Food Security Improved 

Following the 2009 ARRA 

Increase in SNAP Benefi ts

Mark Nord

Mark Prell

Economic

Research

Service

Economic

Research

Report

Number 116

April 2011

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture
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 a 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, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Recommended citation format for this publication: 

Nord, Mark, and Mark Prell. Food Security Improved Following the 

2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefits, ERR-116, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April 2011.

Photo: USDA NAL Photography Center.

www.ers.usda.gov

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

Find additional information

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/foodsecurity
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 increased benefi t levels for the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp 

Program) and expanded SNAP eligibility for jobless adults without children. One goal 

of the program changes was to improve the food security of low-income households. We 

fi nd that food expenditures by low-income households increased by about 5.4 percent and 

their food insecurity declined by 2.2 percentage points from 2008 to 2009. Food security 

did not improve for households with incomes somewhat above the SNAP eligibility range. 

These fi ndings, based on data from the nationally representative Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplement, suggest that the ARRA SNAP enhancements contributed substantially to improvements for low-income households.

Keywords: Food security, food insecurity, food spending, SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program, ARRA, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Erik Scherpf and David Smallwood (Economic Research Service), 

Michael Wiseman (George Washington University), Bruce Webber (Oregon State 

University), and Bruce Meyer (University of Chicago) for their insights and suggestions. 

Thanks also to Angela Anderson for editorial assistance and to Wynnice Pointer-Napper 

for the production and graphics work.

Mark Nord, marknord@ers.usda.gov

Mark Prell, mprell@ers.usda.gov

Food Security Improved 

Following the 2009 ARRA 

Increase in SNAP Benefi ts

Economic 

Research 

Report 

Number 116

April 2011
ii

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Analytic Framework, Data, and Key Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Analytic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Data Used in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 Measurement of Key Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Research Challenges and Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

 Unadjusted Comparisons Pre-ARRA to Post-ARRA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

 Multivariate (Adjusted) Comparisons Pre-ARRA to Post-ARRA . . . . . 10

 Difference-in-Difference Comparisons Pre-ARRA to Post-ARRA . . . . 12

SNAP Participation Increased . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

 Expected Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

 Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

SNAP Benefi ts Increased. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

 Expected Increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

 Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures Increased Among 

 Low-Income Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

 Expected Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

 Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Food Security Improved Among Low-Income Households . . . . . . . . . . 23

 Expected Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures Increased More for SNAP 

 Households Than for Low-Income Non-SNAP Households. . . . . . . . . 27

 Expected Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

 Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

An Historical Perspective on Pre-ARRA to Post-ARRA Changes . . . . 29

Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix: Multivariate Regression Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
iii

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Summary

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 increased 

benefi t levels for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, 

formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) and expanded SNAP eligibility for jobless adults without children. The changes were intended to 

assist those most impacted by the recession, to create and save jobs, and 

to stimulate the economy. In this study, we examine whether the increased 

SNAP benefi ts provided by ARRA improved the food security of lowincome households (that is, the extent to which they were consistently able 

to obtain adequate food).

What Is the Issue?

Federal policy offi cials and the American public want to know whether 

the funds spent under various provisions of ARRA have met the goals of 

Congress and the Administration. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has 

previously documented the extent and timing of the additional purchasing 

power and estimated the extent of economic activity that resulted from the 

SNAP changes under ARRA. This is the fi rst study to examine how much 

ARRA’s SNAP enhancements may have improved the food security of lowincome households.

What Did the Study Find?

The food security of low-income households (those with incomes in the 

eligible range for SNAP) improved from 2008 to 2009, and a substantial 

share of that improvement may be due to the increase in SNAP benefi ts 

implemented under ARRA. From late 2008 (pre-ARRA) to late 2009 (postARRA), the following changes were estimated, taking into account changes 

in income, employment, and other household characteristics: 

• Among all low-income households, the prevalence of food insecurity fell 

by 2.2 percentage points, and the prevalence of very low food security fell 

by 2.0 percentage points. Very low food security is a severe range of food 

insecurity that impacts the eating patterns of some household members 

and reduces their food intake below levels they consider appropriate.

• Participation of low-income households in SNAP increased by about 3 

percentage points.

• The SNAP benefi ts received by the typical (median) participating household increased by about 16 percent. 

• Food expenditures by the typical (median) low-income household 

increased by 5.4 percent of which an estimated 2.2 percent may have 

resulted from the ARRA SNAP changes.

• Among households with incomes just above the income-eligibility 

range for SNAP, food expenditures (adjusted for changes in food 

prices) increased by a smaller percentage than among low-income 

households, and the prevalence of food insecurity among such households did not decline.
iv

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

• Food spending increased more among SNAP participants than among 

low-income non-SNAP households, closing a gap in food spending that 

had persisted since at least 2001.

• The combination observed in 2009 of a simultaneous increase in SNAP 

participation and an improvement in food security from the previous year 

had not occurred in any other recent year.

How Was the Study Conducted?

We analyzed data on SNAP participation, food security, food spending, and 

other household characteristics from the annual Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS). The CPS-FSS is an annual supplement to the monthly Current Population Survey, sponsored by USDA and 

administered by the U.S. Census Bureau. The CPS-FSS is a large (46,000 

households in 2009), nationally representative survey of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States and is the data source for the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s series of annual reports on the food security 

of U.S. households.

The main analysis compared SNAP participation, SNAP benefi ts, food 

spending, and food security in December 2009 (about 8 months after ARRA 

increased SNAP benefi ts) with the corresponding statistics for December 

2008 (about 1 year into the recession but before SNAP benefi ts increased). 

We conducted separate analyses for all low-income households, for lowincome households by SNAP participation status, and for households with 

incomes above the SNAP eligibility range but below the U.S. median, and 

used multivariate regression methods to control for changes in income, 

employment, and other household characteristics from 2008 to 2009.

The prevalence of very low food security declined among households 

with incomes in the eligibility range for SNAP, but not for households 

with incomes somewhat higher

Percent of households with very low food security

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

*Percentages for 2009 were regression-adjusted for differences between years in household 

income, employment, and other household characteristics between years.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS) data.

Before ARRA (2008)

After ARRA (2009, adjusted)*

Households with incomes in the 

eligibility range for SNAP (less than

130 percent of the poverty line)

Households with incomes somewhat 

above the eligibility range for SNAP

(150-250 percent of the poverty line)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16
1

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Introduction

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 made two 

policy changes in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, 

formerly known as the Food Stamp Program) to improve the food security of 

low-income households during a period of challenging economic conditions. 

ARRA increased SNAP benefi t levels for all recipients and expanded SNAP 

eligibility for jobless adults with no children.1 In this study, we examined 

whether, and to what extent, the food security of low-income households 

improved, as intended, following these SNAP enhancements.

Food security means access to enough food by all people at all times for an 

active, healthy life (Anderson, 1990). Households that are food secure can 

consistently obtain adequate food. In contrast, households that are food insecure are, at times, unable to acquire adequate food for all household members 

because they lack the money and other resources for food. 

SNAP provides monthly benefi ts for eligible low-income families and individuals (hereafter referred to as “households”) to purchase approved food items 

at authorized foodstores. In an average month for fi scal year 2009 (ending 

September 30, 2009), SNAP provided benefi ts to 33.5 million people in the 

United States (11 percent of the population). The average benefi t was about 

$125 per person per month, and total Federal expenditures for the program 

were $53.6 billion (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2010b). SNAP is 

USDA’s largest food and nutrition assistance program and is the cornerstone 

of the Nation’s programs for reducing food insecurity and hunger.

One provision of ARRA (effective April 2009) increased SNAP benefi ts for 

each household by a dollar amount equal to 13.6 percent of the maximum 

benefi t for that household size.2 The increase was implemented as a constant 

dollar amount for each household size, so the increase was 13.6 percent for 

households receiving the maximum benefi t, and the percentage increase was 

greater for households that had some net income and were therefore eligible 

for less than the maximum benefi t. For example, a SNAP-participating 

household of four persons with no net income received a maximum benefi t of 

$668 in April 2009—an increase of $80, or 13.6 percent, over the $588 the 

household received in March 2009 (table 1). A household of the same size, 

but eligible for half the maximum benefi t (because they had $980 monthly 

net income), also received an increase of $80, amounting to 27.2 percent of 

the household’s pre-ARRA benefi t. A prospective estimate of the average 

increase in benefi ts across all SNAP households in fi scal 2009 was about 19 

percent (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2009).3 

A second provision of ARRA increased SNAP eligibility for some jobless 

adults. Prior to ARRA, many jobless, working age, nondisabled adults 

without children were limited to 3 months of SNAP benefi ts within any 

3-year period. ARRA gave States an option to suspend that limitation 

through fi scal 2010 (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2010a). 

USDA sponsors an annual, nationally representative survey to monitor the 

extent and severity of food insecurity in U.S. households and has published 

statistical reports on household food security in the United States for each 

1“Jobless” is a general category that 

includes the unemployed and those not 

in the labor force. In other instances, 

“unemployed” is used to refer to those 

not employed but looking for work.

2Households are eligible to receive 

SNAP benefi ts based on household 

income, assets, and certain basic expenses. Households with no net income 

(net of allowable deductions) receive 

the maximum SNAP benefi t, which 

varies depending on the number of 

qualifying persons in the household. If 

a household has net income, its SNAP 

benefi ts are reduced by 30 percent 

of its net income; it is expected that 

household members can provide for 

the remainder of their food needs from 

their own income.

3ARRA specifi ed that the SNAP 

maximum monthly allotments would 

be fi xed for the next several years 

until infl ation adjustments to the 

pre-ARRA benefi t levels exceed the 

ARRA increase.
2

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

year since 1995 (Nord et al., 2010). The research presented here used data for 

several years from that survey to examine pre-ARRA to post-ARRA changes 

in SNAP participation, food expenditures, and food security of households 

with annual incomes below 130 percent of the poverty line (hereafter referred 

to as “low-income households”). Multivariate analytic methods were used to 

account for changes in other factors besides ARRA that may have affected 

the outcomes, including household income, employment status, household 

composition, and demographics. Then a difference-in-difference analysis 

compared low-income households’ pre-ARRA-to-post-ARRA differences in 

food expenditures and food security with the corresponding differences for 

households that had incomes above the eligibility range for SNAP but well 

below the U.S. median. The difference-in-difference analysis adjusted the 

multivariate results for effects of changes in other factors, such as a decline in 

food prices, that occurred during the study period but were not measured in 

the data.

Previous Estimates of the Stimulus Effects 

of the ARRA SNAP Enhancements

Measuring the effects of Government programs and policies informs 

Congress, the Administration, and the public on how well goals and objectives are being met. A 2009 memorandum from the Offi ce of Management 

and Budget to the heads of executive departments and agencies stated, 

“Rigorous, independent program evaluations can be a key resource in determining whether Government programs are achieving their intended outcomes 

as well as possible and at the lowest possible cost.” 

Table 1

Maximum monthly SNAP benefi ts pre-ARRA and post-ARRA1

Maximum monthly SNAP benefi ts

ARRA increase in 

maximum monthly 

SNAP benefi ts

Number of people 

in the SNAP unit2

Pre-ARRA in 

fi scal 2009

(October 1, 2008–

March 31, 2009)

Post-ARRA

(beginning 

April 1, 2009)

————————— Dollars —————————

1 176 200 24

2 323 367 44

3 463 526 63

4 588 668 80

5 698 793 95

6 838 952 114

7 926 1,052 126

8 1,058 1,202 144

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1These benefi t fi gures were applicable in the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia. 

Maximum benefi ts in Alaska and Hawaii are adjusted upward due to higher food prices.

2A SNAP unit may comprise all household members or a subset of related members who qualify 

for SNAP benefi ts. Each additional person beyond eight in the SNAP unit resulted in increments 

in maximum benefi ts of $132 pre-ARRA and $150 post-ARRA.

Source: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/government/cola.htm. 
3

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

The objectives of the ARRA SNAP provisions, as identifi ed in the SNAP 

ARRA Recovery Plan (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2010a), were:

1. Improve the food security of low-income households;

2. Create and save jobs;

3. Stimulate the economy; and

4. Stabilize the State agencies responsible for SNAP administration.4

In this report, we assess the extent to which the ARRA increase in SNAP 

benefi ts and the expansion of SNAP eligibility may have met the fi rst ARRA 

SNAP objective—improving the food security of low-income households.

USDA has documented elsewhere the extent and timing of the purchasing 

power created by the ARRA SNAP provisions and estimated the economic 

activity that resulted from the ARRA SNAP provisions. The Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS), which administers USDA’s food assistance 

programs at the Federal level, reported on three of the four ARRA-SNAP 

objectives in June 2010. With regard to the second and third objectives—

creating and saving jobs and stimulating the economy—the injection of additional money into the economy began soon after the February 2009 passage 

of ARRA. In March 2009, USDA distributed to the States the additional 

administrative funding for fi scal 2009. In April 2009, the ARRA increase 

in SNAP benefi ts was implemented. About 97 percent of SNAP benefi ts 

are redeemed within 30 days of issuance. Drawing on earlier ERS research 

fi ndings (Hanson and Gundersen, 2002), FNS estimated that increased 

SNAP benefi ts would create $36.8 billion of economic activity in the 5 years 

following ARRA and create or save 100,000 jobs in the fi rst 2 years after 

implementation (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2010a).5 With regard to 

the fourth objective—stabilizing State agencies responsible for SNAP administration—FNS reported that the additional administrative funding specifi ed 

by ARRA for fi scal 2009 had been forwarded to the States. 

USDA’s annual household food security report (Nord et al., 2010) provided 

a preliminary indication of progress on the fi rst ARRA-SNAP objective—

improving the food security of low-income households. The prevalence of 

food insecurity and very low food security (a severe subcategory of food 

insecurity) remained unchanged from 2008 to 2009 even as unemployment 

continued to rise during the period (see box, “A Glance at Possible Effects of 

ARRA”). Furthermore, the prevalence of very low food security measured 

during the fi nal 30 days prior to each survey (i.e., from mid-November to 

mid-December) declined somewhat from 2008 to 2009, and the decline was 

greatest for low-income households. This report documents a more rigorous 

analysis of the changes in food insecurity and very low food security from 

2008 to 2009, disentangling, to the extent possible, the changes due to the 

ARRA SNAP enhancements from those due to other policy and economic 

changes during that period.

4For this purpose, ARRA appropriated additional funds for States to 

support SNAP administration.

5ERS research fi ndings published 

subsequent to this FNS report updated 

the estimated relationship between 

SNAP benefi ts and total economic 

activity (Hanson, 2010). The estimates 

do not differ substantially from those 

used by FNS.
4

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

USDA’s annual food security report, Household Food Security in the United States, 

2009 (Nord et al., 2010) provided early evidence that ARRA SNAP provisions 

may have stabilized the food security of U.S. households. In spite of increased 

unemployment in 2009, the prevalence of very low food security either held steady 

or declined, depending on the period over which it was measured (see chart below).

The unemployment rate is a key measure of macroeconomic conditions, and previous 

research has found unemployment to be strongly associated with food insecurity at 

household, State, and national levels. The economic downturn that began in late 

2007 is refl ected in the increases in annual average unemployment rates for 2008 

and 2009. From 2007 to 2008, the percentage of households with very low food 

security increased in tandem with the worsening economy. While the unemployment 

rate rose still further from 2008 to 2009, the prevalence of very low food security 

remained unchanged if measured over the entire year and declined somewhat if 

measured over the fi nal 30 days before the survey (conducted in mid-December of 

each year). A possible explanation for the stability or improvement in food security 

in 2009 may be the implementation of ARRA SNAP enhancements in April 

2009. Improvements in food security registered by the 30-day measure were most 

notable for low-income households and households with children—subpopulations 

that were more likely to benefi t from the ARRA SNAP enhancements—further 

suggesting that those enhancements contributed to the improvement. 

These trends and statistics are only suggestive of the role ARRA may have played. 

Our study used more rigorous analytic methods to provide more defi nitive evidence 

of the role ARRA enhancements may have played in improving the food security of 

low-income households. The small improvement in food security from 2008 to 2009 

may indicate a more sizeable improvement compared with what would have occurred

if the ARRA SNAP provisions had not been implemented. This improvement 

relative to the (unobserved) counterfactual is estimated using multivariate methods 

that account for such factors as household income and employment status. The 

comparison of these “adjusted” outcomes can be interpreted as the change that 

would have occurred in the absence of any changes in income, employment, and 

other household characteristics that are measured in the available data, and more 

nearly refl ects the effect of the ARRA SNAP provisions.

A Glance at Possible Effects of ARRA

The percentage of households with very low food security held steady 

or declined from 2008 to 2009 in spite of increasing unemployment

Percent

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using food security statistics from Household 

Food Security in the United States, 2009 (Nord et al., 2010) and unemployment statistics 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Annual average unemployment rate

Prevalence rate, very low food security 

during 12 months prior to survey

1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

0

2

4

6

8

10

Prevalence rate, very low 

food security in last 30 days
5

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Analytic Framework, Data, 

and Key Variables 

The ARRA SNAP provisions were expected to improve food security among 

low-income households through three links in a cause-and-effect chain:

1. The ARRA SNAP enhancements would increase the resources available to low-income households to buy food. This change would come 

from: 

a. Increased benefi ts to the participants; 

b. Increased participation of eligible households because the higher 

benefi t level makes participation more attractive; and 

c. Increased eligibility of jobless households with no children 

because the SNAP time limits for such households were 

suspended in some States.

2. Additional resources for food to low-income households would 

increase their food expenditures.

3. Low-income households that increase their food expenditures would, 

ceteris paribus, experience improved food security.

Previous research supports the last two hypothesized links. However, that 

research has not been able to convincingly sort out causal processes. The 

ARRA SNAP enhancements provide a rare opportunity to study all the 

steps in the process jointly, and the exogenous character of the ARRA SNAP 

enhancements strengthens researchers’ ability to attribute causality. 

Analytic Framework

We examined the extent of changes among low-income households in three 

interrelated outcomes—SNAP participation, food expenditures, and food 

security—and whether those changes were consistent with those that were 

expected to result from the ARRA SNAP enhancements. The changes for 

low-income households were compared with changes for “nearly SNAP 

eligible households,” defi ned as those with incomes from 150 percent to 250 

percent of the poverty line, and therefore above the eligibility range for SNAP 

but well below the national median income. We used data from the annual 

Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS, described 

later in the report) for 2001-09. The main analysis compared post-ARRA 

conditions in December 2009 (about 8 months after the ARRA had increased 

SNAP benefi ts) with pre-ARRA conditions in December 2008 (about 1 year 

into the recession but before SNAP benefi ts had increased). Year-to-year 

changes were calculated for earlier years to provide a context for interpreting 

the 2008-09 changes.

Analytic complications caused by self-selection and under-reporting of 

SNAP participation were obviated by focusing the main analysis on changes 

among all low-income households. Those complications would bias separate 

estimates of changes among SNAP participants and low-income non-SNAP 

participants to an unknown extent. 
6

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Self-selection of more food-needy households into program participation is 

an important complicating factor in all survey-based research on the effect 

of food and nutrition assistance programs. For this study, accounting for 

self-selection would have been particularly important in separate analyses 

by SNAP participation status because the increase in SNAP benefi ts is 

likely to have changed the self-selection probabilities between the two time 

periods analyzed. Some households that would not have been motivated to 

participate by the pre-ARRA SNAP benefi ts would have participated postARRA due to the larger SNAP benefi t. It is likely that, on average, households induced to participate by the larger benefi ts were better off than the 

average pre-ARRA participant and worse off than the average pre-ARRA 

nonparticipant. Thus, their change in participation status would improve the 

average food security of each subgroup even in the absence of any actual 

improvement in food security within any household due to SNAP benefi ts. 

However, the food security of all low-income households, SNAP participants and nonparticipants considered jointly, would improve only if the 

increased benefi ts and increased participation actually improved the food 

security of at least some households.

Both the increase in SNAP benefi ts for participating households and the 

increase in SNAP participation among low-income households would 

increase household food expenditures and improve household food security among low-income households as a group. The joint analysis of all 

low-income households did not estimate the separate effects of these two 

processes, but rather estimated the combined effects of the two processes on 

low-income households overall. 

Participation in SNAP and other programs is underreported in all survey 

data, including the data used for this study. Some participating households 

did not report that they received program benefi ts and therefore they incorrectly appear in the data as nonparticipants. (Misreporting in the opposite 

direction is relatively rare.) Underreporting program participation is likely 

to mute the differences between reported participants and nonparticipants. 

Any improvement in food security due to the larger SNAP benefi t would, to 

some extent, be observed for reported nonparticipants as well as for reported 

participants because some of the reported nonparticipants did, in fact, participate in SNAP. Misreported SNAP participation does not, however, affect the 

analytic results for all low-income households.

The results of the joint analysis of SNAP recipients and low-income nonrecipients understate the changes within the subpopulation that participates in 

SNAP. To the extent that the estimates represent the effects of the ARRA 

SNAP enhancements, the impact on SNAP participants will be diluted in 

the analyses by the inclusion of many non-SNAP households that were not 

affected by ARRA SNAP changes. Only about two-thirds of SNAP-eligible 

households participate in the program in any given month (USDA, Food 

and Nutrition Service, 2010c), and the low-income sample in the CPS-FSS 

includes a substantial number of ineligible households.6 Taken together, these 

proportions suggest that only around half of the low-income households in the 

CPS-FSS sample were, in fact, SNAP participants. Thus, the effect on SNAP 

participants would be about double the size of a correctly estimated effect on 

the entire low-income CPS-FSS sample.

6Low income as measured in this 

study is only an approximation for 

SNAP eligibility. Actual eligibility 

determination considers recent and 

current income, rather than annual 

income, and considers many factors 

not measured in the CPS-FSS, such 

as assets, immigration documentation 

status, excess housing costs, employment costs, and child care costs.
7

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Although primary attention is given to estimates for all low-income households, separate analyses were also conducted for SNAP participants and 

low-income non-SNAP households. The results for the subgroups, however, 

are interpreted cautiously, recognizing that they refl ect, in part, the self-selection—and changes in self-selection—of more food-needy households into 

the program and are further complicated by misreported SNAP participation. The main conclusions of the study are based on the stronger evidence of 

changes among all low-income households, which are not affected by either 

self-selection or underreporting because they do not rely on SNAP participation status data. 

Data Used in the Study

The CPS-FSS is an annual supplement to the monthly Current Population 

Survey. The supplement is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) and administered by the U.S. Census Bureau. The CPS-FSS 

collects data on household food spending, use of Federal and community 

food assistance programs, and food security (the extent to which households 

are consistently able to obtain adequate food). The CPS-FSS is nationally 

representative of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United 

States and is the datasource for USDA’s series of annual reports on the food 

security of U.S. households (see, for example, Nord et al., 2010). The survey 

has been conducted annually since 1995 and has been conducted consistently 

in the same time period (mid-December) since 2001. Our primary analyses 

used CPS-FSS data for 2008 and 2009; comparative statistics on year-to-year 

changes in food security and SNAP participation for prior years were based 

on CPS-FSS data from 2001-2007. About 44,000 households were interviewed in the CPS-FSS for 2008, 46,000 for 2009, and an average of about 

48,000 households each year from 2001 to 2007.

The core labor force portion of the CPS, to which the CPS-FSS is a supplement, collects information on household composition, demographics, income, 

employment, and other household characteristics. These data were used as 

control variables in the multivariate analyses to account for measured factors 

besides the implementation of ARRA’s SNAP provision that can affect 

outcomes of SNAP participation, food expenditures, and food security. The 

income data were also used to identify households that were likely to have 

had incomes in the range eligible for SNAP and to identify nearly-SNAPeligible households—those with incomes somewhat above that range.

All analyses used household supplement weights so that the sample represented the population of interest. Variances of the participation rates and 

prevalence rates were estimated as:

PQ*1.6/N

where P is the weighted point estimate of the percentage, Q is the complement of P (i.e., 100-P), 1.6 is the assumed design factor, and N is the 

number of unweighted households in the denominator. Variance estimates 

in the multivariate analyses were not adjusted for stratifi cation or clustering 

but are not likely to be substantially distorted by design effects in these 

complex models.7

7The design factor of 1.6 is based 

on Cohen et al., 2002. CPS-FSS data 

do not include sample design data that 

would allow use of standard statistical methods for correcting variance 

estimates.
8

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Measurement of Key Variables 

Income. Annual household income is reported in ranges for the core labor 

force portion of the CPS. Income for each household was approximated at 

the center of the reported range and was divided by a poverty line for that 

household to adjust for household size and composition. We based household 

poverty lines on the Census Bureau’s table of poverty thresholds for individuals and families for the year of the survey, taking into account the number 

of adults and children in the household and whether the household reference 

person was younger or older than 65.

Low-Income and Nearly-SNAP-Eligible Households. Low-income households were identifi ed as those with annual incomes less than 130 percent of 

the poverty line and, therefore, likely to have been eligible for SNAP (see 

footnote 5). Nearly-SNAP-eligible households were identifi ed as those with 

annual incomes from 150 to 250 percent of the poverty line. These served as 

a comparison group for low-income households in the difference-in-difference analyses.8 Low-income households made up about 20 percent of all U.S. 

households in 2008 and 21 percent in 2009. Nearly-SNAP-eligible households 

made up about 19 percent of U.S. households in 2008 and 18 percent in 2009. 

SNAP Participation. Analyses of SNAP participation were based on the 

reported receipt of SNAP benefi ts during the 30 days prior to the survey. 

Households in the CPS-FSS were asked whether anyone in the household 

received benefi ts from SNAP, Food Stamps, or their State food assistance 

program (if it was known by a name other than SNAP or Food Stamps). If 

they responded “yes,” they were asked to report which months they received 

benefi ts. If they received benefi ts in November, but not in December, they 

were asked on which day in November they received benefi ts. Households 

were classifi ed as having received SNAP during the previous 30 days if they 

had received benefi ts within 30 days of the earliest date on which interviews 

were conducted (December 14, 2008, and December 13, 2009.)

TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures. Each household’s usual food expenditure was expressed relative to the cost of USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) 

for that household at the time of the survey (a measure hereafter referred to 

as “TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures”). This measure adjusts for differences 

in household size and age/sex composition within each year and adjusts for 

differences in food prices across years. Household food needs differ depending 

on the number, age, and gender of household members. The cost of the TFP 

provides a basis for comparing food spending patterns across diverse households within a survey year. Price infl ation can cause a household’s food expenditures to change from one year to the next, even if it buys exactly the same 

food items. The TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditure is a measure of the quantity 

and quality of food purchased, taking into account changes in food prices.9

Each household’s usual weekly food spending was reported by CPS-FSS 

respondents after they reported their actual food spending during the previous 

week. Respondents were fi rst asked how much their household spent on food 

in the week prior to the interview, including any purchases made with SNAP 

benefi ts, at each of four kinds of places: supermarkets and grocery stores; 

other stores, such as meat markets, produce stands, bakeries, warehouse 

clubs, and convenience stores; restaurants, fast food places, cafeterias, and 

8Households with income from 130 

to 150 percent of the poverty line—

just above the SNAP gross income 

eligibility limit—were not included 

in the nearly-SNAP-eligible group 

because a substantial proportion 

were, in fact, eligible for SNAP, and 

many participated in the program. 

SNAP eligibility for such households 

results from several factors, including imprecise income measurement, 

income variability during the year, 

and adjunctive SNAP eligibility 

due to participation in other assistance programs (for which States set 

eligibility criteria). Bivariate and 

multivariate analyses (not shown) 

of households in this income range 

found no statistically signifi cant 

changes in food expenditures or food 

security. The numbers of households 

in the analysis samples, however, 

were relatively small (just over 1,000 

in each year) so some modest-sized 

changes may have occurred.

9The data used for this study cannot 

differentiate between quantities and 

qualities of food purchased, but the 

hypothesis tests did not depend on 

differentiating them. In contrast, distinguishing changes in quantities and 

qualities from changes in prices was 

important for the study.
9

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

vending machines; and “any other kind of place.” Total spending for food, 

based on responses to this series of questions, was verifi ed with the respondent, and the respondent was then asked how much the household usually

spent weekly on food. Analyses by ERS researchers have found that food 

expenditures estimated from data collected by this method are consistent with 

estimates from the Consumer Expenditure (CE) Survey—the principal source 

of data on U.S. household expenditures for goods and services (Oliveira and 

Rose, 1996; Nord, 2009).

The Thrifty Food Plan serves as a national standard for a nutritious, low-cost 

diet. It represents a set of food “market baskets” that people in specifi c age 

and gender categories could consume at home to maintain a healthful diet 

that meets current dietary standards at low cost, taking into account the food 

consumption patterns of U.S. households. The mix of foods in the Thrifty 

Food Plan is updated every 5 years, and, in the interim, the quantities of each 

food in the TFP market baskets are fi xed. Each month, USDA’s Center for 

Nutrition Policy and Promotion (CNPP) updates the cost of the Thrifty Food 

Plan, that is, the amount of money needed to purchase the market baskets 

based on national average food prices for that month.10

Food Security. Household food security—access by all household members 

at all times to enough food for active healthy living—is the “bottom-line” 

outcome variable in this study. Food security is measured in the CPS-FSS by 

responses to a series of questions about food-related conditions and behaviors 

that typically occur in households having diffi culty meeting their food needs 

(Hamilton et al., 1997a; Hamilton et al., 1997b; Bickel et al., 2000; Nord et 

al., 2010). The questions cover food access problems across a wide range of 

severity, from worrying about running out of food to not eating for a whole 

day. Each question specifi es a lack of money or other resources to obtain food 

as the reason for the condition or behavior, so the measure is not affected by 

behaviors such as dieting to lose weight or fasting for religious reasons. 

Based on the number of food-insecure conditions reported, households are 

classifi ed as either food secure or food insecure. Food-insecure households 

are further classifi ed as having low food security or very low food security. 

Very low food security is a severe range of food insecurity characterized by 

reduced food intake and disrupted eating patterns of one or more household 

member (usually adults) due to inadequate food resources. 

The standard food security measure, on which USDA’s annual food security 

reports are based, represents conditions over the 12-month period prior to 

the survey. Because the ARRA increase in SNAP benefi ts occurred part way 

through 2009 (in April), the 12-month scale for 2009 could register food 

insecurity that occurred either before or after the increase. This would introduce an unknown amount of bias into a pre-ARRA/post-ARRA comparison 

based on the 12-month scale. To avoid this problem, we used a measure of 

food security based on households’ experiences over the 30-day period just 

prior to the survey, thus comparing conditions in mid-November to midDecember in 2009 with the same period in 2008. The 30-day scale is based 

on the same concepts and statistical methods as the standard 12-month scale 

(Nord et al., 2006, Appendix E).11

10The CNPP updates the cost of the 

TFP monthly. Year-to-year changes in 

the cost of TFP are the basis by which 

SNAP benefi ts are adjusted for foodprice infl ation.

11Since December 2005, the CPSFSS has collected 30-day food security 

data for all questions that make up the 

12-month scale. These data support a 

full-range 30-day scale consistent in 

cognitive content with the 12-month 

scale. Prior to 2005, 30-day information was collected for only a subset of 

the more severe items in the scale and 

supported the more limited 30-day 

scale described by Nord (2002). In this 

study, the full-range 30-day scale was 

used for all analyses except the year-toyear changes in very low food security 

from 2004 to 2005 and earlier years, 

which used the older limited-range 

30-day scale.
10

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Research Challenges and Methods

The period studied—from late 2008 to late 2009—was a time of unusually rapid and diverse economic changes. Income and employment fell for 

U.S. households in general. Food prices declined. These changing economic 

conditions could have affected household food spending and food security, 

even in the absence of the ARRA SNAP provisions. For this study, we used 

multivariate and difference-in-difference methods to account for changes 

in these economic conditions. The resulting estimates represent the effects 

of the ARRA SNAP enhancements, while holding constant, to the extent 

possible, other economic factors.

Unadjusted Comparisons 

Pre-ARRA to Post-ARRA

SNAP participation rates were calculated as percentages of households 

with incomes less than 130 percent of the poverty line. Prevalence rates of 

food insecurity and very low food security were calculated as percentages 

of households in select income ranges and SNAP participation statuses. 

Prevalence rates were compared between 2008 and 2009, and odds ratios for 

the changes were calculated to compare across subpopulations with different 

prevalence rates and with coeffi cients from the multivariate models (see box, 

“Using Odds Ratios to Assess Changes Over Time”).

TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures were compared across years using medians 

rather than means (averages). Medians were used because they are more robust 

to measurement errors, which appear to be substantial in these food expenditure data.12 The value of SNAP benefi ts were also expressed as ratios to the 

cost of the TFP and compared across years using both medians and means.

Multivariate (Adjusted) Comparisons 

Pre-ARRA to Post-ARRA

Multivariate regression methods were used to account for year-to-year differences in households’ economic circumstances other than those caused by the 

ARRA SNAP enhancements, that could have affected households’ SNAP 

participation, food spending, and food security. Logistic regression methods 

were used to assess changes in SNAP participation rates and prevalence rates 

of food insecurity and very low food security. Quantile regression models 

(estimated at the 50th percentile) were used to assess changes in the median 

amount of SNAP benefi ts and TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures. Linear 

regression models were also estimated for SNAP benefi ts and TFP-Adjusted 

Food Expenditures as robustness checks on the quantile regression results. 

The multivariate models included controls for income (quadratic in ratio of 

income to poverty), employment and labor force status of the adults in the 

household (seven categories), household composition and structure (seven 

categories), presence of an elderly person, race and Hispanic ethnicity (three 

categories), citizenship status, education of most highly educated adult 

(four categories), and residence by metropolitan area (four categories) and 

geographic region (four categories). The multivariate models and descriptions 

of the control variables are provided in the appendix.

12Means were also compared and 

adjusted means estimated as robustness 

checks, using data from all households 

and using “trimmed” data, omitting the 

lowest and highest 5 percent of households to reduce the effects of outliers 

that are more likely to be reporting or 

data entry errors. The interpretation of 

results, however, was based primarily 

on the medians.
11

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Odds ratios are often used in medical and social science research to assess 

the effects of treatments, policies, and programs. The use of odds ratios solves 

several analytic problems that arise when comparing outcomes in percentages, 

proportions, or probabilities.

A percentage is transformed to its corresponding odds by dividing by its 

complement. For example, in 2008, 25.03 percent of low-income households 

were food insecure. The odds of food insecurity for this population was 

0.334, calculated as 25.03/(100-25.03). In 2009, the odds of food insecurity in 

low-income households was 0.314, calculated as 23.87/(100-23.87). The decline 

of 1.16 percentage points in food insecurity from 2008 to 2009 can be expressed 

as an odds ratio of 0.94, calculated as 0.314/0.334, and may be expressed as a 

6-percent decline in the odds of food insecurity.

Odds ratios are often preferable for comparing changes in percentages across 

time or in subpopulations where the base prevalence of the condition of interest 

differs greatly. In many cases, program effects measured as odds ratios are 

similar across subpopulations even though the base prevalence of the condition 

varies widely—a trait not shared by other measures, such as the change measured 

in percentage points.

A second important analytic property of odds ratios is that they give identical 

results regardless of whether the occurrence of a condition or the absence of 

the condition is analyzed. In the calculation above, for example, the change 

of just over 1 percentage point in the prevalence of food insecurity and food 

security appears larger relative to the percentage of households that were food 

insecure (25.03 percent in 2008) than to the percentage that were food secure 

(74.97 percent). Calculated as percentages, the change could be described 

either as:

• A 4.6-percent decline in food insecurity—a drop of 1.16 percentage points 

relative to an initial prevalence of 25.03 percent; or 

• A 1.5-percent increase in food security—a gain of 1.16 percentage points 

relative to an initial prevalence of 74.97 percent. 

In principle, either statement is a valid expression of the observed change, but 

it is not clear which should be used analytically. The odds ratio solves this 

problem. The odds and odds ratios for food security are simply the inverse of 

the corresponding statistics for food insecurity. The natural logarithms of the 

odds and odds ratios (the functional form in which they are actually estimated in 

multivariate analyses) are identical in magnitude for food security and for food 

insecurity; they differ only in having opposite signs.

This study used odds ratios to examine pre-ARRA to post-ARRA changes in the 

SNAP participation rate, the prevalence of food insecurity, and the prevalence of 

very low food security. In addition to the advantages described above, using odds 

ratios allowed the change for each outcome on a simple “unadjusted” basis to be 

compared with “adjusted” changes once factors, such as income and employment 

status, were taken into account, since the analytic software calculates the results 

of those multivariate analyses in odds ratios.

Using Odds Ratios To Compare Outcomes Over Time
12

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Each regression model included a dummy variable identifying data for households in the 2009 CPS-FSS. The coeffi cient on this variable provides an 

adjusted odds ratio or adjusted change in median that represents the estimated 

change from 2008 to 2009 that would have occurred if income, employment, 

and other characteristics included in the models had remained the same. For 

the logistic regression models, the percentage-point change from 2008 to 

2009 was calculated by applying the adjusted odds ratio to the corresponding 

2008 percentage. For the quantile and linear regression models, the adjusted 

percentage change from 2008 to 2009 was calculated as the ratio of the 

adjusted change in the median to the corresponding median value in 2008 

(multiplied by 100 to convert to percentage).

Difference-in-Difference Comparisons 

Pre-ARRA to Post-ARRA

Multivariate analyses can account for changes in conditions only if they vary 

across households within each year and are measured in the data used for analysis but cannot differentiate the effects of other factors that changed from yearto-year. The decline in food prices (described later) from 2008 to 2009 was not 

accounted for by the multivariate analyses and could have important implications for the study. This food price decline would probably have increased infl ation-adjusted food expenditures and improved food security conditions among 

low-income households independent of any changes due to ARRA. 

To provide an estimate of changes in food expenditures and food security 

that may be attributable to ARRA—separate from effects of the decline 

in food prices—we used difference-in-difference methods. Outcomes for 

low-income households—the study’s primary focus—were compared with 

outcomes for households with incomes from 150 to 250 percent of the 

poverty line—incomes likely to make them ineligible for SNAP but well 

below the U.S. median. (Hereafter these are referred to as “nearly-SNAPeligible households”). The decline in food prices is likely to have affected 

food expenditures and food security of nearly-SNAP-eligible households 

similarly to low-income households. The ARRA SNAP enhancements, 

however, could not have directly affected the nearly-SNAP-eligible households because almost no households in that income range were eligible for 

SNAP. This difference-in-difference approach nets out the effects of yearto-year changes in food prices and any other factors that impacted the two 

groups similarly. Thus, the difference-in-difference results for TFP-Adjusted 

Food Expenditures and food security are the best estimates available in these 

analyses of the changes for low-income households that may be attributable to 

the ARRA SNAP enhancements.

In the preferred specifi cations, difference-in-difference estimates were calculated from models estimated separately for households in the two income 

ranges. These models allow outcome variables to be associated with household characteristics differently in the two income ranges. To check the robustness of the results, single-equation models were also estimated, in which 

households in both income ranges were included in a single model. In these 

models, the coeffi cient on an interaction variable between survey year (postARRA) and income range can be interpreted directly as the difference-indifference estimate.
13

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

SNAP Participation Increased

Expected Changes

One mechanism by which ARRA could improve food security is by attracting 

more households to participate in SNAP through increased benefi ts. Across 

the years, some low-income households have not participated in SNAP even 

though they were eligible. Inference from economic principles suggests that the 

benefi ts nonparticipating eligible households would receive is not suffi cient to 

cover their application and participation costs, considering money, time, and 

psychological costs (Burstein et al., 2009; Bartlett et al., 2004).13 In fi scal 2008, 

the year prior to ARRA, an estimated 41 million individuals were eligible for 

SNAP benefi ts in a typical month, but only 27 million (66 percent) received 

them (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2010c).14

Suspending time limits for some jobless adults without children was also 

expected to increase SNAP participation, although the proportion of lowincome households affected by this provision is relatively small.

In a post-ARRA month, the SNAP caseload can be divided conceptually into 

two groups—referred to in this report as ARRA-induced participants and noninduced participants. This conceptual differentiation is useful for understanding 

ARRA effects on observed outcomes even though the two groups cannot be 

reliably distinguished in the data. The ARRA increase in SNAP benefi ts was 

expected to change the cost-benefi t calculation in favor of participation for some 

eligible households that otherwise would be nonparticipants. In addition, the 

ARRA expansion of SNAP eligibility for jobless adults without children enabled 

some to participate who would not otherwise have been eligible. Regardless of 

which ARRA provision prompted their participation, these households became 

ARRA-induced participants. In contrast, noninduced participants are households 

that would have been SNAP participants regardless of whether ARRA had been 

implemented. ARRA-induced participants are not equivalent to households that 

entered SNAP after passage of ARRA. Some households that entered SNAP 

post-ARRA would have participated in SNAP even if the pre-ARRA level of 

benefi ts had still been in effect. Such a household is both a new entrant and a 

noninduced participant. Some households remained in SNAP post-ARRA that 

would have left the program under pre-ARRA eligibility or benefi t arrangements. 

They are ARRA-induced participants but are not new entrants.

According to USDA administrative data, the SNAP caseload increased from 

28.4 million participants in 2008 to 33.7 million in 2009, an increase of about 

19 percent, and one of the largest single-year increases in SNAP history 

(USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2010b). This large increase in SNAP 

participation might seem to demonstrate that the ARRA SNAP changes 

prompted increased participation. It is impossible, however, to determine from 

the administrative data alone how much of the participation increase was attributable to ARRA, and how much was due to changing economic conditions. 

For example, the national unemployment rate averaged 9.3 percent in 2009, 

compared with 5.8 percent in 2008 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010), 

and previous research has shown that the SNAP caseload is associated with the 

unemployment rate (Hanson and Gundersen, 2002). Thus, the SNAP caseload 

would probably have increased from 2008 to 2009 even if the ARRA SNAP 

13This description of nonparticipation assumes that the household is 

making a fully informed decision 

about whether to participate in SNAP. 

In practice, some households might 

not know they are eligible for SNAP 

or may not know the amount of SNAP 

benefi ts they would receive if they 

were to apply. Outreach efforts by 

FNS are designed to increase program 

awareness and increase participation 

by eligible households.

14Households eligible for larger 

benefi ts, however, are more likely to 

apply. FNS estimates that participating 

households accounted for 84 percent of 

the total value of benefi ts for which all 

households (participating and nonparticipating) were eligible.
14

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

provisions had not been implemented. The multivariate analysis accounts for 

effects of changes in income, employment, and other household factors for 

which data are available in the CPS-FSS, providing an estimate of the change 

in SNAP participation that may be attributable to the ARRA SNAP changes.

Findings

Reported SNAP participation as a percentage of low-income households 

increased by 3.3 percentage points, from 27.7 percent in 2008 to 31.0 percent 

in 2009 (table 2). After adjusting for changes in household conditions, SNAP 

participation increased by 3.03 percentage points from 2008 to 2009. Since 

this model took into account household income, employment, and other 

household factors, the results can be interpreted as an estimate of the yearto-year difference in SNAP participation among similar households in those 

2 years. As such, the adjusted increase must be attributable to changes from 

2008 to 2009 in factors other than those included in the multivariate model. It 

is likely that some of the adjusted increase in SNAP participation was due to 

ARRA, but other factors cannot be ruled out. 

In past research, multivariate models have generally underestimated increases 

in SNAP caseload during periods of substantial and sustained caseload growth. 

This may result from several processes: 

• The existence of a larger pool of households with recent SNAP experience who are ready and willing to rejoin if a need arises; or

• A reduction of stigma as SNAP participation is considered more socially 

acceptable when a larger share of acquaintances are participating or when 

economic conditions are considered to be diffi cult. 

Some of the increased SNAP participation from 2008 to 2009 could also have 

resulted from increases in adjunctive eligibility. Thus, the increased SNAP 

participation in 2009 is consistent with the hypothesis that the ARRA SNAP 

enhancements played a substantial role, but the evidence is not defi nitive.

Table 2

Snap participation pre-ARRA (2008) and post-ARRA (2009) among households 

with annual incomes less than 130 percent of the poverty line

Change from 2008 to 2009

SNAP participation 

(percent of households) Unadjusted

Adjusted for differences in income, employment, 

and other household characteristics1

2008 2009

Difference

(percentage 

points)2 Odds ratio p

Difference

(percentage 

points)2 Odds ratio p

27.74 31.04 3.30 1.17 <.001 3.03 1.16 <.001

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1The logistic regression model adjusted for household income, household employment, household composition, race and Hispanic ethnicity, U.S. 

citizenship, education (of most highly educated adult in the household), residence relative to metropolitan area, and census region.

2Difference in percentage points corresponding to the 2009:2008 odds ratio evaluated at the 2008 percentage.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2008 and 2009 Current Population Survey Food Security 

Supplement (CPS-FSS).
15

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

SNAP Benefi ts Increased

Expected Increase

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service calculated that benefi ts would increase 

by an average of 19 percent for households in SNAP at the time the ARRA 

benefi t increase went into effect. However, the average percentage increase 

from December 2008 to December 2009—the period that can be measured 

in the CPS-FSS—is likely to have been somewhat less, because the ARRAinduced participants were likely, on average, to be somewhat better off than 

the noninduced participants and, therefore, eligible for a smaller benefi t.

Findings

The median value of SNAP benefi ts reported by survey respondents with 

annual incomes less than 130 percent of the poverty line increased by 17.0 

percent, relative to the cost of the TFP, from 2008 to 2009 (table 3). After 

adjusting for differences in income, employment, and other household characteristics, SNAP benefi ts increased by 16.1 percent. About 4 percent of the 

increase refl ected a decline in TFP costs, so the increases in dollar terms 

(adjusted for household size but not for changes in food prices to be more 

directly comparable with the FNS prospective estimate) were about 13 

percent (unadjusted) and 12 percent (adjusted). 

Table 3

Value of SNAP benefi ts relative to the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) 

pre-ARRA (2008) and post-ARRA (2009) among households 

that received SNAP benefi ts in the last 30 days before the food 

security surveys 

Analysis sample

Value of SNAP 

benefi ts (ratio to 

cost of TFP)

Change from 2008 to 2009

Unadjusted

Regressionadjusted1

2008 2009 Percent p Percent p

Median for SNAP participant

 households with incomes 

 less than 130 percent of the

 poverty line .529 .619 17.0 <.001 16.1 <.001

Median for SNAP participant 

 households at all income 

 levels .500 .608 21.6 <.001 16.9 <.001

Mean for SNAP participant 

 households with incomes 

 less than 130 percent of the 

 poverty line .556 .659 18.5 <.001 18.1 <.001

Mean for SNAP participant 

 households at all income levels .530 .637 20.2 <.001 19.0 <.001

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1Adjusted medians were estimated using quantile regression at the 50th percentile. Adjusted 

means were estimated using linear regression. All regressions included controls for household 

income, household employment, household composition, race and Hispanic ethnicity, U.S. citizenship, education (of most highly educated adult in the household), residence relative to metropolitan area, and census region. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2008 and 2009 

Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS).
16

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

The increase in SNAP benefi ts among low-income SNAP households was 

smaller than the 19 percent average projected by FNS. In part, this smaller 

increase refl ects the limitation of this analysis sample to households with 

annual incomes less than 130 percent of the poverty line. It may also refl ect 

a change in caseload composition. The limitation of the analysis sample to 

low-income SNAP households was imposed so that the results would refl ect 

changes in the same population as those for food expenditures and food 

security reported in the next section. However, some households with annual 

incomes higher than 130 percent of the poverty line were eligible for SNAP 

during the November-December reference period, either because their income 

was temporarily lower or because they were adjunctively eligible due to 

participation in another program. Such households were, in general, eligible 

for a smaller benefi t, and, therefore experienced a larger percentage increase 

in benefi ts under ARRA. When SNAP-participant households of all income 

levels were included in the analysis sample, the adjusted increase in median 

SNAP benefi ts relative to the cost of the TFP was 16.9 percent, corresponding 

to a change in dollar terms of about 12.9 percent.

Analysis of the SNAP benefi ts increase based on means and linear regression 

may be more directly comparable with the FNS prospective estimates. The 

adjusted increase from 2008 to 2009 in the mean benefi t relative to the cost 

of the TFP was 19.0 percent, corresponding to an increase in dollar terms of 

about 15.0 percent. This is lower than the 19 percent estimated prospectively 

by FNS, but is near the actual change reported in FNS administrative data 

(14.8-percent increase in average household benefi ts from December 2008 to 

December 2009; USDA Food and Nutrition Service, 2010b). 
17

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures Increased 

Among Low-Income Households

Expected Changes 

Calculating the changes in TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures that were 

expected to result from the ARRA increase in SNAP benefi ts and the change 

in food prices involved several steps, drew on a range of previous research 

evidence, and relied on several assumptions about the survey’s data. 

Several previous studies examined the relationship between food expenditures and SNAP benefi ts. One review of this work stated: 

 “The FSP [Food Stamp Program, predecessor to SNAP] is virtually certain to result in increased food purchases, if for no other 

reason than that the program increases households’ incomes and the 

income elasticity for food is positive. That is, increasing a household’s 

income by $1,000 per year would always be expected to increase its 

food expenditures by some fraction of that amount. Economists have 

debated whether giving households coupons that must be spent on 

food consumed at home is more effective at increasing food expenditures than simply giving them a nonearmarked income supplement... 

a substantial body of evidence shows that coupons are more effective 

than cash in increasing food expenditures. This idea is often expressed 

in terms of the marginal propensity to spend on food, or MPSF. 

This quantity represents the increase in food expenditures per dollar 

increase in income.” (Fox et al., 2004, p. 35, emphasis in original).

The conclusion of Fox et al. that food-targeted “coupons” (which now take 

the form of SNAP Electronic Benefi ts Transfer (EBT) Cards) are “more 

effective than cash in increasing food expenditures” means that there are, 

effectively, two values for the marginal propensity to spend on food, with a 

higher value for SNAP benefi ts than for cash income. In the remainder of 

this report, these marginal propensities are designated as MPSFSNAP and 

MPSFCASH, respectively. Estimating MPSFSNAP presents considerable methodological challenges, and estimates using different methods have differed 

considerably. Most of the estimates summarized by Fox et al. (2004) are 

in the range of .25 to .50. Based on more recent research, Hanson (2010) 

suggests a range of .26 to .35 as most relevant to current program conditions; 

expectations in the present study are based on that range.

The expected size of the change in a household’s food expenditures (in dollars) 

due to ARRA is the product of the MPSFSNAP for that household and its change 

in SNAP benefi ts (in dollars). The relationship can be written as: 

[ (Food Expenditures)] = [MPSFSNAP]*[ (SNAP Benefi ts)]. 

Aggregating this expected change across SNAP participants is not straightforward, because neither of the determinants is constant across SNAP households. For any post-ARRA SNAP participant, the increase in SNAP benefi ts 

depends on whether or not ARRA affected the household’s participation. 

ARRA increased the level of SNAP benefi ts for noninduced participants by 
18

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

the amounts shown in the last column of table 1. ARRA-induced participants 

would have received no SNAP benefi ts in the absence of ARRA. Therefore, 

for ARRA-induced participants, the increases in resources that resulted from 

ARRA were the full post-ARRA amounts of SNAP benefi ts for which they 

were eligible. Thus, ARRA added relatively more to the resources of ARRAinduced participants than to those of noninduced participants eligible for the 

same benefi t amount and, ceteris paribus, would have added relatively more 

to the food expenditures of the induced participants. 

MPSFSNAP also differs across SNAP households. Noninduced SNAP 

households that spent little or none of their own resources for food, relying 

completely or almost completely on SNAP benefi ts for their food spending, 

were likely to increase their food spending by the full amount of the ARRA 

increase. SNAP benefi ts can only be spent for food, and those households 

would not have been able to reduce out-of-pocket food purchases that were 

already minimal or zero. The MPSFSNAP for this subgroup would have been 

at or very close to 1.0. On the other hand, households that spent substantially 

more for food than the amount of their SNAP benefi ts, using their own cash 

out-of-pocket, may not have increased food spending by the full amount 

of the ARRA increase. Although they were likely to increase their food 

spending somewhat, this subgroup may have reduced their out-of-pocket 

spending for food to some extent. Research reviewed by Fox et al. (2004) 

supports the hypothesis that households tend to exhibit this substitution 

behavior with SNAP benefi ts. For those receiving relatively small SNAP 

benefi ts, the MPSFSNAP may differ little from the expected MPSFCASH. 

The expected percentage change in food expenditures by all low-income 

households would be substantially smaller than the percentage change in 

SNAP benefi ts, even if food expenditures increased by the full dollar amount 

of the ARRA increase. Assuming that about half of low-income households 

participated in SNAP in 2008, and that SNAP benefi ts accounted for about 

60 percent of their total food expenditures (based on CPS-FSS data, analysis 

not shown), then total SNAP benefi ts accounted for approximately 30 percent 

of total food spending by all low-income households.

Food prices declined during the study period (2008-09), and the decline in 

food prices was expected to boost the quantity and quality of food purchased 

by both low-income and nearly-SNAP-eligible households, as measured by 

TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditure (see box, “Demand for Food Was Expected 

To Increase Due to Decline in Food Prices”). The expected increase was 

estimated based on the size of the price changes and the MPSFSNAP estimated 

from previous research. In general, the expected increase in the quantity of 

food purchased depends on:15

• The change in food prices relative to the prices of other goods; and

• The price elasticity of demand for food.

The change in food prices relative to the prices of other goods is approximately equal to the percentage change in food prices less the percentage 

change in the consumer price index (CPI) for other goods. From late-2008 to 

late-2009, the change in food prices relative to other goods for low-income 

households was probably between -4.4 and -5.8 percent. The former estimate 

15“Quantity,” as used here, refers 

not to pounds or volume of food, but 

to “quality-adjusted quantity” (that is, 

additional expenditure may represent 

either an increase in quantity, quality, or 

some mixture). This concept of qualityadjusted quantity is represented by the 

TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditure.
19

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

is based on changes in the CPI for Food at Home and the CPI without food 

and energy; the latter estimate is based on the change in the cost of the TFP 

(down 4.0 percent at most) and the change in CPI without food and energy. 

The price elasticity of demand for food is the amount by which the quantity 

of food purchased changes in response to changes in food prices, so long as 

changes in other factors affecting food purchases remain the same. A recent 

study estimated U.S. consumer demand systems for six broad categories of 

consumer goods (Taylor and Houttakker, 2009). The study’s estimates of price 

elasticity of demand for food consumed at home ranged from -0.25 to -0.76 and 

averaged -0.49. This means that an increase in food prices of 10 percent results 

in a decrease in quantity demanded of 4.9 percent. Based on this estimate, the 

Food prices declined, on average, from late-2008 to late-2009.1 The extent of the 

decline depends partly on what combination of foods—“market basket”—is used 

to aggregate changes in the prices of individual food items. From December 2008 

to December 2009, the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) declined by 3.5 to 

4.0 percent, depending on household composition (calculated based on data from 

USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion). Over about the same period, 

the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Food at Home, which includes a broader set of 

foods than the TFP, declined somewhat less, about 2.7 percent (calculated based 

on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Meanwhile, the CPI without food 

and energy prices, increased from 2008 to 2009 by about 1.8 percent (calculated 

based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Thus, not only did food prices 

decline during the study period, but food prices fell while the prices of other goods 

and services rose. Together, these two changes resulted in a decrease in the relative

price of food (relative to other goods and services) that was even larger than the 

percentage decline in the cost of the TFP or the CPI for Food at Home. 

According to the economic “law of demand,” a decline in the price of a product 

relative to prices of other goods and services increases the quantity of that product 

that households are willing and able to purchase (if other market factors remain 

the same or are taken into account statistically). Therefore, it was expected 

that households would, on average, have increased their TFP-Adjusted Food 

Expenditures from 2008 to 2009 in the absence of any other changes. 

It was important to estimate the effect of declining food prices on food expenditures 

and food security so as not to attribute those changes to the ARRA SNAP 

provisions that took place during the same time period. Households across the 

income spectrum experienced the decline in the price of foods. The effects of the 

decline in food prices on food expenditures and food security of nearly-SNAPeligible households (those with incomes a bit higher than the SNAP eligibility level 

but below the national median) should be similar to the effects on low-income 

households. Thus, changes in food expenditures and food security among nearlySNAP-eligible households, adjusted for changes in income, employment, and other 

relevant household characteristics, were considered proxies for the changes that 

would have been observed in low-income households in the absence of the ARRA 

SNAP provisions.

1The decline in food prices followed 2 years of unusually high food price infl ation in 

2007 and 2008. 

Demand for Food Was Expected to Increase 

Due to Decline in Food Prices
20

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

decline in food prices of 4.4 to 5.8 percent from late 2008 to late 2009 would 

result in an increase in quantity demanded of 2.2 to 2.9 percent.

Based on these principles and assumptions, the expected changes in food 

expenditures by low-income households and by nearly-SNAP-eligible households can be summarized as follows:

• Average TFP-adjusted SNAP benefi ts among all low-income households 

increased by about 29 percent—the combined effects of the increase in 

median SNAP benefi ts among participants (16.1 percent) and the increase 

in participation (11 percent).16

• If average MPSFSNAP is in the range of .26 to .35, then the increase in 

food spending would be between 7.54 and 10.15 percent of average SNAP 

benefi ts among all low-income households in 2008 (calculated as 29 

percent x .26 and 29 percent x .35).

• A change in food spending in that range would represent an increase of 

between 2.3 percent and 3.0 percent of average food spending for all lowincome households (calculated as 30 percent of the change in average 

SNAP benefi ts). The difference-in-difference result for low-income 

households is expected to be in this range.

• An additional increase in average TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditure of 2.2 to 

2.9 percent is expected for both low-income households and nearly-SNAPeligible households due to the decline in food prices. Added to the range in 

the previous bullet, this gives an expected range of 4.5 to 5.9 percent for the 

multivariate estimate of the increase among low-income households.

Findings

Median TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures rose by 5.4 percent from 2008 to 

2009 for all low-income households (adjusting for income, employment, and 

other household characteristics, table 4). This change is within the range 

of the expected increase (4.5-5.9 percent). The corresponding change for 

nearly-SNAP-eligible households was 3.2 percent, somewhat higher than the 

expected range of 2.2 to 2.9 percent.

Based on the change for nearly-SNAP-eligible households, about 3.2 percent 

of the increase for low-income households may have resulted from the decline 

in food prices (together with other factors that changed from 2008 to 2009 

but were not measured in the CPS-FSS data). The difference-in-difference 

estimate of 2.2 percent (5.4 percent less 3.2 percent) is the best from this 

study of the average increase in food spending by low-income households that 

may have resulted from the ARRA SNAP enhancements. The 2.2-percent 

estimated increase is just below the expected range (2.3-3.0 percent). 

Considering the uncertainties in the assumptions underlying the expectations 

and the extent to which distributional issues may affect estimates based on 

medians and quantile regressions, the observed increase is reasonably consistent with expectations.

The increase in food expenditures by SNAP participants that may be due to 

the ARRA benefi t increase is nearly twice the 2.2 percent estimated for all 

16The combined effect is calculated 

as 1.161 x 1.11.
21

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

low-income households, considering that about half of low-income households in the CPS-FSS participated in 2008 and about 56 percent in 2009.

We assessed the robustness of these results in two additional analyses. First, 

the models for low-income and nearly-SNAP-eligible households were 

re-estimated using means and linear regression models rather than medians 

and quantile regression models (analysis not shown). Households with 

TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures below the 5th percentile and above the 

95th percentile were omitted to reduce the effects of outliers that appeared 

to be serious reporting errors. The results were qualitatively similar to those 

in table 4. The estimated increases in TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures were 

somewhat smaller for both groups, but the difference-in-difference estimate 

(with adjustments for changes in household characteristics) was slightly larger 

in magnitude than that based on table 4 and was statistically signifi cant.

The second robustness check was a single-equation model of the differencein-difference. The estimates in table 4 were based on separate models for 

low-income households and nearly-SNAP-eligible households. The separate 

models allow the association between each household characteristic and 

food expenditure to be associated differently in the two samples. The singleequation model was estimated by including households in both income ranges 

in the analysis sample (analysis not shown). This model constrained the 

associations of each household characteristic with food expenditure to be the 

same in the two income ranges. Variables were added to the model to identify 

households from the low-income sample (binary) and the interaction between 

the low-income dummy variable and the post-ARRA variable. The coeffi cient 

of interest was that on the interaction, which can be interpreted directly as the 

difference-in-difference estimate. In a second specifi cation, two additional 

interactions were introduced—between the low-income dummy variable and 

Table 4

Median food expenditures relative to the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan 

(TFP) pre-ARRA (2008) and post-ARRA (2009), by income 

Variable

Median

Change from 2008 to 2009

Unadjusted

Regressionadjusted1

2008 2009 Percent p Percent p

Food expenditures for households with incomes less than 

130 percent of the poverty line 

(low-income households) .888 .940 5.9 <.001 5.4 <.001

Food expenditures for households with incomes from 150 

to 250 percent of the poverty 

line (nearly-SNAP-eligible 

households) 1.013 1.057 4.4 .010 3.2 .004

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1Adjusted medians were estimated using quantile regression at the 50th percentile with controls 

for household income, household employment, household composition, race and Hispanic 

ethnicity, U.S. citizenship, education (of most highly educated adult in the household), residence 

relative to metropolitan area, and census region. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2008 and 2009 

Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS).
22

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

income and between the low-income dummy variable and income-squared. 

This specifi cation relaxed the constraint that income be associated similarly 

with food expenditure in both income ranges. The results were qualitatively 

similar to those in table 4, but the difference-in-difference estimate was 

smaller (1.9 percentage points in the single-equation model compared with 

2.5 percentage points in table 4) and was not statistically signifi cant (p=.31). 

The more fl exible model in table 4, however, may be a preferred specifi cation; 

it seems likely that food expenditures could be associated differently with 

some household characteristics in the two income ranges. 
23

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Food Security Improved Among 

Low-Income Households

Expected Changes

The increase in TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures by low-income households 

from 2008 to 2009 was expected to improve the food security of low-income 

households. In most households, the majority of food consumed by household members is purchased—either from supermarkets or grocery stores 

to be eaten at home or from cafeterias, restaurants, or vending machines 

to be eaten outside the home. Limited spending for food is, therefore, the 

main mechanism by which constrained household resources result in food 

insecurity. TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures take into account infl ation or 

defl ation in food prices in the TFP. Thus, from 2008 to 2009, the increase in 

TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures by low-income households was expected to 

decrease the prevalence of food insecurity and very low food security as long 

as other factors affecting food security conditions remained the same or were 

taken into account in the study’s multivariate methodology. 

Two approaches were used to approximate the expected change in prevalence 

rates of food insecurity and very low food security given the 5.4-percent 

increase in median TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures. First, the association 

across years between annual statistics on median food expenditure and the 

two prevalence rates for low-income households from 2001 to 2009 were 

examined (analysis not shown). The associations implied that an increase 

of 5.4 percent in median TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures would result in a 

decline of 3.6 percentage points in food insecurity and 3.2 percentage points 

in very low food security. This estimate provides only a rough approximation, of course, since many year-to-year differences in conditions among lowincome households are not taken into account.

The second approach examined the relationships between TFP-Adjusted Food 

Expenditures and prevalence rates of food insecurity and very low food security across households (fi g. 1). Food insecurity was about 15 percent for households that spent half the cost of the TFP, and fell to 4 percent for those spending 

twice the cost of the TFP. Very low food security fell from about 6 percent to 

1.7 percent across the same range. Based on the slope of the curves near the 

cost of the TFP (1.0 on the horizontal axis), the observed increase in median 

TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures were expected to cause a decline of 0.38 

percentage points in food insecurity and a decline of 0.15 percentage points in 

very low food security. The considerable difference between the estimates from 

these two approaches refl ects limitations of observational data to shed light on 

this relationship. The “natural experiment” of the ARRA SNAP enhancements 

offers a rare opportunity to bring a stronger methodology to bear on the issue.

Food security was expected to improve for nearly-SNAP-eligible households, 

as well as for low-income households, because of the decline in food prices, 

although the extent of the improvement was expected to be smaller for the 

former. Again, the difference in the improvement between the two groups 

may refl ect the effects of ARRA SNAP enhancements on the food security of 

low-income households. 
24

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Findings

From 2008 to 2009, the prevalence of food insecurity fell by 1.16 percentage 

points among low-income households, and the prevalence of very low food 

security fell by 1.38 percentage points (table 5). Adjusted for differences in 

income, employment, and other household characteristics, these declines were 

somewhat greater, 2.2 and 2.0 percentage points, respectively (table 5 and fi gs. 

2 and 3). These changes were in the range between expectations based on the 

two different approaches; they were about 60 percent of the expected declines 

based on year-to-year aggregate statistics for low-income households, and were 

much greater than expectations based on associations across households.

Food insecurity worsened somewhat from 2008 to 2009 among nearlySNAP-eligible households in the CPS-FSS sample, rather than improving, in 

spite of the decline in food prices. The adjusted differences, however, were 

relatively small and were not statistically signifi cant (indicated by p values 

of .772 and .133). Thus, the food security of low-income households not only 

improved at both levels of severity, but improved in comparison with nearlySNAP-eligible households.

Single-equation estimates of the difference-in-difference analysis were 

almost identical to those in table 5. Difference-in-difference estimates for 

food insecurity overall and for very low food security were slightly stronger 

based on single-equation models.17

The 2008-09 estimated changes in food security conditions among lowincome households were consistent with the expected outcomes based on 

17Recognizing that interactions in logistic regression may not always admit 

of direct interpretation, the singleequation models were also estimated 

as linear probability models using 

ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Those results were also consistent 

with the results reported in table 5.

Figure 1

Prevalence of food insecurity and very low food security, by food 

expenditure as a ratio to the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP)

Percent of households

Notes: Depicts the bivariate relationship using data from 2005 to 2009; 2005 was the first 

year for which data were collected to calculate the current 30-day measures of food security. 

Households were grouped in narrow ranges by TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures, and, within 

each range the prevalence rates and mean TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures were calculated.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2005-2009 

Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Insecure, 30-day

Very low food security, 30-day

Food spending: ratio to cost of Thrifty Food Plan
25

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 5

Prevalence of food insecurity and very low food security pre-ARRA (2008) and post-ARRA (2009)

Sample and variable analyzed

Percent 

of households)

Bivariate

(no controls)

Adjusted for differences in 

income, employment, and other 

household characteristics1

2008 2009 Difference2 Odds ratio p Difference2 Odds ratio p

Low-income households (incomes less 

than 130 percent of the poverty line)

(2008 N=6,998; 2009 N=7,574)

Prevalence of food insecurity 25.03 23.87 -1.16 .94 .198 -2.20 .89 .002

Prevalence of very low food security 11.27 9.89 -1.38 .86 .033 -2.00 .80 <.001

Nearly-SNAP-eligible households

(incomes from 150 to 250 percent of the 

poverty line)

(2008 N=7,076; 2009 N=6,980)

Prevalence of food insecurity 11.51 12.37 .86 1.09 .214 .16 1.02 .772

Prevalence of very low food security 4.22 5.08 .86 1.21 .056 .53 1.13 .133

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1Logistic regression models controlled for household income, household employment, household composition, race and Hispanic ethnicity, U.S. 

citizenship, education (of most highly educated adult in the household), residence relative to metropolitan area, and census region.

2Difference in percentage points corresponding to the 2009:2008 odds ratio evaluated at the 2008 percentage.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2008 and 2009 Current Population Survey Food Security 

Supplement (CPS-FSS).

Figure 2

The prevalence of food insecurity declined among households with 

incomes in the eligibility range for SNAP, but not for households 

with incomes somewhat higher

Percent of households food insecure

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

*Percentages for 2009 were regression-adjusted for differences between years in household 

income, employment, and other household characteristics.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS) data.

Households with incomes

less than 130 percent of

poverty line

Households with incomes

150 to 250 percent of

poverty line

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Before ARRA (2008)

After ARRA (2009, adjusted)*
26

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

economic models of behavior. Considering that the adjusted differences take 

into account most important household-level factors, and that difference-indifference estimates adjust to a considerable extent for changes in food prices 

and other year-to-year changes that affected households across the middle 

and lower income range, the results strongly suggest that ARRA improved 

food security for low-income households. 

Figure 3

The prevalence of very low food security declined among households 

with incomes in the eligibility range for SNAP, but not for households 

with incomes somewhat higher

Percent of households with very low food security

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

*Percentages for 2009 were regression-adjusted for differences between years in household 

income, employment, and other household characteristics.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Current Population 

Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS) data.

Before ARRA (2008)

After ARRA (2009, adjusted)*

Households with incomes

less than 130 percent 

of poverty line

Households with incomes

150 percent to 250 percent

of poverty line

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16
27

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures 

Increased More for SNAP Households Than 

for Low-Income Non-SNAP Households

Expected Differences

Absent any misreporting of SNAP participation and changes in self-selection 

into SNAP, it is clear that any changes in food expenditures and food security caused by the ARRA SNAP benefi t increase would be seen only among 

SNAP participants. Misreporting and changes in self-selection, however, 

could have substantial effects on the comparisons in outcomes between 

SNAP households and low-income non-SNAP households.

Misreporting (primarily failure to report SNAP participation) would reduce 

the size of pre-to-post-ARRA differences between SNAP households and 

low-income non-SNAP households. The increased SNAP benefi ts and 

eligibility would improve outcomes for households that received SNAP but 

failed to report it in the survey, thus registering a pre-ARRA to post-ARRA 

improvement for reported nonparticipants.

It is less clear how these comparisons would be affected by the changes in 

self-selection that resulted from the ARRA SNAP enhancements. The effects 

depend on the characteristics of the ARRA-induced participants. Although 

that group was probably heterogeneous, it seems likely that ARRA-induced 

participants would, on average, have been better off than noninduced participant households in 2009 and worse off than nonparticipant households; 

households with great unmet food needs would be more likely than better-off 

households to have participated even without the ARRA benefi t increase.18

The change in participation status of the ARRA-induced SNAP participant 

households would, therefore, have improved food security for both SNAP 

participants and low-income non-SNAP households in 2009, but the effect on 

the difference between the two groups is not clear. 

Findings

Median TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures increased from 2008 to 2009 by 

a larger increment for SNAP participants than for low-income nonparticipants (table 6). Adjusted for differences in household income, employment, 

and other household characteristics, median food expenditures increased by 

9.1 percent among SNAP-participant households compared with 3.4 percent 

among low-income non-SNAP households. 

Within the CPS-FSS low-income sample, food security improved more 

among SNAP participants than among nonparticipants (table 7). The 

difference in improvement between the two groups, however, was not 

statistically signifi cant either for the prevalence of food insecurity overall 

or for very low food security. That is, the changes were within a range 

that could have resulted from random differences between the CPS-FSS 

sample and the population. 

18This assumption focuses on 

changes expected to result from the 

ARRA increase in SNAP benefi ts. 

Effects of the expanded eligibility for 

jobless adults with no children on the 

food security of SNAP participants 

are diffi cult to predict. The number 

of households that would have been 

affected by this change, however, 

was small relative to the total number 

of SNAP households, so any effects 

on the prevalence of food insecurity 

among participants are likely to have 

been small compared with the effects 

of increased benefi ts.
28

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 6

Median food expenditures relative to the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan 

(TFP) pre-ARRA (2008) and post-ARRA (2009) in households with 

annual incomes less than 130 percent of the poverty line, by SNAP 

participation status

Analysis sample

Median food 

expenditure 

(ratio to TFP)

Change from 2008 to 2009

With no controls With controls1

2008 2009 Percent p Percent p

Households that received 

SNAP benefi ts in the 30 

days before the food security 

survey .851 .944 10.9 <.001 9.1 <.001

Households that did not receive SNAP benefi ts in the 30 

days before the food security 

survey .903 .933 3.3 .052 3.4 .017

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1Estimated using quantile regression with controls for household income, household employment, 

household composition, race and Hispanic ethnicity, U.S. citizenship, education (of most highly 

educated adult in the household), residence relative to metropolitan area, and census region. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2008 and 2009 

Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS).

Table 7

Prevalence of food insecurity and very low food security pre-ARRA (2008) and post-ARRA (2009), 

by SNAP participation status

Severity level analyzed 

and SNAP status

Percent 

of 

households

Bivariate

(no controls)

Adjusted for differences in income, 

employment, and other household 

characteristics1

2008 2009 Difference2 Odds ratio p Difference2 Odds ratio p

Food insecurity

Prevalence of food insecurity for 

SNAP-participant households 33.51 30.95 -2.56 .89 .159 -3.52 .85 .016

Prevalence of food insecurity for 

low-income non-SNAP households 21.77 20.69 -1.08 .94 .289 -1.90 .89 .022

Very low food security

Prevalence of very low food security 

for SNAP-participant households 14.38 12.08 -2.30 .82 .082 -2.98 .77 .004

Prevalence of very low food security 

for low-income non-SNAP households 10.08 8.90 -1.18 .87 .106 -1.68 .82 .004

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1Regression models controlled for household income, household employment, household composition, race and Hispanic ethnicity, U.S. citizenship, education (of most highly educated adult in the household), residence relative to metropolitan area, and census region.

2Difference in percentage points corresponding to the 2009:2008 odds ratio evaluated at the 2008 percentage.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the 2008 and 2009 Current Population Survey Food Security 

Supplement (CPS-FSS).
29

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

An Historical Perspective 

on Pre-ARRA to Post-ARRA Changes

The combination of a simultaneous increase in SNAP participation and 

improvement in food security from the previous year that was observed in 

2009 has not occurred in any other recent year. In 6 of the 8 years since 

2001, SNAP participation, on an adjusted basis, increased year to year, as 

indicated by odds ratios greater than 1.0 (table 8).19 With the exception of 

2003-2004, the increases were statistically signifi cant at the 5 percent level. 

However, an increase in SNAP participation was accompanied by a decline 

in the prevalence of very low food security among low-income households 

in only two periods (2008-09 and 2002-03) and was statistically signifi cant 

only in 2008-09. Among reported SNAP participants, the prevalence of 

very low food security declined in the same two periods and was statistically signifi cant in both. In all other years, the prevalence of very low food 

security worsened (among both low-income households overall and among 

low-income SNAP participants), although not all of the annual increments 

were statistically signifi cant.

The uniqueness of the combination of changes from 2008 to 2009 further 

suggests that ARRA contributed to the improvement in food security among 

low-income households. The somewhat similar changes from 2002 to 2003 

may have resulted partly from the implementation of provisions from the 

2002 Farm Bill that also expanded eligibility and increased benefi ts for some 

SNAP participants.

19This analysis considered only the 

years since 2001 because, prior to 

2001, the CPS-FSS was not conducted 

in the same month in successive years.

Table 8

Year-to-year changes in SNAP participation and the prevalence of very low food security among low-income 

households, adjusted for changes in household income, employment, and other household characteristics1

Period

SNAP participation

Prevalence of very low food 

security (all low-income 

households)

Prevalence of very low food 

security (low-income households 

that received SNAP benefi ts)

Odds ratio p Odds ratio p Odds ratio p

2008-09 1.158 <.001 0.804 <.001 0.766 .004

2007-08 1.175 .001 1.366 <.001 1.115 .327

2006-07 .904 .036 1.045 .521 1.142 .237

2005-06 .960 .343 1.080 .230 1.078 .470

2004-05 1.127 .005 1.064 .283 1.134 .189

2003-04 1.014 .778 1.113 .105 1.188 .162

2002-03 1.402 <.001 .924 .236 .735 .018

2001-02 1.201 <.001 1.142 .034 1.077 .492

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Notes: Results in shaded cells are statistically signifi cant with p<.10. Tabled statistics come from logistic regression models that controlled for 

household income, household employment, household composition, race and Hispanic ethnicity, U.S. citizenship, education (of most highly 

educated adult in the household), residence relative to metropolitan area, and census region. The sample for each period included households in 

the Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement for the 2 years. The statistics are for a dummy variable representing households in the 

second year.

1SNAP participation and very low food security were assessed during the 30-day period prior to the food security survey (conducted in midDecember). The older 30-day food security measure described by Nord (2002) was used for comparisons from 2001-02 through 2004-05. The 

full-range 30-day measure was used for comparisons for 2005-06 through 2008-09. 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS) data.
30

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

The larger increases in food expenditures from 2008 to 2009 by low-income 

SNAP participants relative to low-income nonparticipants resulted in median 

spending becoming essentially equal by the two groups in 2009. (The sample 

median was slightly higher for SNAP participants, but the difference was 

small and was not statistically signifi cant.) This equalization represented a 

change not only from 2008, but from a pattern that had persisted since at least 

2001 (fi g. 4). From 2001 to 2008, median food spending by SNAP participants ranged from 4 to 8 percent less than that by low-income non-SNAP 

households. In 2009, for the fi rst time in the decade, median food spending 

by SNAP participants equaled that of non-participants.

Figure 4

Food spending relative to the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), 

by SNAP status

Ratio to cost of Thrifty Food Plan

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using statistics from USDA’s annual food 

security reports (Nord et al., Household Food Security in the United States, 2009 and 

corresponding reports for earlier years).

2001 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Received SNAP benefits in last 30 days

No SNAP benefits, income < 130 percent poverty line
31

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Conclusions

The food security of low-income households improved from 2008 to 2009, 

and our results suggest that ARRA’s SNAP increase in benefi ts and eligibility 

played a substantial role in the improvement. Food security improved among 

low-income households but not among households with incomes just above 

the SNAP eligibility range. This pattern remained and was statistically significant when regression adjusted for differences in income, employment, and 

other household characteristics. The hypothesis that the increase in SNAP 

benefi ts due to ARRA was largely responsible for these patterns is strengthened by the corresponding pattern of changes in food spending. Infl ationadjusted food spending increased from 2008 to 2009 among low-income 

households, and the extent of the increase was greater than that among 

households with incomes just above the SNAP eligibility range but below the 

national median. 

In addition to assessing the effects of ARRA’s SNAP enhancements, the fi ndings of this study demonstrate the effectiveness of SNAP in combating food 

insecurity. Estimating the effects of SNAP on food security is complicated 

by the self-selection of more food-needy households into the program. While 

SNAP benefi ts presumably lessen the severity of food insecurity for participants, participation in SNAP is voluntary, and households with greater unmet 

food needs are, in general, more likely to participate. These two processes, 

self-selection and the ameliorating effect of benefi ts, produce opposite and 

partially offsetting associations between SNAP participation and food insecurity in observational data. Untangling the two effects has presented great 

methodological diffi culties (Ratcliffe and McKernan, 2010; Nord and Golla, 

2009; Yen et al., 2008; Gundersen and Oliveira, 2001). The “natural experiment” of ARRA’s SNAP benefi t increase offers the rare opportunity of an 

exogenous change that sheds light on the overall effects of SNAP.

If ARRA’s increase in SNAP benefi ts was largely responsible for the 

contemporaneous improvement in food security among low-income 

households, then the full effect of the program on participants must be 

considerably greater than the improvement from 2008 to 2009 among all 

low-income households. The improvements would have been concentrated 

almost entirely among households that participated in SNAP (approximately half of low-income households). Furthermore, the improvements 

would represent only the marginal effect of an increase of about 16 percent 

in program benefi ts received, while the median SNAP benefi t pre-ARRA 

was about three times as large as the marginal change in benefi ts and the 

maximum benefi t was about six times as large as the marginal change. With 

those relationships in mind, the 20-percent decline in the odds of very low 

food security and 11-percent decline in the odds of food insecurity among 

all low-income households suggest a sizeable overall program effect in 

combating food insecurity. 

Under current law, the infl ation-adjusted value of SNAP benefi ts will decline 

to pre-ARRA levels over the next several years. Congress did not intend the 

ARRA SNAP changes to be permanent. The Act specifi ed that the maximum 

benefi t levels were to remain fi xed in dollar terms at the higher level until 

they were surpassed by standard SNAP benefi ts, which were expected to 
32

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

rise due to infl ation in food prices. Subsequent Congressional Acts have 

mandated a return to pre-ARRA benefi t formulas in November 2013. The 

special eligibility waiver for jobless adults without children lapsed in October 

2010. In isolation, these changes would be expected to erode the food security 

improvements realized in 2009, but the number of food-insecure household 

could still decline if improvements in the economy reduce the number of lowincome households.

Our fi ndings also raise questions about the adequacy of pre-ARRA SNAP 

benefi t levels for combating food insecurity and very low food security. The 

marginal effect of an increase in SNAP benefi ts on food security may decline 

as benefi t levels rise. At some level, further increases in benefi ts would have 

little to no additional effect on food security. The adequacy of SNAP benefi ts 

varies across households, depending on household food needs, local food 

prices, nonfood consumption needs of the household, and food management 

and preparation skills, among other factors. So there is no single benefi t level 

that is “adequate.” The patterns of change observed in this study suggest that 

pre-ARRA benefi t levels were in a range where the marginal positive effect 

of an increase in benefi ts was substantial.
33

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Anderson, S.A. (ed.). “Core Indicators of Nutritional State for Diffi cult-ToSample Populations,” Journal of Nutrition 120(11S): pp. 1557-1600, 1990.

Bartlett, Susan, Nancy Burstein, and William Hamilton. Food Stamp 

Program Access Study: Final Report, E-FAN-03-013-3, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2004, http://www.ers.usda.

gov/publications/efan0313/.

Bickel, G., M. Nord, C. Price, W.L. Hamilton, and J.T. Cook. Guide to 

Measuring Household Food Security, Revised 2000, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 2000, http://www.fns.usda.gov/

fsec/fi les/fsguide.pdf.

Burstein, Nancy R., Satyendra Patrabansh, Willaim L. Hamilton, and Sarah 

Y. Siegel. Understanding the Determinants of Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program Participation: Final Report, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Offi ce of Research and Analysis, 

2009, http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/SNAP/FILES/

Participation/Determinants.pdf.

Cohen, Barbara, Mark Nord, Robert Lerner, James Parry, and Kenneth Yang. 

Household Food Security in the United States, 1998 and 1999: Technical 

Report. E-FAN-02-010, prepared by IQ Solutions and USDA, Economic 

Research Service, 2002, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan02010/. 

Fox, M.K., W. Hamilton, and B. Lin. Effects of Food Assistance and 

Nutrition Programs on Nutrition and Health: Volume 3, Literature 

Review, FANRR-19-3, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, 2004, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr19-3/. 

Gundersen, C., and V. Oliveira. “The Food Stamp Program and Food 

Insuffi ciency,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83: 

pp. 875-87, 2001.

Hamilton, W.L., J.T. Cook, W.W. Thompson, L.F. Buron, E.A. Frongillo, Jr., 

C.M. Olson, and C.A. Wehler. Household Food Security in the United 

States in 1995: Summary Report of the Food Security Measurement 

Project, Food and Consumer Service (predecessor to USDA’s Food and 

Nutrition Service), 1997a, http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/published/

foodsecurity/sumrpt.pdf. 

Hamilton, W.L., J.T. Cook, W.W. Thompson, L.F. Buron, E.A. Frongillo, Jr., 

C.M. Olson, and C.A. Wehler. Household Food Security in the United 

States in 1995: Technical Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food 

and Consumer Service, 1997b, http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/

published/foodsecurity/tech_rpt.pdf.

Hanson, Kenneth, and Craig Gundersen. Issues in Food Assistance—How 

Unemployment Affects the Food Stamp Program, FANRR 26-7, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2002, http://

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr26/fanrr26-7/. 
34

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Hanson, Kenneth. The Food Assistance National Input-Output Multiplier 

(FANIOM) Model and Stimulus Effects of SNAP, ERR-103, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2010, http://

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err103.

Meyer, Bruce D., Wallace K.C. Mok, and James X. Sullivan. “The 

Under-Reporting of Transfers in Household Surveys: Its Nature and 

Consequences,” NBER Working Paper 15181, Cambridge, MA: National 

Bureau of Economic Research, 2009, http://www.nber.org/papers/w15181/.

Nord, Mark. Food Spending Declined and Food Insecurity Increased for 

Middle-Income and Low-Income Households from 2000 to 2007, EIB-61, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2009, http://

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib61/. 

Nord, Mark. A 30-Day Food Security Scale for Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplement Data, E-FAN-02-015, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2002, http://www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/efan02015/. 

Nord, Mark, and Anne Marie Golla. Does SNAP Decrease Food Insecurity? 

Untangling the Self-Selection Effect, ERR-85, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/err85/.

Nord, Mark, Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. 

Household Food Security in the United States, 2009, ERR-108, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2010, http://

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err108/.

Nord, Mark, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. Household Food 

Security in the United States, 2008, ERR-83, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2009, http://www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/err83/.

Nord, Mark, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. Household Food 

Security in the United States, 2005, ERR-29, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2006, http://www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/err29/.

Oliveira, Victor. The Food Assistance Landscape: FY 2009 Annual Report, 

EIB-6-7, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

2010, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib6-7/. 

Oliveira, Victor, and Donald Rose. Food Expenditure Estimates From the 

1995 CPS Food Security Supplement: How Do They Compare with 

the Consumer Expenditure Survey? Staff Report No. AGES9617, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1996.

Ratcliffe, Caroline, and Signe-Mary McKernan. How Much Does SNAP 

Reduce Food Insecurity? CCR-60, prepared by The Urban Institute under 

a cooperative research contract with USDA’s Economic Research Service 
35

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Food and Nutrition Assistance Research Program, 2010, http://ddr.nal.

usda.gov/dspace/bitstream/10113/42004/1/CAT31063495.pdf. 

Taylor, Lester D., and H.S. Houthakker. Consumer Demand in the United 

States, 3rd Edition, New York: Springer, 2009.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Labor Force Statistics 

including the National Unemployment Rate,” 2010, http://www.bls.gov/

cps/#data.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. 

Offi cial USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels, 

U.S. Average, December 2009, http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/

FoodPlans/2009/CostofFoodDec09.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. USDA Food 

and Nutrition Service Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Plan Update 6/18/2010, 2010a, 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/recovery/memos/SNAP_ARRA-Plan.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs, 2010b, http://

www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Trends in 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: 2001 

to 2008, 2010c, http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/

FILES/Participation/Trends2001-2008.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. The Stimulus 

Package & SNAP: How the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

Affects SNAP Benefi ts and Policies, 2009, http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/

recovery/ARRA_powerpoint.pdf.

U.S. Offi ce of Management and Budget. Memorandum from the Executive 

Offi ce of the President titled “Increased Emphasis on Program 

Evaluations,” 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fi les/omb/

assets/memoranda_2010/m10-01.pdf.

Wheaton, Laura. “Underreporting of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the 

CPS and SIPP,” 2007 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 

Social Statistics Section, pp. 3622-29 [CD-ROM], Alexandria, VA: 

American Statistical Association, 2007, http://www.urban.org/

UploadedPDF/411613_transfer_programs.pdf.

Yen, Steven T., Margaret Andrews, Zhuo Chen, and David B. Eastwood. 

“Food Stamp Program Participation and Food Insecurity: An Instrumental 

Variables Approach,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 90(1): 

pp. 117-32, 2008.
36

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix: Multivariate Regression Models

Appendix tables 1-8 present the regression models from which the adjusted 

odds ratios and changes in TFP-Adjusted Food Expenditures in tables 2-7 

were estimated.

The variables in the regression models were calculated as follows (CPS-FSS 

variable names are in upper case in parentheses):

Post ARRA—This dummy variable identifi es households interviewed in the 

December 2009 CPS-FSS, after the implementation of the ARRA SNAP 

benefi t increase (versus those interviewed in the December 2008 CPS-FSS). 

The coeffi cients on Post ARRA in the logistic regression models are the 

adjusted odds ratios in tables 2, 5, and 7. The coeffi cients on Post ARRA in 

the quantile regression models were used to calculate the “changes from 2008 

to 2009 with controls” values in tables 3, 4, and 6.

Income (ratio to poverty line)—Combined income of all family members 

from all sources in the 12 months prior to the survey is reported in 16 categories (HUFAMINC). We approximated income for each household at the 

center of the reported range and divided by a poverty line for that household 

to adjust for household size and composition. We based household poverty 

lines on the Census Bureau’s table of poverty thresholds for individuals and 

families for the year of the survey, taking into account the numbers of adults 

and children in the household and whether the household reference person 

was younger or older than 65. The square of this ratio was also entered to 

allow for a nonlinear (quadratic) association. 

In our analyses, we treated each household in the CPS-FSS data (comprising 

all individuals living together in an owned or rented unit) as a single 

economic unit. The CPS-FSS collects data on SNAP receipt, food spending, 

and food security at the household level, so analysis at the household level is 

the only feasible approach. Not all multimember households are “families” 

as defi ned in the Census Bureau poverty thresholds and poverty statistics, 

and may not be coterminous with SNAP units as defi ned for administrative purposes. The proportion of households with multiple economic units 

is small, however, so these approximations are not likely to distort analytic 

results substantially.

Income in lowest reported category—Identifi es households that reported 

annual income in the lowest category (less than $5,000). Previous research 

has found that some households in this category have relatively high 

consumption even though their income is low. In some cases, income may be 

only temporarily low and the household can maintain consumption levels by 

drawing on assets or credit.

Labor force status of primary earner—The employment/labor force status 

of the primary earner in each household was assigned in a two-step process. 

First, the status of each adult in the household was assigned based on the 

“monthly labor force recode” (PEMLR) and “full-time/part-time work 

status” (PRWKSTAT). Those variables are, in turn, calculated by the Census 

Bureau based on a detailed series of questions about each adult’s employ-
37

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

ment, working hours, unemployment, job searches, and the reasons for not 

working. The categories are:

1. Employed full time;

2. Not in the labor force—retired;

3. Employed part time for noneconomic reasons (i.e., do not want to 

work more hours);

4. Employed part time for economic reasons (i.e., want to work 

more hours, unable to fi nd a job with more hours);

5. Unemployed—looking for work;

6. Not in the labor force due to disability; and

7. Not in the labor force for reasons other than retirement or 

disability.

The primary earner was then identifi ed as the adult with the lowest numbered 

status, and that status was assigned to the household. 

Household composition—Household composition was assigned in one of 

seven categories, depending on the number of adults, whether or not children 

were present (and whether their parent was in the primary family), and the 

marital status of the household reference person. Cohabiting couples with 

children were assigned as single male with child/children, single female with 

child/children, or other household with child/children, depending on the sex 

of the household reference person and the relationships of children in the 

household. The categories are:

• Married couple with child/children;

• Single male with child/children;

• Single female with child/children;

• Other household with child/children (i.e., children in complex living 

arrangements, such as children of unmarried partner, housemate, or 

border);

• Two or more adults—no child; 

• Male living alone; or

• Female living alone. 

One or more elderly persons in the household—At least one person in the 

household was 65 years old or older.

Race and Hispanic ethnicity—Based on race (PDTRACE) and Hispanic 

ethnicity (PRDTHSP) of household reference person. Non-Hispanic persons 

reporting a race other than Black or more than one race were not separately 

identifi ed and were included with White-non-Hispanics in the reference category for the regression analyses.
38

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Noncitizen household reference person—Household reference person 

foreign born and not a citizen of the United States (PRCITSHP=5). 

Educational attainment of most highly educated adult—Based on the 

highest value of PEEDUCA among all adults in the household.

Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan residence—Based on variables GTCBSAST 

and GTMETSTA, which operationalize the 2003 Offi ce of Management and 

Budget delineation. The reference category comprises households within a 

metropolitan area but not in the “principal city.” In most cases, this means 

in suburban or exurban areas outside of the incorporated area of any of 

the large densely populated cities of the metropolitan area. The category, 

“Metropolitan—not specifi cally identifi ed” refers to households within 

metropolitan areas for which the location inside or outside of principal cities 

was not identifi ed to avoid possible breach of confi dentiality (about 17 percent 

of metropolitan households). 

Census Region—The four census regions are:

• Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont

• Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin

• South: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia

• West: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, 

Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming
39

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 1

Logistic regression of SNAP participation in the 30 days prior to survey on post-ARRA versus pre-ARRA 

period, with controls for household characteristics1

Characteristic Odds ratio p

Intercept 0.860 .435

Post-ARRA 1.158 <.001

Income (ratio to poverty line) 1.290 .586

Income (ratio to poverty line) squared .280 <.001

Income in lowest reported category .595 <.001

Labor force status of primary earner (reference: employed full time)

Out of labor force—retired 2.143 <.001

Part-time for noneconomic reasons 1.278 .003

Part-time for economic reasons 1.817 <.001

Unemployed 2.706 <.001

Out of labor force—disabled 5.579 <.001

Out of labor force—not retired or disabled 2.087 <.001

Household composition (reference: married couple with child/children)

Single male with child/children .824 .167

Single female with child/children 1.846 <.001

Other household with child/children 1.644 <.001

Two or more adults—no child .409 <.001

Male living alone .253 <.001

Female living alone .389 <.001

One or more elderly persons in the household .659 <.001

Race and Hispanic ethnicity (reference: White non-Hispanic)

Black non-Hispanic 1.300 <.001

Hispanic 1.088 .185

Noncitizen household reference person .586 <.001

Educational attainment of most highly educated adult (reference: high school or GED)

Less than high school 1.217 <.001

Some college—no 4-year degree .890 .021

Bachelor degree or higher .444 <.001

Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan residence (reference: metropolitan, not in principle city)

Metropolitan—principal city 1.109 .056

Metropolitan—not specifi cally identifi ed 1.136 .050

Not in metropolitan area 1.129 .043

Census region (reference: Northeast)

Midwest 1.005 .940

South .668 <.001

West .554 <.001

Number of cases 14,572

Somers’ D .566

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1The sample comprised households with annual incomes less than 130 percent of the Federal poverty line.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the December 2008 and December 2009 Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements (CPS-FSS).
40

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 2

Quantile regression at median of SNAP benefi ts (ratio to Thrifty Food Plan) on post-ARRA versus pre-ARRA 

period, with controls for household characteristics1

Characteristic Coeffi cient p

Intercept 0.555 <.001

Post-ARRA .085 <.001

Income (ratio to poverty line) .334 .027

Income (ratio to poverty line) squared -.280 .006

Income in lowest reported category .186 <.001

Labor force status of primary earner (reference: employed full time)

Out of labor force—retired .013 .704

Part-time for noneconomic reasons .029 .296

Part-time for economic reasons .060 .028

Unemployed .076 <.001

Out of labor force—disabled -.014 .541

Out of labor force—not retired or disabled .132 <.001

Household composition (reference: married couple with child/children)

Single male with child/children .031 .503

Single female with child/children .070 <.001

Other household with child/children .053 .020

Two or more adults—no child -.093 <.001

Male living alone .029 .414

Female living alone .059 .051

One or more elderly persons in the household -.183 <.001

Race and Hispanic ethnicity (reference: White non-Hispanic)

Black non-Hispanic -.047 .005

Hispanic -.040 .039

Noncitizen household reference person -.104 <.001

Educational attainment of most highly educated adult (reference: high school or GED)

Less than high school -.014 .384

Some college, no 4-year degree -.002 .868

Bachelor degree or higher .000 .994

Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan residence (reference: metropolitan, not in principle city)

Metropolitan—principal city .000 .985

Metropolitan—not specifi cally identifi ed -.007 .743

Not in metropolitan area -.041 .010

Census region (reference: Northeast)

Midwest -.082 <.001

South -.128 <.001

West -.106 <.001

Number of cases 4,091

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1The sample comprised households with annual incomes less than 130 percent of the Federal poverty line that received SNAP benefi ts in the 30 

days prior to the survey and reported the amount of benefi t received.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the December 2008 and December 2009 Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements (CPS-FSS).
41

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 3

Quantile regression at median of usual food spending (ratio to Thrifty Food Plan) on post-ARRA versus 

pre-ARRA period, with controls for household characteristics, by income range1

Characteristic

Income <130 percent 

of poverty line

Income 150-250 percent 

of poverty line

Coeffi cient p Coeffi cient p

Intercept 0.887 <.001 0.304 .340

Post-ARRA .048 <.001 .032 .004

Income (ratio to poverty line) -.198 .135 .529 .098

Income (ratio to poverty line) squared .140 .076 -.108 .179

Income in lowest reported category -.023 .525

Labor force status of primary earner (reference: employed full time)

Out of labor force—retired -.013 .611 .007 .753

Part-time for noneconomic reasons -.040 .067 -.006 .850

Part-time for economic reasons -.057 .067 -.014 .790

Unemployed -.010 .676 -.033 .355

Out of labor force—disabled -.039 .057 -.042 .463

Out of labor force—not retired or disabled .044 .107 .061 .385

Household composition (reference: married couple with child/children)

Single male with child/children .018 .692 .043 .524

Single female with child/children .100 <.001 .127 <.001

Other household with child/children .050 .092 -.022 .540

Two or more adults—no child .097 <.001 .089 <.001

Male living alone .327 <.001 .363 <.001

Female living alone .333 <.001 .304 <.001

One or more elderly persons in the household -.085 <.001 -.063 .001

Race and Hispanic ethnicity (reference: White non-Hispanic)

Black non-Hispanic -.057 .001 -.098 <.001

Hispanic -.051 .014 -.032 .141

Noncitizen household reference person -.006 .814 -.005 .860

Educational attainment of most highly educated adult (reference: high school or GED)

Less than high school .004 .832 .004 .909

Some college, no 4-year degree .024 .115 .023 .105

Bachelor degree or higher .083 <.001 .056 <.001

Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan residence (reference: metropolitan, not in principle city)

Metropolitan—principal city .005 .778 -.015 .381

Metropolitan—not specifi cally identifi ed -.022 .187 -.014 .484

Not in metropolitan area -.046 <.001 -.070 <.001

Census region (reference: Northeast)

Midwest -.087 <.001 -.049 .009

South -.045 .016 .013 .503

West -.024 .269 .008 .717

Number of cases 13,773 13,435

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1About 5 percent of households did not report their food spending and were omitted from these analyses.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the December 2008 and December 2009 Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements (CPS-FSS).
42

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 4

Logistic regression of food insecurity1 in 30 days prior to survey on post-ARRA versus pre-ARRA period, 

with controls for household characteristics, by income range

Characteristic

Income <130 percent 

of poverty line

Income 150-250 percent 

of poverty line

Odd ratio p Odd ratio p

Intercept 0.290 <.001 2.518 .489

Post-ARRA .886 .002 1.016 .772

Income (ratio to poverty line) 2.006 .121 .105 .099

Income (ratio to poverty line) squared .523 .017 1.524 .225

Income in lowest reported category .908 .417

Labor force status of primary earner (reference: employed full time)

Out of labor force—retired .728 .001 .414 <.001

Part-time for noneconomic reasons .883 .116 1.122 .314

Part-time for economic reasons 1.833 <.001 2.175 <.001

Unemployed 2.163 <.001 3.192 <.001

Out of labor force—disabled 2.268 <.001 1.919 <.001

Out of labor force—not retired or disabled 1.098 .265 .869 .512

Household composition (reference: married couple with child/children)

Single male with child/children 1.102 .470 1.160 .383

Single female with child/children 1.305 <.001 1.169 .110

Other household with child/children 1.012 .905 .985 .927

Two or more adults—no child .969 .640 .886 .113

Male living alone .787 .003 .651 <.001

Female living alone .918 .272 .859 .111

One or more elderly persons in the household .655 <.001 .551 <.001

Race and Hispanic ethnicity (reference: White non-Hispanic)

Black non-Hispanic 1.088 .116 .935 .410

Hispanic 1.293 <.001 1.040 .635

Noncitizen household reference person 1.014 .841 .997 .976

Educational attainment of most highly educated adult (reference: high school or GED)

Less than high school 1.027 .629 1.182 .104

Some college—no 4-year degree 1.160 .002 1.021 .738

Bachelor degree or higher .692 <.001 .588 <.001

Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan residence (reference: metropolitan, not in principle city)

Metropolitan—principal city .868 .005 1.077 .266

Metropolitan—not specifi cally identifi ed .876 .034 .946 .493

Not in metropolitan area .720 <.001 .663 <.001

Census region (reference: Northeast)

Midwest .999 .990 1.236 .023

South 1.003 .957 1.267 .006

West .994 .930 1.136 .173

Number of cases 14,572 14,056

Somers’ D .330 .398

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1Food insecure households include both those with low and very low food security.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the December 2008 and December 2009 Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements (CPS-FSS).
43

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 5

Logistic regression of very low food security in 30 days prior to survey on post-ARRA versus pre-ARRA 

period, with controls for household characteristics, by income range

Characteristic

Income <130 percent 

of poverty line

Income 150-250 percent 

of poverty line

Odd ratio p Odd ratio p

Intercept 0.121 <.001 0.086 .222

Post-ARRA .804 <.001 1.131 .133

Income (ratio to poverty line) 1.707 .399 .922 .969

Income (ratio to poverty line) squared .538 .105 .887 .819

Income in lowest reported category .817 .214

Labor force status of primary earner (reference: employed full time)

Out of labor force—retired .632 .002 .474 <.001

Part-time for noneconomic reasons .801 .054 .904 .594

Part-time for economic reasons 1.787 <.001 2.341 <.001

Unemployed 2.148 <.001 2.682 <.001

Out of labor force—disabled 1.905 <.001 2.203 <.001

Out of labor force—not retired or disabled 1.112 .359 1.125 .683

Household composition (reference: married couple with child/children)

Single male with child/children 1.149 .470 .882 .688

Single female with child/children 1.149 .148 1.461 .014

Other household with child/children .897 .482 .799 .443

Two or more adults—no child 1.401 <.001 1.390 .007

Male living alone 1.344 .006 1.144 .371

Female living alone 1.483 <.001 1.400 .023

One or more elderly persons in the household .536 <.001 .418 <.001

Race and Hispanic ethnicity (reference: White non-Hispanic)

Black non-Hispanic .986 .845 .982 .879

Hispanic 1.065 .453 .895 .393

Noncitizen household reference person .773 .011 .848 .321

Educational attainment of most highly educated adult (reference: high school or GED)

Less than high school 1.086 .283 1.438 .012

Some college—no 4-year degree 1.192 .009 1.007 .940

Bachelor degree or higher .619 <.001 .456 <.001

Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan residence (reference: metropolitan, not in principle city)

Metropolitan—principal city .792 <.001 .950 .607

Metropolitan—not specifi cally identifi ed .875 .112 .757 .028

Not in metropolitan area .654 <.001 .558 <.001

Census region (reference: Northeast)

Midwest .960 .662 1.321 .048

South .973 .746 1.137 .334

West 1.076 .427 1.283 .081

Number of cases 14,572 14,056

Somers’ D .329 .437

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the December 2008 and December 2009 Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements (CPS-FSS).
44

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 6

Quantile regression at median of usual food spending (ratio to Thrifty Food Plan) on post-ARRA versus 

pre-ARRA period, with controls for household characteristics, by SNAP participation during 30 days prior 

to the survey1

Characteristic

SNAP-participant 

households

Non-SNAP 

households

Coeffi cient p Coeffi cient p

Intercept 0.924 <.001 0.780 <.001

Post-ARRA .077 <.001 .031 .017

Income (ratio to poverty line) -.112 .585 -.010 .958

Income (ratio to poverty line) squared .068 .613 .040 .728

Income in lowest reported category .025 .625 .012 .798

Labor force status of primary earner (reference: employed full time)

Out of labor force—retired -.079 .138 -.003 .921

Part-time for noneconomic reasons .020 .624 -.072 .010

Part-time for economic reasons -.015 .695 -.099 .003

Unemployed -.001 .973 -.022 .520

Out of labor force—disabled -.065 .036 -.005 .874

Out of labor force—not retired or disabled .068 .166 .006 .859

Household composition (reference: married couple with child/children)

Single male with child/children .019 .785 .079 .206

Single female with child/children .101 <.001 .074 .002

Other household with child/children .075 .072 .012 .725

Two or more adults—no child .018 .692 .123 <.001

Male living alone .234 <.001 .361 <.001

Female living alone .323 <.001 .359 <.001

One or more elderly persons in the household -.030 .507 -.102 <.001

Race and Hispanic ethnicity (reference: White non-Hispanic)

Black non-Hispanic -.008 .816 -.090 <.001

Hispanic -.017 .655 -.047 .031

Noncitizen household reference person -.049 .236 .022 .282

Educational attainment of most highly educated adult (reference: high school or GED)

Less than high school .014 .643 -.006 .789

Some college—no 4-year degree .006 .813 .053 .004

Bachelor degree or higher .088 .038 .082 .002

Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan residence (reference: metropolitan, not in principle city)

Metropolitan—principal city -.018 .595 .009 .659

Metropolitan—not specifi cally identifi ed -.053 .071 -.027 .235

Not in metropolitan area -.055 .039 -.034 .063

Census region (reference: Northeast)

Midwest -.111 <.001 -.095 <.001

South -.120 <.001 -.020 .351

West -.116 .001 -.003 .906

Number of cases 4,082 9.691

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1Both samples were limited to households with annual incomes less than 130 percent of the Federal poverty line. About 5 percent of low-income 

households did not report their food spending and were omitted from the analyses.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the December 2008 and December 2009 Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements (CPS-FSS).
45

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 7

Logistic regression of food insecurity in 30 days prior to survey on post-ARRA versus pre-ARRA period, 

with controls for household characteristics, by SNAP participation during 30 days prior to the survey1

Characteristic

SNAP-participant 

households

Non-SNAP 

households

Odd ratio p Odd ratio p

Intercept 0.407 .003 0.283 <.001

Post-ARRA .850 .016 .891 .022

Income (ratio to poverty line) .973 .970 1.535 .480

Income (ratio to poverty line) squared 1.100 .837 .577 .122

Income in lowest reported category .892 .522 .849 .317

Labor force status of primary earner (reference: employed full time)

Out of labor force—retired .809 .235 .668 <.001

Part-time for noneconomic reasons .950 .726 .857 .105

Part-time for economic reasons 1.592 .001 1.945 <.001

Unemployed 1.640 <.001 2.562 <.001

Out of labor force—disabled 2.489 <.001 1.744 <.001

Out of labor force—not retired or disabled 1.444 .006 .868 .212

Household composition (reference: married couple with child/children)

Single male with child/children 1.230 .355 1.021 .901

Single female with child/children 1.182 .116 1.438 <.001

Other household with child/children .923 .614 1.084 .547

Two or more adults—no child 1.403 .010 .893 .158

Male living alone .796 .159 .830 .048

Female living alone .950 .721 .957 .641

One or more elderly persons in the household .861 .281 .614 <.001

Race and Hispanic ethnicity (reference: White non-Hispanic)

Black non-Hispanic .921 .337 1.179 .018

Hispanic 1.073 .498 1.362 <.001

Noncitizen household reference person 1.082 .559 1.000 .996

Educational attainment of most highly educated adult (reference: high school or GED)

Less than high school .937 .467 1.074 .325

Some college—no 4-year degree 1.101 .239 1.206 .002

Bachelor degree or higher .961 .805 .673 <.001

Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan residence (reference: metropolitan, not in principle city)

Metropolitan—principal city .896 .222 .868 .023

Metropolitan—not specifi cally identifi ed .874 .206 .878 .096

Not in metropolitan area .768 .008 .682 <.001

Census region (reference: Northeast)

Midwest .956 .670 1.048 .612

South .918 .377 1.135 .114

West .850 .166 1.150 .105

Number of cases 4,268 10,304

Somers’ D .235 .354

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1Both samples were limited to households with annual incomes less than 130 percent of the Federal poverty line. Food insecure households 

include both those with low and very low food security.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the December 2008 and December 2009 Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements (CPS-FSS).
46

Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefuts / ERR-116

Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix table 8

Logistic regression of very low food security in 30 days prior to survey on post-ARRA versus pre-ARRA 

period, with controls for household characteristics, by SNAP participation during 30 days prior to the 

survey1

Characteristic

SNAP-participant 

households

Non-SNAP 

households

Odd ratio p Odd ratio p

Intercept 0.150 <.001 0.129 <.001

Post-ARRA .766 .004 .818 .004

Income (ratio to poverty line) 2.562 .373 .758 .742

Income (ratio to poverty line) squared .421 .204 .874 .785

Income in lowest reported category .943 .817 .685 .087

Labor force status of primary earner (reference: employed full time)

Out of labor force—retired .736 .239 .571 .002

Part-time for noneconomic reasons .932 .739 .758 .045

Part-time for economic reasons 1.276 .252 2.038 <.001

Unemployed 1.537 .008 2.572 <.001

Out of labor force—disabled 1.878 <.001 1.611 <.001

Out of labor force—not retired or disabled 1.276 .203 1.004 .980

Household composition (reference: married couple with child/children)

Single male with child/children 1.440 .234 1.008 .973

Single female with child/children 1.009 .957 1.372 .011

Other household with child/children .821 .421 .972 .889

Two or more adults—no child 2.129 <.001 1.216 .089

Male living alone 1.452 .082 1.343 .022

Female living alone 1.487 .044 1.534 .001

One or more elderly persons in the household .603 .012 .547 <.001

Race and Hispanic ethnicity (reference: White non-Hispanic)

Black non-Hispanic .761 .022 1.146 .143

Hispanic .887 .406 1.114 .303

Noncitizen household reference person .658 .056 .809 .072

Educational attainment of most highly educated adult (reference: high school or GED)

Less than high school .957 .721 1.172 .113

Some college—no 4-year degree 1.152 .206 1.229 .014

Bachelor degree or higher .771 .281 .624 <.001

Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan residence (reference: metropolitan, not in principle city)

Metropolitan—principal city .820 .109 .795 .007

Metropolitan—not specifi cally identifi ed .892 .417 .868 .179

Not in metropolitan area .683 .005 .622 <.001

Census region (reference: Northeast)

Midwest .798 .114 1.121 .368

South .846 .196 1.129 .283

West .852 .317 1.297 .031

Number of cases 4,268 10,304

Somers’ D .314 .359

SNAP= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

ARRA= American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

1Both samples were limited to households with annual incomes less than 130 percent of the Federal poverty line.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service calculations based on data from the December 2008 and December 2009 Current Population Survey 

Food Security Supplements (CPS-FSS).