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

STATE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2010

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 DECEMBER • 2012

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) 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 2012, the program served 

over 46 million people in an average 

month at a total annual cost of over 

$74 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. Forty-four million 

people received benefits in an 

average month in 2011. Eighteen 

million—41 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 

(Eslami et al. 2012), and State rates 

for all eligible people and for the 

working poor (Cunnyngham 2011). 

This document presents estimates 

of SNAP participation rates for all 

eligible people and for the working 

poor by States for fiscal year 2010. 

These estimates can be used to 

assess recent program performance 

and focus efforts to improve access.

Participation Rates in 2010

As reported in Eslami et al. 

(2012), 75 percent of eligible people in the United States received 

SNAP benefits in fiscal year 2010. 

Participation rates varied widely 

from State to State, however. 

Twenty-four States had rates 

that were significantly higher 

(in a statistical sense) than the 

national rate, and 10 States had 

rates that were significantly lower. 

Among the regions, the Midwest 

Region had the highest participation rate. Its 82 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 66 percent was significantly 

lower than the rates for all of 

the other regions. (See the last 

page for a map showing regional 

boundaries.)

In 2010, 65 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-four States had rates for 

the working poor that were 

significantly higher than the 

national rate for the working poor, 

and 9 States had rates that were 

significantly lower.
How Many Were Eligible in 2010? 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 Nebraska’s participation rate was 75 percent in 2010, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that 

the true rate was between 71 and 80 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.)

65%

Eligible

People

(Thousands)

74% 75% 76%

64% 67%

67% 69% 71%

73% 76% 78%

76% 79% 82%

77% 79% 82%

78% 80% 82%

80% 82% 84%

81% 87% 92%

53% 55% 57%

55% 60% 65%

56% 60% 65%

58% 62% 66%

62% 65% 68%

62% 67% 71%

64% 69% 74%

64%

67% 71%

69%

76%

74%

67% 72% 76%

67% 72% 77%

68% 73% 77%

68% 73% 78%

68% 73% 78%

69% 73% 78%

70% 75% 81%

69% 75% 81%

71% 75% 80%

72% 76% 79%

72% 76% 80%

70% 76% 83%

73% 77% 80%

72% 77% 82%

72% 77% 82%

74% 78%

73% 78% 83%

74% 79% 84%

75% 79% 84%

75% 80% 85%

77% 80% 84%

76% 81% 85%

75% 81% 86%

76% 81% 86%

75% 81% 86%

77% 81% 85%

76% 82% 87%

78% 82% 87%

77% 83%

80%

79%

89%

84% 87%

84% 88%

79% 85% 91%

81% 87% 94%

82% 88% 93%

84% 89% 94%

87% 92% 98%

90% 95%

92% 97%

92% 98%

94%

93% 100%

100%

81%

30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

203

590

69

847

1,644

1,303

992

381

130

778

887

738

1,750

389

936

113

1,906

115

429

235

156

2,004

706

1,934

982

379

1,702

314

130

3,352

70

1,213

3,476

212

141

1,008

1,079

564

104

1,109

627

790

700

382

584

205

5,099

391

994

56

5,840

7,993

11,857

3,247

5,175

5,102

7,940

9,426

50,741

Maine

Oregon

Vermont

Washington

Michigan

Tennessee

Missouri

Iowa

District of Columbia

Massachusetts

Kentucky

Wisconsin

Pennsylvania

West Virginia

South Carolina

New Hampshire

Georgia

South Dakota

New Mexico

Idaho

Rhode Island

Illinois

Oklahoma

Ohio

Alabama

Connecticut

North Carolina

Utah

Delaware

Florida

North Dakota

Arizona

New York

Nebraska

Montana

Virginia

Louisiana

Minnesota

Alaska

Indiana

Arkansas

Mississippi

Maryland

Kansas

Colorado

Hawaii

Texas

Nevada

New Jersey

Wyoming

California

Midwest Region

Southeast Region

Mountain Plains Region

Northeast Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Southwest Region

Western Region

United States

100%

100%100%

100%

100%
53%

Eligible

Working Poor

(Thousands)

64% 65% 67%

50% 56%

60% 63% 66%

62% 67% 71%

64% 67% 71%

67% 70% 73%

68% 71% 74%

71% 74% 77%

72% 79% 87%

39% 42% 45%

34% 43% 52%

42% 49% 55%

45% 51% 57%

47% 53% 58%

50% 56% 63%

52% 58% 64%

56%

53% 60%

59%

66%

63%

56% 62% 68%

56% 62% 68%

55% 62% 69%

57% 63% 69%

58% 63% 69%

60% 65% 70%

60% 65% 70%

59% 66% 74%

60% 66% 73%

61% 67% 74%

60% 67% 75%

61% 67% 73%

61% 68% 75%

62% 68% 75%

63% 69% 76%

63% 70%

64% 70% 75%

61% 70% 78%

64% 70% 77%

63% 70% 77%

64% 70% 77%

66% 71% 77%

66% 72% 78%

67% 73% 79%

66% 73% 81%

68% 75% 82%

67% 76% 85%

67% 76% 85%

71% 77%

72%

72%

84%

78% 84%

79% 85%

72% 79% 86%

73% 80% 87%

74% 81% 89%

75% 82% 90%

76% 83% 89%

80% 89% 97%

83% 90% 98%

81% 91%

87% 95%

90% 100%

76%

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

73

257

132

677

27

334

374

206

675

205

398

468

130

58

65

36

587

47

742

881

735

112

440

511

48

473

266

532

313

342

340

59

180

475

246

931

1,483

1,406

64

147

293

205

25

2,747

299

308

170

109

395

37

3,198

3,450

1,654

5,130

2,081

2,087

4,042

4,817

23,259

Maine

Oregon

West Virginia

Michigan

Vermont

Wisconsin

Washington

Iowa

Pennsylvania

New Mexico

South Carolina

Missouri

Idaho

South Dakota

Montana

North Dakota

Tennessee

New Hampshire

Ohio

Georgia

North Carolina

Nebraska

Alabama

Louisiana

Alaska

Indiana

Arkansas

Arizona

Oklahoma

Kentucky

Mississippi

Delaware

Utah

Virginia

Massachusetts

Illinois

New York

Florida

Rhode Island

Connecticut

Minnesota

Kansas

Wyoming

Texas

Colorado

Maryland

Nevada

Hawaii

New Jersey

District of Columbia

California

Midwest Region

Mountain Plains Region

Southeast Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Northeast Region

Southwest Region

Western Region

United States

100%

100%

100%

How Many Working Poor Were Eligible in 2010? 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 Arizona’s working poor participation rate was 69 percent in 2010, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 

in 100 that the true rate was between 63 and 76 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

While 75 percent of all eligible 

people in the United States participated in 2010, only 65 percent of 

the eligible working poor participated, a significant difference of 10 

percentage points. In 33 States, the 

participation rate for the working 

poor in 2010 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 between the 

rate for the working poor and 

the rate for all eligible people was 

significantly greater than the 10 

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 2010 

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, California 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 2010. 

Maine and Oregon were very likely 

ranked at the top, with higher rates 

for the working poor than most 

States. In contrast, California and 

States (Indiana, Montana, Wisconsin, 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, 7 States—

Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

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, Castner, and Sukasih 

2012, and Cunnyngham, Castner, 

and Sukasih 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. 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 et al. (2012) 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 sociothe 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 

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 2008 to 2010, Iowa, 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 2 States—Kentucky and 

Pennsylvania—and the District of 

Columbia had significantly higher 

rates than half of the States. Kansas 

had significantly lower rates than 

half of the States in all 3 years, 

while California, Colorado, 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. Five 

4

DECEMBER • 2012
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 Participation Rates

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

that measure the uncertainty in the estimates for 2008 and 2009 are presented in Cunnyngham, Castner, and Sukasih (forthcoming). These confidence intervals are generally about as 

wide as the confidence intervals that are presented in this document for the 2010 estimates.

5

economic conditions, such as the 

percentage of the total State population receiving SNAP benefits. The 

shrinkage estimates presented here 

are substantially more precise than 

the direct sample estimates from 

the Current Population Survey.

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. 

The direct sample estimates differ 

methodologically from estimates 

developed for prior reports. The 

motivation for the methodological 

improvements was to better address 

differences between the data used to 

estimate the number of participants 

and the data used to estimate the 

number of eligible individuals. 

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 

et al. 2012). The Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations 

served about 85,000 people in 2010, 

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 

All Eligible People Working Poor 

2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 

Alabama 67% 71% 79% 58% 63% 70%

Alaska 69% 66% 73% 61% 64% 70%

Arizona 60% 61% 76% 53% 55% 69%

Arkansas 73% 69% 72% 69% 67% 70%

California 48% 49% 55% 30% 33% 42%

Colorado 52% 54% 69% 39% 39% 58%

Connecticut 66% 70% 78% 47% 53% 62%

Delaware 67% 73% 77% 57% 63% 67%

District of Columbia 77% 83% 87% 30% 35% 43%

Florida 59% 64% 77% 44% 49% 63%

Georgia 62% 69% 81% 53% 59% 72%

Hawaii 64% 65% 67% 47% 51% 51%

Idaho 61% 63% 81% 57% 59% 78%

Illinois 79% 75% 80% 60% 58% 65%

Indiana 65% 65% 73% 62% 63% 70%

Iowa 81% 84% 88% 71% 76% 81%

Kansas 58% 61% 69% 47% 47% 62%

Kentucky 82% 82% 85% 63% 63% 68%

Louisiana 72% 74% 73% 64% 70% 70%

Maine 100% 100% 100% 95% 98% 100%

Maryland 59% 65% 71% 43% 51% 56%

Massachusetts 72% 77% 87% 49% 55% 66%

Michigan 84% 82% 95% 78% 79% 90%

Minnesota 61% 64% 73% 45% 48% 62%

Mississippi 65% 67% 72% 58% 63% 67%

Missouri 85% 84% 89% 75% 72% 79%

Montana 70% 65% 75% 69% 64% 76%

Nebraska 66% 69% 75% 56% 60% 70%

Nevada 50% 56% 62% 37% 47% 53%

New Hampshire 68% 72% 82% 55% 60% 73%

New Jersey 51% 54% 60% 37% 42% 49%

New Mexico 66% 73% 81% 59% 68% 79%

New York 64% 66% 76% 49% 54% 65%

North Carolina 65% 69% 78% 57% 59% 71%

North Dakota 71% 71% 76% 67% 67% 76%

Ohio 72% 73% 79% 65% 68% 73%

Oklahoma 70% 72% 80% 55% 60% 68%

Oregon 92% 98% 100% 77% 84% 95%

Pennsylvania 78% 77% 84% 71% 72% 80%

Rhode Island 63% 65% 81% 41% 48% 63%

South Carolina 74% 76% 82% 69% 71% 79%

South Dakota 64% 69% 81% 58% 64% 77%

Tennessee 83% 87% 92% 67% 71% 75%

Texas 56% 57% 65% 46% 47% 59%

Utah 62% 64% 77% 51% 50% 67%

Vermont 88% 92% 98% 77% 80% 89%

Virginia 65% 67% 75% 55% 55% 66%

Washington 81% 88% 97% 64% 72% 82%

West Virginia 85% 87% 83% 89% 95% 91%

Wisconsin 66% 73% 84% 64% 72% 83%

Wyoming 52% 53% 60% 50% 52% 60%

Mid-Atlantic Region 68% 70% 76% 56% 60% 67%

Midwest Region 74% 74% 82% 64% 66% 74%

Mountain Plains Region 70% 70% 79% 59% 58% 71%

Northeast Region 67% 70% 79% 51% 56% 67%

Southeast Region 67% 71% 80% 56% 60% 70%

Southwest Region 62% 62% 69% 51% 53% 63%

Western Region 56% 58% 65% 39% 42% 53%

DECEMBER • 2012
How Did Your State Rank in 2010?

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 Connecticut had the 26th highest participation rate in 2010, the true rank may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that the 

true rank was between 15 and 38 among all of the States. To determine how Connecticut 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

47 50 50

47 49 50

46 48 50

45 47 48

41 46 48

37 45 47

36 44 47

33

31 42

43

45

45

29 41 45

30 40 44

26 39 45

27 38 44

27 37 44

21 36 42

19 35 43

22 34 42

24 33 40

21 32 41

16 31 42

22 30 38

17 29 40

16 28 40

19 27 36

15 26 38

13 25 36

14 24 34

12 23 35

13 22 31

12 21 32

10 20 33

11 19 32

10 18 33

11 17 29

10 16 30

10 15 27

8 14 29

9 13

9

7

22

12 24

11 23

6 10 20

6 9 20

6 8 16

6 7 13

4 6 9

3 5 7

3 4 6

3 3

1 2

1 1 2

2

6

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

Participation

Rate for

 All Eligible 

People

 Maine

 Oregon

98% Vermont

97% Washington

95% Michigan

92% Tennessee

89% Missouri

88% Iowa

87% District of Columbia

87% Massachusetts

85% Kentucky

84% Wisconsin

84% Pennsylvania

83% West Virginia

82% South Carolina

82% New Hampshire

81% Georgia

81% South Dakota

81% New Mexico

81% Idaho

81% Rhode Island

80% Illinois

80% Oklahoma

79% Ohio

79% Alabama

78% Connecticut

78% North Carolina

77% Utah

77% Delaware

77% Florida

76% North Dakota

76% Arizona

76% New York

75% Nebraska

75% Montana

75% Virginia

73% Louisiana

73% Minnesota

73% Alaska

73% Indiana

72% Arkansas

72% Mississippi

71% Maryland

69% Kansas

69% Colorado

67% Hawaii

65% Texas

62% Nevada

60% New Jersey

60% Wyoming

55% California

100%

100%
How Did Your State Compare with Other States in 2010 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 Connecticut, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it had a significantly lower participation rate than 13 other States 

(Maine, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Michigan, Tennessee, Missouri, Iowa, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) and a significantly higher rate than 12 other States (California, Wyoming, New Jersey, Nevada, Texas, Hawaii, Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, 

Arkansas, and Indiana). Its rate was neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 25 States, suggesting that Connecticut is 

probably in the broad center of the distribution, unlike, for example, Maine and California, 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 VT WA MI TN MO IA DC MA KY WI PA WV SC NH GA SD NM ID RI IL OK OH AL CT NC UT DE FL ND AZ NY NE MT VA LA MN AK IN AR MS

98%

97%

95%

92%

89%

88%

87%

87%

85%

84%

84%

83%

82%

82%

81%

81%

81%

81%

81%

80%

80%

79%

79%

78%

78%

77%

77%

77%

76%

76%

76%

75%

75%

75%

73%

73%

73%

73%

72%

72%

71%

69%

69%

MD KS CO HI TX NV NJ WY CA Rate

67%

65%

62%

60%

60%

55%

Rate for row State significantly higher

Rate for row State significantly lower

ME

OR

VT

WA

MI

TN

MO

IA

DC

MA

KY

WI

PA

WV

SC

NH

GA

SD

NM

ID

RI

IL

OK

OH

AL

CT

NC

UT

DE

FL

ND

AZ

NY

NE

MT

VA

LA

MN

AK

IN

AR

MS

MD

KS

CO

HI

TX

NV

NJ

WY

CA

100%

Rates not significantly different

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

C

Poor.” Washington, DC: 

Mathematica Policy Research, 

Inc., February 2012.

Cunnyngham, Karen E. “Reaching 

Those in Need: State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

Participation Rates in 2009.” 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service, December 2011.

Eslami, Esa, Joshua Leftin, and 

Mark Strayer. “Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program 

Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 

2010.” Alexandria, VA: Food 

and Nutrition Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, 

December 2012.

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-12-0009.

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., Laura 

A. Castner, and Amang Sukasih. “Empirical Bayes Shrinkage 

Estimates of State Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program 

Rates in 2008-2010 for All Eligible People and the Working Poor.” 

Washington, DC: Mathematica 

Policy Research, Inc., forthcoming.

Cunnyngham, Karen E., Laura 

A. Castner, and Amang Sukasih. 

“Empirical Bayes Shrinkage 

Estimates of State Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program 

Rates in 2007-2009 for All 

Eligible People and the Working 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) prohibits discrimination 

in all of its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, age, disability, and where 

applicable, sex (including gender 

identity and expression), marital 

status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, 

political beliefs, genetic information, 

reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’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, Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights, Office 

of the Assistant Secretary for 

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Stop 9410, 

Washington, DC 20250-9410; 

or call toll-free at (866) 632-9992 

(English) or (800) 877-8339 

(TDD) or (866) 377-8642 

(English Federal-relay) or (800) 

845-6136 (Spanish Federal-relay). 

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.

DECEMBER • 2012

 2010 Participation Rate

 for All Eligible People

 Above 83% (top quarter)

 73% to 83%

 Below 73% (bottom quarter)

 National Rate = 75%