 48% 54%

42% 48% 54%

42% 48% 55%

43% 48% 54%

44% 50% 56%

43% 50% 57%

41% 50% 59%

44% 51% 58%

45% 51% 58%

46% 52% 59%

47% 53% 59%

49% 54% 60%

51% 57% 63%

52% 57% 63%

50% 58% 66%

53% 60%

54% 60% 66%

54% 60% 67%

55% 61% 67%

54% 62% 69%

54% 62% 69%

54% 62% 70%

54% 63% 71%

57% 64% 70%

59% 64% 70%

58% 64% 71%

58% 65% 71%

57% 65% 73%

57% 65%

60%

60%

73%

66% 73%

66% 73%

60% 66% 72%

58% 69% 79%

65% 72% 78%

66% 73% 81%

68% 75% 82%

69% 77% 84%

69% 78% 86%

74% 83%

76% 85%

80% 91%

94%

92%

67%

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

113 100%

68

623

221

230

405

457

160

38

353

751

343

405

34

304

607

245

647

190

53

35

50

46

266

362

322

297

68

707

105

513

856

101

420

219

22

44

129

179

129

1,290

995

2,403

240

258

312

133

250

28

50

2,610

2,914

1,384

4,248

1,769

3,510

1,873

3,988

19,685

West Virginia

Maine

Michigan

Oregon

Kentucky

Missouri

Tennessee

Iowa

Alaska

Indiana

Illinois

South Carolina

Louisiana

Vermont

Washington

Pennsylvania

Arkansas

Ohio

New Mexico

Montana

North Dakota

Delaware

South Dakota

Oklahoma

Alabama

Wisconsin

Mississippi

Hawaii

North Carolina

Nebraska

Arizona

Georgia

Idaho

Virginia

Minnesota

Wyoming

New Hampshire

Connecticut

Kansas

Utah

New York

Florida

Texas

Maryland

Massachusetts

New Jersey

Nevada

Colorado

District of Columbia

Rhode Island

California

Midwest Region

Mountain Plains Region

Southeast Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Southwest Region

Northeast Region

Western Region

United States

How Many Working Poor Were Eligible in 2008? 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 Arkansas’s working poor participation rate was 64 percent in 2008, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances 

are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 58 and 71 percent.

Participation Rates and Confidence Intervals 

(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.) 
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. T

T

In 2008, 54 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-seven 

States had rates for the working poor 

that were significantly higher than 

the national rate, and 13 States had 

rates that were significantly lower. 

While 66 percent of all eligible people 

in the United States participated in 

2008, only 54 percent of the eligible 

working poor participated, a significant 

difference of 12 percentage points. In 

37 States, the participation rate for the 

working poor in 2008 was—like the 

national rate for the working poor—

significantly lower than the rate for all 

eligible people. In 6 of these States, 

the difference between the rate for 

the working poor and the rate for all 

eligible people was significantly greater 

than the 12 percentage points 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 2008 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, Oregon, and 

West Virginia were very likely at the 

top, with higher rates for all eligible 

people than all other States. In contrast, California and Wyoming likely 

had lower rates than most 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 2008. West Virginia, 

Maine, and Michigan were very 

likely ranked at the top, with higher 

rates for the working poor than most 

States. In contrast, California likely 

had a lower rate 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 2006 to 2008, the District of 

Columbia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia 

had significantly higher participation 

rates for all eligible people than twothirds of the States. An additional 6 

States—Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and 

Vermont—had significantly higher 

rates than half of the States. Arizona, 

Kansas, New Hampshire, Rhode 

Island, and Texas had significantly 

lower rates than half of the States in 

all 3 years, while California, Colorado, 

Idaho, New Jersey, Nevada, Utah, 

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 

4

match. Six States (Idaho, Indiana, 

Montana, South Dakota, Wisconsin, 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, Connecticut, the District of 

Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, 

and Rhode Island 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, Castner, and 

Schirm 2010, and Cunnyngham, 

Castner, and Schirm forthcoming). 

Drawing on data from the Current 

Population Survey, the American 

Community Survey, and administrative records, the shrinkage 

estimator averaged sample estimates 

of participation rates with predictions from a regression model. The 

sample estimates were obtained by 

applying SNAP eligibility rules to 

households in the Current Population Survey to estimate numbers of 

eligible people and eligible working 

poor, while estimating numbers of 

participating people and participating working poor from SNAP 

administrative data. The “working 

poor” are defined as people who 

are eligible for SNAP and live in a 

household in which a member earns 

money from a job. 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 

DECEMBER • 2010
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 Participation Rates

There is substantial uncertainty associated with most of these estimates. Confidence intervals 

that measure the uncertainty in the estimates for 2006 and 2007 are presented in Cunnyngham, 

Castner, and Schirm (forthcoming). These confidence intervals are generally about as wide as 

the confidence intervals that are presented in this document for the 2008 estimates.

5

benefits. The shrinkage estimates 

presented here are substantially 

more precise than the direct sample 

estimates from the Current Population Survey. 

After Leftin (2010) was published, 

Missouri corrected the reported 

number of individuals participating 

in SNAP in that state. The State 

and national estimates presented 

here incorporate the corrected 

Missouri data. In addition, the 

methodology used to calculate 

standard errors of estimates of eligibles was updated from previous 

reports in this series to use information recently made available by the 

U.S. Census Bureau.

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 (Leftin 

2010). The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations served 

about 90,000 people in 2008, 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 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.2

 It might be 

useful in some other contexts, however, to consider participation rates 

among those eligible for SNAP 

benefits or a cash substitute.

All Eligible People Working Poor 

2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 

Alabama 67% 66% 67% 60% 62% 60%

Alaska 74% 74% 70% 69% 62% 69%

Arizona 61% 60% 61% 56% 55% 54%

Arkansas 75% 75% 71% 69% 69% 64%

California 50% 49% 50% 35% 34% 31%

Colorado 57% 55% 52% 46% 45% 41%

Connecticut 70% 66% 66% 52% 51% 50%

Delaware 72% 69% 66% 69% 58% 62%

District of Columbia 84% 80% 86% 40% 39% 41%

Florida 59% 57% 62% 49% 48% 48%

Georgia 67% 62% 64% 56% 52% 53%

Hawaii 76% 75% 78% 58% 58% 58%

Idaho 53% 50% 55% 51% 52% 52%

Illinois 80% 81% 80% 68% 67% 66%

Indiana 72% 71% 69% 71% 67% 68%

Iowa 70% 75% 75% 66% 70% 72%

Kansas 59% 58% 57% 49% 49% 48%

Kentucky 79% 83% 86% 71% 79% 77%

Louisiana 80% 77% 72% 74% 69% 66%

Maine 89% 89% 94% 81% 86% 85%

Maryland 64% 59% 61% 48% 44% 46%

Massachusetts 66% 64% 70% 42% 47% 46%

Michigan 84% 91% 86% 84% 84% 83%

Minnesota 64% 64% 62% 52% 53% 51%

Mississippi 63% 66% 64% 59% 58% 60%

Missouri 85% 84% 83% 77% 76% 75%

Montana 63% 65% 65% 60% 64% 63%

Nebraska 62% 63% 63% 54% 58% 57%

Nevada 53% 51% 51% 46% 37% 41%

New Hampshire 62% 60% 62% 49% 53% 50%

New Jersey 57% 54% 54% 43% 44% 41%

New Mexico 74% 70% 66% 71% 64% 64%

New York 64% 61% 68% 46% 49% 48%

North Carolina 64% 64% 65% 57% 57% 57%

North Dakota 57% 62% 67% 51% 59% 62%

Ohio 70% 69% 70% 65% 61% 64%

Oklahoma 72% 70% 68% 65% 63% 61%

Oregon 89% 92% 92% 77% 80% 78%

Pennsylvania 71% 72% 74% 62% 67% 65%

Rhode Island 56% 56% 61% 35% 40% 40%

South Carolina 75% 74% 75% 66% 63% 66%

South Dakota 58% 61% 61% 56% 58% 62%

Tennessee 86% 86% 87% 72% 75% 73%

Texas 63% 56% 55% 54% 47% 47%

Utah 58% 53% 55% 49% 50% 48%

Vermont 73% 73% 79% 59% 66% 65%

Virginia 64% 62% 63% 50% 52% 51%

Washington 80% 79% 80% 66% 63% 65%

West Virginia 80% 87% 91% 80% 95% 91%

Wisconsin 60% 63% 63% 57% 60% 60%

Wyoming 48% 45% 46% 47% 47% 50%

Mid-Atlantic Region 67% 66% 68% 55% 57% 56%

Midwest Region 74% 76% 74% 69% 68% 68%

Mountain Plains Region 67% 68% 67% 59% 60% 59%

Northeast Region 65% 63% 69% 48% 50% 49%

Southeast Region 68% 67% 69% 59% 58% 58%

Southwest Region 68% 62% 61% 59% 53% 52%

Western Region 58% 57% 58% 45% 43% 41%

United States 67% 65% 66% 56% 55% 54%

DECEMBER • 2010

2

About 1.2 million Supplemental 

Security Income recipients in California 

receive a small food assistance benefit 

through the State supplement. Less than 

half of these recipients would be eligible 

for SNAP under current program rules.
49 51 51

48 50 51

44 49 51

44 48 50

43 47 49

43 46 49

42 45 49

42 44 48

40

29 42

43

43

47

29 41 43

30 40 42

28 39 43

27 38 43

27 37 42

26 36 42

26 35 42

26 34 41

27 33 41

23 32 41

23 31 39

20 30 40

23 29 36

20 28 39

20 27 36

19 26 36

18 25 34

17 24 35

18 23 32

18 22 32

16 21 27

14 20 29

16 19 25

13 18 31

15 17 25

13 16 22

12 15 19

11 14 17

10 13

8

8

18

12 16

11 14

7 10 13

8 9 13

5 8 10

3 7 9

2 6 12

4 5 8

3 4 7

1 3

1 2

1 1 3

5

5

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

Participation

Rate for

 All Eligible 

People

94% Maine

92% Oregon

91% West Virginia

87% Tennessee

86% Kentucky

86% District of Columbia

86% Michigan

83% Missouri

80% Illinois

80% Washington

79% Vermont

78% Hawaii

75% Iowa

75% South Carolina

74% Pennsylvania

72% Louisiana

71% Arkansas

70% Alaska

70% Ohio

70% Massachusetts

69% Indiana

68% New York

68% Oklahoma

67% North Dakota

67% Alabama

66% New Mexico

66% Connecticut

66% Delaware

65% North Carolina

65% Montana

64% Georgia

64% Mississippi

63% Wisconsin

63% Virginia

63% Nebraska

62% Minnesota

62% Florida

62% New Hampshire

61% South Dakota

61% Arizona

61% Rhode Island

61% Maryland

57% Kansas

55% Texas

55% Utah

55% Idaho

54% New Jersey

52% Colorado

51% Nevada

50% California

46% Wyoming

How Did Your State Rank in 2008?

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 New Mexico had the 26th highest participation rate in 2008, the true rank may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the 

true rank was between 19 and 36 among all of the States. To determine how New Mexico 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.) 
How Did Your State Compare with Other States in 2008 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 New Mexico, 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 

(Maine, Oregon, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Missouri, Illinois, Washington, Vermont, Hawaii, Iowa, South 

Carolina, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Arkansas) and a significantly higher rate than 13 other States (Wyoming, California, Nevada, Colorado, New Jersey, 

Idaho, Utah, Texas, Kansas, Maryland, Rhode Island, Arizona, and South Dakota). Its rate was neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates 

for the other 20 States, suggesting that New Mexico 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 4 percentage points.

7

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

 

94%

92%

91%

87%

86%

86%

86%

83%

80%

80%

79%

78%

75%

75%

74%

72%

71%

70%

70%

70%

69%

68%

68%

67%

67%

66%

66%

66%

65%

65%

64%

64%

63%

63%

63%

62%

62%

62%

61%

61%

61%

61%

57%

55%

55%

KS TX UT ID NJ CO NV CA WY Rate

55%

54%

52%

51%

50%

46%

Rate for row State significantly higher

Rates not significantly different

Rate for row State significantly lower

ME

OR

WV

TN

KY

DC

MI

MO

IL

WA

VT

HI

IA

SC

PA

LA

AR

AK

OH

MA

IN

NY

OK

ND

AL

NM

CT

DE

NC

MT

GA

MS

WI

VA

NE

MN

FL

NH

SD

AZ

RI

MD

KS

TX

UT

ID

NJ

CO

NV

CA

WY
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

C

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.

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.

Participation Rates Varied Widely

Northeast

Southeast

Southwest

Midwest Mid-Atlantic Mountain

Plains

Western

Produced by Mathematica Policy Research, for the Food and Nutrition Service under contract no. AG-3198-K-09-0035.

Although our focus is on participation among people who were 

eligible for SNAP, no data are 

available to estimate the number of 

people who would have failed the 

program’s income tests but were 

categorically eligible for SNAP 

benefits through participation in 

noncash public assistance programs. 

Therefore, because such people 

could not be included in estimates 

of eligible people, they were also 

excluded from the estimates of 

participating people. Leftin (2010) 

presents details on the methods 

used to estimate the numbers of 

eligible and participating people 

used in deriving the participation 

rates presented here.

References

Cunnyngham, Karen E., Laura 

A. Castner, and Allen L. Schirm. 

“Empirical Bayes Shrinkage 

Estimates of State Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program 

Rates in 2006-2008 for All Eligible People and the Working Poor.” 

Washington, DC: Mathematica 

Policy Research, forthcoming.

Cunnyngham, Karen E., Laura 

A. Castner, and Allen L. Schirm. 

“Empirical Bayes Shrinkage 

Estimates of State Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program 

Participation Rates in 2005-2007 

for All Eligible People and the 

Working Poor.” Washington, DC: 

Mathematica Policy Research, 

June 2010.

The U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) prohibits 

discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of 

race, color, national origin, age, 

disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual 

orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of a person’s income is 

derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who 

require alternative means for 

communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, 

Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, DC 20250-9410, 

or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or 

(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer. 

 2008 Participation Rate

 for All Eligible People

 Above 77% (top quarter)

 62% to 75%

 Below 62% (bottom quarter)

 National Rate = 66%

DECEMBER • 2010