S

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

STATE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2011

B Y K A R E N E . C U N N Y N G H A M • M A T H E M A T I C A P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H FEBRUARY • 2014

F O O D A N D 

N U T R I T I O N 

SERVICE

T

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 2013, the program 

served over 47 million people in 

an average month at a total annual 

cost of over $76 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 eligibility criteria include, but 

are not limited to, income guidelines 

and either United States citizenship 

or legal immigrant status with, for 

most, at least five years’ residency. 

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. In 2011, over 18 million 

SNAP participants—41 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 and Cunnyngham 

2013), and State rates for all eligible 

people and for the working poor 

(Cunnyngham 2012). This document 

presents estimates of SNAP participation rates for all eligible people 

and for the working poor by States 

for fiscal year 2011. These estimates 

can be used to assess recent program 

performance and focus efforts to 

improve access.

Participation Rates in 2011

Seventy-nine percent of eligible 

people in the United States received 

SNAP benefits in fiscal year 2011. 

Participation rates varied widely 

from State to State, however. 

Twenty-six States had rates that 

were significantly higher (in a 

statistical sense) than the national 

rate, and 12 States had rates that 

were significantly lower. Among 

the regions, the Midwest Region 

had the highest participation rate. 

Its 85 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 68 percent 

was significantly lower than the 

rates for all of the other regions. 

(See the last page for a map 

showing regional boundaries.)

In 2011, 67 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. Twentyone States had rates for the working 

poor that were significantly higher 

than the national rate for the 

working poor, and 10 States had 

rates that were significantly lower.

While 79 percent of all eligible 

people in the United States participated in 2011, only 67 percent 

of the eligible working poor participated, a significant difference 

of over 11 percentage points. In 38 

States, the participation rate for the 
How Many Were Eligible in 2011? 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 Georgia’s participation rate was 83 percent in 2011, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that 

the true rate was between 79 and 88 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.)

68%

Eligible

People

(Thousands)

78% 79% 80%

66% 69%

73% 75% 77%

76% 78% 81%

78% 80% 82%

79% 82% 84%

82% 84% 87%

83% 85% 87%

85% 89% 94%

52% 57% 62%

55% 57% 59%

55% 61% 66%

61% 66% 70%

63% 67% 72%

63% 68% 74%

64% 69% 74%

65%

65% 69%

69%

73%

73%

67% 71% 75%

70% 72% 75%

69% 74% 78%

69% 75% 81%

69% 75% 80%

72% 77% 81%

73% 77% 82%

73% 78% 83%

74% 79% 83%

74% 79% 83%

76% 79% 82%

74% 79% 84%

74% 79% 84%

75% 79% 84%

77% 80% 84%

76% 81%

79% 82% 86%

78% 82% 87%

79% 83% 88%

79% 83% 88%

80% 84% 87%

81% 84% 88%

80% 85% 90%

80% 85% 89%

79% 85% 90%

81% 85% 89%

80% 85% 90%

80% 85% 90%

81% 86%

80%

81%

90%

86% 92%

87% 92%

83% 88% 93%

85% 90% 96%

86% 91% 96%

90% 95%

91% 97%

94% 99%

92% 99%

95%

94%

94%

86%

211

636

887

128

1,719

72

1,289

1,019

872

736

800

392

374

445

692

137

1,942

388

982

255

1,858

2,001

1,645

2,029

171

3,474

698

1,006

750

1,142

125

3,422

1,072

353

123

1,090

587

149

68

644

4,965

1,218

420

425

248

125

1,008

658

232

6,129

60

8,204

12,048

5,188

5,275

3,497

7,836

9,826

51,873

Maine

Oregon

Washington

District of Columbia

Michigan

Vermont

Tennessee

Missouri

Kentucky

Wisconsin

Massachusetts

Iowa

West Virginia

New Mexico

Oklahoma

Delaware

Ohio

Connecticut

Alabama

Idaho

Pennsylvania

Illinois

North Carolina

Georgia

Rhode Island

Florida

Maryland

South Carolina

Mississippi

Arizona

South Dakota

New York

Virginia

Utah

New Hampshire

Louisiana

Minnesota

Montana

North Dakota

Arkansas

Texas

Indiana

Nevada

Kansas

Nebraska

Alaska

New Jersey

Colorado

Hawaii

California

Wyoming

Midwest Region

Southeast Region

Northeast Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Mountain Plains Region

Southwest Region

Western Region

United States

30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

100%100%

100%100%

100%100%

100%

100%

100%

100%
55%

Eligible

Working Poor

(Thousands)

66% 67% 69%

52% 58%

64% 68% 71%

64% 68% 72%

66% 69% 72%

67% 70% 74%

68% 72% 75%

72% 76% 79%

73% 80% 86%

40% 44% 47%

38% 44% 50%

36% 46% 57%

49% 54% 60%

51% 57% 63%

51% 57% 64%

53% 60% 68%

55%

56% 61%

61%

67%

66%

58% 63% 69%

58% 64% 70%

58% 64% 70%

60% 65% 69%

58% 65% 72%

60% 66% 71%

61% 66% 70%

59% 66% 73%

60% 66% 73%

61% 67% 73%

62% 67% 72%

62% 68% 75%

63% 69% 75%

62% 69% 76%

62% 69% 77%

64% 70%

65% 71% 78%

65% 71% 77%

65% 72% 78%

65% 72% 78%

66% 73% 80%

66% 74% 81%

68% 74% 80%

68% 74% 80%

68% 74% 81%

67% 74% 82%

69% 76% 82%

70% 76% 82%

70% 76%

70%

71%

82%

77% 83%

79% 88%

73% 79% 86%

72% 80% 88%

74% 80% 87%

74% 81% 87%

75% 82% 89%

77% 84% 91%

78% 87% 96%

84% 91%

84% 93%

91% 100%

77%

83

288

841

137

340

394

208

146

233

716

448

27

557

64

387

426

318

1,010

792

271

33

67

359

492

693

583

532

66

363

509

210

1,395

278

295

152

980

1,428

54

2,753

287

75

233

132

191

59

458

29

350

36

138

3,171

3,762

5,181

2,209

1,773

2,080

4,109

4,971

24,085

Maine

Oregon

Michigan

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Washington

Iowa

Idaho

New Mexico

Pennsylvania

Missouri

Vermont

Tennessee

South Dakota

Alabama

South Carolina

Mississippi

Georgia

Ohio

Arkansas

North Dakota

Montana

Oklahoma

Louisiana

North Carolina

Arizona

Indiana

Delaware

Kentucky

Virginia

Utah

New York

Minnesota

Massachusetts

Connecticut

Illinois

Florida

New Hampshire

Texas

Maryland

Rhode Island

Kansas

Nebraska

Nevada

Alaska

New Jersey

Wyoming

Colorado

District of Columbia

Hawaii

California

Midwest Region

Southeast Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Mountain Plains Region

Northeast Region

Southwest Region

Western Region

United States

100%

100%

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

99%

How Many Working Poor Were Eligible in 2011? 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 Indiana’s working poor participation rate was 70 percent in 2011, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 

in 100 that the true rate was between 64 and 77 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

working poor in 2011 was—like the 

national rate for the working poor—

significantly lower than the rate for 

all eligible people. In 13 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 

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 2011 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, California, 

and Hawaii likely had lower rates 

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 2011. Maine 

was very likely ranked at the top, 

with a higher rate for the working 

poor than most States. In contrast, 

California, Hawaii, and the District 

of Columbia 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 

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. 2013, 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 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 and Cunnyngham (2013) 

present details on the estimation 

methods used to derive the direct 

sample estimates. The direct sample 

estimates differ methodologically 

from estimates developed for prior 

reports. The motivation for the 

methodological improvements was 

to increase the precision of the 

estimates and allow us to better 

account for differences between 

the data used to estimate the 

number of participants and the 

data used to estimate the number 

of eligible individuals.

The regression predictions of 

participation rates were based 

on observed indicators of sociodifferences 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 2009 to 

2011, the District of Columbia, 

Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, 

Missouri, Oregon, Tennessee, 

Vermont, and Washington had 

significantly higher participation 

rates for all eligible people than 

two-thirds of the States. An 

additional State—Massachusetts—

had a significantly higher rate than 

half of the States. Minnesota 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, Idaho, Indiana, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, 

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—Connecticut, Illinois, 

Kentucky, Massachusetts, Rhode 

Island, and Tennessee—and the 

District of Columbia are ranked 

significantly lower for all 3 years 

when ranked by their participation 

rate for the working poor than 

4

FEBRUARY • 2014
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 Participation Rates

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

intervals that measure the uncertainty in the estimates for 2009 and 2010 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 2011 estimates.

5

economic 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 methodological 

changes, 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 2009 

and 2010 differ from estimates 

presented in Cunnyngham 

(2012) because of differences in 

(1) the three years being jointly 

estimated, (2) 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 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 and Cunnyngham 

2013). The Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations 

served about 78,000 people in 

2011, so the effects of such 

adjustments would be negligible in 

almost all States. Because our 

focus in this document is on 

All Eligible People Working Poor 

2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011

FEBRUARY • 2014

Alabama 71% 76% 85% 63% 69% 76%

Alaska 60% 68% 68% 55% 61% 60%

Arizona 65% 77% 79% 57% 70% 71%

Arkansas 65% 71% 74% 65% 72% 74%

California 48% 52% 57% 32% 40% 44%

Colorado 54% 66% 66% 38% 57% 54%

Connecticut 70% 77% 85% 51% 60% 66%

Delaware 70% 74% 85% 58% 62% 69%

District of Columbia 81% 87% 99% 34% 39% 46%

Florida 63% 76% 82% 48% 63% 66%

Georgia 65% 75% 83% 57% 68% 74%

Hawaii 59% 64% 61% 47% 49% 44%

Idaho 62% 78% 85% 59% 76% 80%

Illinois 73% 79% 84% 55% 62% 66%

Indiana 65% 72% 71% 65% 72% 70%

Iowa 77% 84% 87% 70% 78% 81%

Kansas 56% 66% 69% 45% 60% 63%

Kentucky 83% 88% 90% 65% 70% 69%

Louisiana 72% 71% 77% 69% 67% 72%

Maine 99% 100% 100% 91% 94% 100%

Maryland 66% 69% 81% 52% 54% 64%

Massachusetts 77% 83% 88% 55% 63% 66%

Michigan 81% 94% 99% 78% 88% 91%

Minnesota 61% 71% 77% 48% 61% 67%

Mississippi 66% 70% 79% 64% 66% 74%

Missouri 80% 89% 91% 66% 76% 79%

Montana 57% 73% 75% 52% 71% 73%

Nebraska 65% 71% 69% 56% 64% 61%

Nevada 52% 60% 69% 44% 51% 61%

New Hampshire 68% 80% 78% 56% 69% 65%

New Jersey 54% 61% 67% 42% 51% 57%

New Mexico 70% 77% 86% 65% 74% 80%

New York 65% 74% 79% 53% 64% 67%

North Carolina 67% 74% 83% 54% 64% 71%

North Dakota 71% 75% 75% 68% 71% 74%

Ohio 72% 80% 85% 63% 71% 74%

Oklahoma 71% 78% 85% 59% 65% 72%

Oregon 97% 100% 100% 82% 90% 93%

Pennsylvania 73% 81% 84% 69% 77% 80%

Rhode Island 64% 79% 82% 48% 64% 64%

South Carolina 72% 76% 80% 67% 72% 76%

South Dakota 63% 78% 79% 60% 74% 76%

Tennessee 90% 94% 95% 74% 76% 77%

Texas 55% 64% 72% 44% 58% 65%

Utah 64% 75% 79% 51% 64% 68%

Vermont 84% 92% 97% 67% 77% 79%

Virginia 67% 74% 79% 56% 67% 69%

Washington 87% 95% 100% 69% 76% 82%

West Virginia 86% 86% 86% 90% 86% 87%

Wisconsin 71% 83% 89% 68% 79% 84%

Wyoming 57% 62% 57% 55% 60% 57%

Mid-Atlantic Region 68% 74% 80% 59% 66% 70%

Midwest Region 72% 81% 85% 63% 72% 76%

Mountain Plains Region 67% 77% 78% 55% 68% 69%

Northeast Region 69% 77% 82% 55% 65% 68%

Southeast Region 70% 78% 84% 58% 67% 72%

Southwest Region 60% 67% 75% 51% 62% 68%

Western Region 57% 64% 68% 41% 50% 55%
How Did Your State Rank in 2011?

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 Florida had the 26th highest participation rate in 2011, the true rank may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the true 

rank was between 16 and 33 among all of the States. To determine how Florida 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.) 

49 51 51

49 50 51

47 49 51

44 48 49

42 47 48

39 46 48

40 45 48

40 44 48

40

38 42

43

46

48

37 41 44

34 40 44

28 39 44

29 38 44

27 37 41

26 36 40

23 35 40

22 34 39

23 33 39

25 32 37

20 31 39

20 30 38

19 29 38

20 28 36

16 27 36

16 26 33

14 25 33

12 24 31

13 23 30

14 22 29

12 21 28

10 20 30

11 19 28

10 18 30

11 17 27

10 16 30

10 15 29

9 14 27

9 13

8

8

30

12 26

11 23

7 10 18

7 9 16

6 8 16

4 7 9

3 6 9

3 5 7

3 4 8

3 3

1 2

1 1 2

2

6

Participation

Rate for

 All Eligible 

People

 Maine

 Oregon

 Washington

99% District of Columbia

99% Michigan

97% Vermont

95% Tennessee

91% Missouri

90% Kentucky

89% Wisconsin

88% Massachusetts

87% Iowa

86% West Virginia

86% New Mexico

85% Oklahoma

85% Delaware

85% Ohio

85% Connecticut

85% Alabama

85% Idaho

84% Pennsylvania

84% Illinois

83% North Carolina

83% Georgia

82% Rhode Island

82% Florida

81% Maryland

80% South Carolina

79% Mississippi

79% Arizona

79% South Dakota

79% New York

79% Virginia

79% Utah

78% New Hampshire

77% Louisiana

77% Minnesota

75% Montana

75% North Dakota

74% Arkansas

72% Texas

71% Indiana

69% Nevada

69% Kansas

69% Nebraska

68% Alaska

67% New Jersey

66% Colorado

61% Hawaii

57% California

57% Wyoming

100%

100%

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

100%
How Did Your State Compare with Other States in 2011 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 Florida, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it had a significantly lower participation rate than 11 other States (Maine, 

Oregon, Washington, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Vermont, Tennessee, Missouri, Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts) and a significantly higher 

rate than 16 other States (Wyoming, California, Hawaii, Colorado, New Jersey, Alaska, Nebraska, Kansas, Nevada, Indiana, Texas, Arkansas, North Dakota, 

Montana, Minnesota, and Louisiana). Its rate was neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 25 States, suggesting that 

Florida 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

100%

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

99%

99%

96%

95%

91%

90%

89%

88%

87%

86%

86%

85%

85%

85%

85%

85%

85%

84%

83%

83%

83%

82%

82%

81%

80%

79%

79%

79%

79%

78%

78%

78%

77%

77%

75%

75%

73%

72%

71%

69%

69%

69%

NV KS NE AK NJ CO HI CA WY Rate

68%

67%

65%

60%

57%

57%

Rate for row State significantly higher

Rate for row State significantly lower

ME

OR

WA

DC

MI

VT

TN

MO

KY

WI

MA

IA

WV

NM

OK

DE

OH

CT

AL

ID

PA

IL

NC

GA

RI

FL

MD

SC

MS

AZ

SD

NY

VA

UT

NH

LA

MN

MT

ND

AR

TX

IN

NV

KS

NE

AK

NJ

CO

HI

CA

WY

100%

Rates not significantly different

100%
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

C

Participation Rates Varied Widely

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-13-0006.

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 It might 

be useful in some other contexts, 

however, to consider participation 

rates among those eligible for 

SNAP benefits or a cash substitute.

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.

FEBRUARY • 2014

 2011 Participation Rate

 for All Eligible People

 Above 86% (top quarter)

 75% to 86%

 Below 75% (bottom quarter)

 National Rate = 79%

Poor.” Washington, DC: 

Mathematica Policy Research, 

Inc., February 2013.

Cunnyngham, Karen E. “Reaching 

Those in Need: State Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program 

Participation Rates in 2010.” 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service, December 2012.

Eslami, Esa, and Karen Cunnyngham. “Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program Participation 

Rates: Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011.” 

Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, February 2014.

References

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., forthcoming.

Cunnyngham, Karen E., Amang 

Sukasih, and Laura A. Castner. 

“Empirical Bayes Shrinkage 

Estimates of State Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program 

Rates in 2008-2010 for All 

Eligible People and the Working