Greetings—

As Congress considers spending cuts for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), one proposed option would require states to cover a portion of the costs. In a new analysis, Urban Institute researchers explore what that might mean in a recession, contrasting potential outcomes under current law with those under a 10 percent state cost-share.

Using the example of a recession of similar magnitude to the Great Recession, the researchers estimate that under current law, with SNAP benefits fully paid by the federal government, American households would experience the following:

1.8 million households experiencing job loss would apply for and receive SNAP.
1.3 million households already participating in SNAP would qualify for higher benefits.
481,000 people in families experiencing job loss would be kept above the poverty level by the new or increased SNAP benefits.

In contrast, under the same set of recession assumptions but with a 10 percent state cost-share, the researchers find:

States would need to spend an additional $980 million to cover increased benefit costs in the first year of the recession on top of what they would already be paying under a cost-share model.
If states could not increase their spending during the recession and instead reduced benefits to keep costs down, all SNAP recipients would face an average annual benefit reduction of $327 and 862,000 people who would be above the poverty level if SNAP were fully funded would fall below the federal poverty level.

Read the report to learn more. For additional Urban analyses of legislative proposals being considered for the upcoming reconciliation process, visit the webpage.

If you have questions for the research team, please reply to this email. We’re happy to connect you.

Thanks,