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

STATE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

PARTICIPATION RATES IN 2009

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 • 2011

F O O D A N D 

N U T R I T I O N 

SERVICE

T A 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 2011, the program served nearly 45 million people 

in an average month at a total annual 

cost of over $70 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 2012 includes 

a performance target to reach 71.3 

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. Forty million people received 

benefits in an average month in 

2010. Sixteen million—almost 

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 (Leftin et al. 2011), 

and State rates for all eligible 

people and for the working poor 

(Cunnyngham and Castner 2010). 

This document presents estimates 

of SNAP participation rates for 

all eligible people and for the 

working poor by States for fiscal 

year 2009. These estimates can 

be used to assess recent program 

performance and focus efforts to 

improve performance.

Participation Rates in 2009

As reported in Leftin et al. (2011), 

72 percent of eligible people in 

the United States received SNAP 

benefits in fiscal year 2009. Participation rates varied widely from 

State to State, however. Eighteen 

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 82 percent rate was significantly higher 

than the rates for all of the other 

regions. The Western Region’s participation rate of 63 percent was 

significantly lower than the rates 

for all of the other regions. (See 

the last page for a map showing 

regional boundaries.)

In 2009, 60 percent of eligible 

working poor in the United States 

participated in SNAP, but as with 

participation rates for all eligible 
How Many Were Eligible in 2009? 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 Oklahoma’s participation rate was 75 percent in 2009, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that 

the true rate was between 70 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.)

63%

Eligible

People

(Thousands)

71% 72% 73%

61% 65%

64% 67% 70%

69% 72% 75%

71% 74% 77%

73% 75% 77%

73% 75% 77%

80% 82% 84%

80% 86% 92%

51% 53% 55%

54% 59% 64%

54% 59% 64%

56% 61% 66%

59% 62% 65%

57% 62% 67%

58% 63% 68%

58%

62% 67%

63%

72%

68%

64% 68% 72%

65% 68% 71%

64% 69% 74%

66% 69% 72%

65% 70% 75%

64% 70% 76%

64% 70% 76%

64% 70% 76%

66% 71% 76%

67% 71% 75%

67% 71% 75%

66% 71% 76%

67% 73% 79%

67% 73% 79%

70% 74% 78%

68% 74%

69% 74% 79%

70% 75% 80%

70% 75% 80%

69% 75% 81%

67% 76% 85%

71% 76% 81%

69% 76% 83%

71% 77% 83%

72% 77% 82%

70% 78% 86%

75% 79% 83%

75% 81% 87%

75% 81%

78%

78%

87%

83% 88%

83% 88%

81% 85% 89%

80% 86% 92%

80% 86% 92%

83% 88% 93%

83% 89% 95%

85% 91% 97%

85% 91% 97%

90% 95%

92% 99%

93% 100%

100%

100%

80%

30 35 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

182

521

1,400

749

69

1,181

879

119

348

335

1,652

1,549

804

848

352

1,707

94

912

110

118

640

65

331

769

615

897

86

1,719

546

105

957

702

1,584

1,079

894

189

192

590

2,813

483

3,254

146

169

337

285

508

4,486

311

44

841

4,947

6,840

2,855

10,547

4,450

4,855

6,911

8,054

44,512

Maine

Oregon

Michigan

Washington

Vermont

Tennessee

Missouri

District of Columbia

West Virginia

Iowa

Illinois

Pennsylvania

South Carolina

Kentucky

New Mexico

Ohio

South Dakota

Louisiana

Delaware

Montana

Wisconsin

North Dakota

Connecticut

Massachusetts

Oklahoma

Alabama

Alaska

Georgia

Arkansas

New Hampshire

Indiana

Mississippi

North Carolina

Arizona

Virginia

Nebraska

Idaho

Maryland

Florida

Minnesota

New York

Rhode Island

Hawaii

Kansas

Utah

Colorado

Texas

Nevada

Wyoming

New Jersey

California

Midwest Region

Mountain Plains Region

Southeast Region

Mid-Atlantic Region

Northeast Region

Southwest Region

Western Region

United States

100%
47%

Eligible

Working Poor

(Thousands)

58% 60% 61%

44% 49%

53% 56% 60%

54% 59% 63%

59% 63% 67%

61% 64% 67%

61% 64% 67%

71% 74% 77%

69% 75% 82%

33% 36% 39%

32% 41% 51%

40% 46% 52%

43% 48% 53%

43% 49% 55%

46% 50% 54%

44% 50% 56%

45%

46% 51%

51%

57%

57%

48% 53% 58%

47% 54% 61%

47% 54% 61%

48% 55% 63%

49% 55% 62%

48% 56% 63%

49% 56% 63%

52% 58% 63%

53% 59% 66%

52% 59% 66%

54% 61% 68%

55% 62% 69%

58% 64% 70%

58% 64% 70%

58% 65% 72%

58% 66%

61% 66% 71%

59% 66% 73%

62% 68% 75%

62% 68% 74%

62% 69% 76%

59% 70% 80%

63% 70% 77%

62% 71% 80%

64% 71% 78%

65% 71% 78%

66% 72% 78%

66% 72% 79%

65% 72%

65%

67%

80%

72% 80%

74% 80%

68% 75% 81%

71% 79% 87%

71% 79% 88%

72% 80% 88%

74% 82% 90%

78% 86% 94%

80% 89% 98%

81% 90%

87% 95%

90% 99%

99%

74%

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

66

556

119

234

29

173

183

50

45

303

402

555

330

629

420

698

336

240

41

417

33

99

710

299

403

837

53

310

702

310

506

104

42

434

1,446

289

19

273

134

244

159

1,220

181

94

59

2,530

149

264

318

30

2,822

2,932

1,441

4,661

1,856

2,064

3,669

4,274

20,897

Maine

Michigan

West Virginia

Oregon

Vermont

New Mexico

Iowa

Montana

South Dakota

Wisconsin

Missouri

Tennessee

Washington

Pennsylvania

Indiana

Ohio

South Carolina

Arkansas

Alaska

Louisiana

North Dakota

Idaho

Illinois

Mississippi

Alabama

Georgia

Delaware

Kentucky

North Carolina

Oklahoma

Arizona

Nebraska

New Hampshire

Virginia

New York

Massachusetts

Wyoming

Maryland

Connecticut

Minnesota

Utah

Florida

Kansas

Hawaii

Rhode Island

Texas

Nevada

Colorado

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%

How Many Working Poor Were Eligible in 2009? 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 Mississippi’s working poor participation rate was 68 percent in 2009, the true rate may have been higher or lower. However, the chances 

are 90 in 100 that the true rate was between 62 and 75 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

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 12 States had rates 

that were significantly lower. 

While 72 percent of all eligible 

people in the United States participated in 2009, only 60 percent of the 

eligible working poor participated, a 

significant difference of 12 percentage 

points. In 35 States, the participation 

rate for the working poor in 2009 

was—like the national rate for the 

working poor—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 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 2009 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 2009. Maine and 

Michigan were very likely ranked 

at the top, with higher rates for the 

working poor than most States. In 

contrast, California 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 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 

2007 to 2009, Iowa, Illinois, 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 

4 States—Kentucky, Pennsylvania, 

South Carolina, and Vermont—had 

significantly higher rates than half of 

the States. Colorado, Florida, Kansas, 

New York, Rhode Island, and Texas 

had significantly lower rates than half 

of the States in all 3 years, while California, 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 match. Nine States (Idaho, 

4

Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, New 

Mexico, Utah, 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, Connecticut, the District of 

Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, 

Tennessee, and Washington 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 

2011, 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 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, 

DECEMBER • 2011
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 Participation Rates

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

that measure the uncertainty in the estimates for 2007 and 2008 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 2009 estimates.

5

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 direct sample estimates of 

eligibles differ methodologically 

from estimates developed for prior 

reports. Motivations for the methodological improvements include 

making use of more recent data and 

methodologies. 

Although our focus is on participation among people who were eligible for SNAP, there are significant 

challenges in identifying households 

that are categorically eligible due 

to the receipt of noncash public 

assistance benefits. Because of 

these challenges, people eligible 

solely through State categorical 

eligibility policies are not included 

in the estimates of eligible people. 

However, no data are available to 

identify categorically eligible participants who would have failed the 

program’s asset tests. Therefore, such 

people are included in the estimates 

of participating people. Leftin et al. 

(2011) presents details on the methods used to estimate the numbers 

of eligible and participating people 

used in deriving the participation 

rates presented here.

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 et al. 

2011). The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations served 

about 95,000 people in 2009, so the 

effects of such adjustments would 

be negligible in almost all States. 

All Eligible People Working Poor 

2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009 

Alabama 68% 70% 74% 62% 63% 66%

Alaska 82% 80% 74% 77% 80% 71%

Arizona 63% 67% 71% 53% 60% 62%

Arkansas 78% 77% 73% 75% 72% 71%

California 51% 53% 53% 34% 33% 36%

Colorado 60% 59% 62% 48% 46% 48%

Connecticut 68% 70% 75% 48% 51% 55%

Delaware 74% 74% 77% 65% 67% 66%

District of Columbia 77% 76% 86% 33% 29% 41%

Florida 56% 61% 69% 44% 45% 53%

Georgia 64% 68% 74% 58% 58% 66%

Hawaii 69% 73% 67% 53% 57% 51%

Idaho 62% 66% 70% 64% 63% 69%

Illinois 87% 87% 85% 69% 69% 68%

Indiana 73% 74% 71% 72% 74% 72%

Iowa 84% 85% 86% 80% 79% 80%

Kansas 62% 61% 63% 53% 50% 51%

Kentucky 81% 85% 81% 69% 70% 65%

Louisiana 79% 77% 77% 74% 69% 70%

Maine 100% 100% 100% 97% 99% 99%

Maryland 58% 63% 70% 44% 49% 55%

Massachusetts 64% 70% 75% 44% 50% 56%

Michigan 98% 97% 95% 94% 96% 95%

Minnesota 66% 66% 69% 54% 52% 54%

Mississippi 66% 68% 71% 64% 63% 68%

Missouri 89% 91% 88% 76% 79% 75%

Montana 79% 81% 76% 85% 82% 79%

Nebraska 69% 69% 70% 64% 61% 61%

Nevada 55% 59% 61% 41% 44% 49%

New Hampshire 67% 72% 73% 56% 60% 59%

New Jersey 54% 56% 59% 44% 44% 46%

New Mexico 76% 75% 81% 77% 73% 82%

New York 62% 66% 68% 53% 51% 58%

North Carolina 64% 68% 71% 59% 62% 64%

North Dakota 70% 79% 76% 67% 71% 70%

Ohio 76% 79% 79% 69% 73% 72%

Oklahoma 76% 74% 75% 65% 63% 64%

Oregon 96% 96% 99% 83% 85% 89%

Pennsylvania 80% 84% 83% 72% 73% 72%

Rhode Island 62% 66% 68% 43% 46% 50%

South Carolina 77% 81% 83% 64% 70% 71%

South Dakota 70% 76% 78% 70% 74% 79%

Tennessee 84% 86% 89% 67% 69% 74%

Texas 61% 62% 62% 52% 50% 50%

Utah 60% 62% 63% 53% 56% 54%

Vermont 81% 86% 91% 78% 80% 86%

Virginia 66% 68% 70% 56% 57% 59%

Washington 84% 87% 91% 63% 69% 72%

West Virginia 88% 87% 86% 94% 89% 90%

Wisconsin 69% 73% 76% 70% 72% 75%

Wyoming 55% 55% 59% 52% 50% 56%

Mid-Atlantic Region 70% 72% 74% 60% 61% 63%

Midwest Region 81% 82% 82% 73% 75% 74%

Mountain Plains Region 74% 75% 75% 65% 65% 64%

Northeast Region 65% 69% 72% 53% 53% 59%

Southeast Region 67% 71% 75% 58% 59% 64%

Southwest Region 67% 67% 67% 58% 56% 56%

Western Region 60% 62% 63% 43% 44% 47%

United States 69% 71% 72% 57% 58% 60%

DECEMBER • 2011
How Did Your State Rank in 2009?

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 Alabama had the 26th highest participation rate in 2009, the true rank may have been higher or lower. However, the chances are 90 in 100 that 

the true rank was between 17 and 37 among all of the States. To determine how Alabama 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

45 50 51

44 49 50

43 48 50

43 47 49

42 46 49

40 45 50

39 44 49

31

30 42

43

45

47

31 41 44

26 40 44

29 39 43

25 38 43

22 37 44

23 36 44

22 35 43

23 34 43

24 33 41

22 32 41

22 31 41

18 30 41

18 29 40

19 28 36

16 27 39

17 26 37

16 25 36

16 24 35

15 23 36

11 22 40

15 21 33

13 20 36

14 19 33

13 18 32

10 17 35

12 16 26

8 15 24

8 14 23

8 13

8

6

19

12 19

11 15

5 10 16

5 9 16

4 8 17

4 7 12

3 6 12

3 5 11

3 4 10

2 3

1 2

1 1 3

4

6

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

Participation

Rate for

 All Eligible 

People

 Maine

99% Oregon

95% Michigan

91% Washington

91% Vermont

89% Tennessee

88% Missouri

86% District of Columbia

86% West Virginia

86% Iowa

85% Illinois

83% Pennsylvania

83% South Carolina

81% Kentucky

81% New Mexico

79% Ohio

78% South Dakota

77% Louisiana

77% Delaware

76% Montana

76% Wisconsin

76% North Dakota

75% Connecticut

75% Massachusetts

75% Oklahoma

74% Alabama

74% Alaska

74% Georgia

73% Arkansas

73% New Hampshire

71% Indiana

71% Mississippi

71% North Carolina

71% Arizona

70% Virginia

70% Nebraska

70% Idaho

70% Maryland

69% Florida

69% Minnesota

68% New York

68% Rhode Island

67% Hawaii

63% Kansas

63% Utah

62% Colorado

62% Texas

61% Nevada

59% Wyoming

59% New Jersey

53% California

100%
How Did Your State Compare with Other States in 2009 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 Alabama, the State in the middle of the distribution, as an example, we see that it had a significantly lower participation rate than 15 other States 

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

Kentucky, and New Mexico) and a significantly higher rate than 12 other States (California, New Jersey, Wyoming, Nevada, Texas, Colorado, Utah, Kansas, 

Hawaii, Rhode Island, New York, and Florida). Its rate was neither significantly higher nor significantly lower than the rates for the other 23 States, suggesting 

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

99%

95%

91%

91%

89%

88%

86%

86%

86%

85%

83%

83%

81%

81%

79%

78%

77%

77%

76%

76%

76%

75%

75%

75%

74%

74%

74%

73%

73%

71%

71%

71%

71%

70%

70%

70%

70%

69%

69%

68%

68%

67%

63%

63%

HI KS UT CO TX NV WY NJ CA Rate

62%

62%

61%

59%

59%

53%

Rate for row State significantly higher

Rate for row State significantly lower

ME

OR

MI

WA

VT

TN

MO

DC

WV

IA

IL

PA

SC

KY

NM

OH

SD

LA

DE

MT

WI

ND

CT

MA

OK

AL

AK

GA

AR

NH

IN

MS

NC

AZ

VA

NE

ID

MD

FL

MN

NY

RI

HI

KS

UT

CO

TX

NV

WY

NJ

CA

100%

Rates not significantly different
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

C

Mathematica Policy Research, 

February 2011.

Cunnyngham, Karen E. and Laura 

A. Castner. “Reaching Those in 

Need: State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates in 2008.” Alexandria, 

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

December 2010.

Leftin, Joshua, Esa Eslami, and 

Mark Strayer. “Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program Participation Rates: 

Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 

2009.” In Current Perspectives on 

SNAP Participation. Alexandria, 

VA: Food and Nutrition Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

August 2011.

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-11-0005.

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.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, Laura 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 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 2006-2008 

for All Eligible People and the 

Working Poor.” Washington, DC:

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, 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).

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, about half of this 

number would be eligible for SNAP under 

current program rules.

DECEMBER • 2011

 2009 Participation Rate

 for All Eligible People

 Above 82% (top quarter)

 70% to 82%

 Below 70% (bottom quarter)

 National Rate = 72%