The Antipoverty Effects of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
F R O M S A F E T Y N E T T O SO L I D G R O U N D R E S E A R C H R E P O R T The Antipoverty Effects of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Laura Wheaton Victoria Tran February 2018 A B O U T T H E U R B A N I N S TI T U T E The nonprofit Urban Institute is dedicated to elevating the debate on social and economic policy. For nearly five decades, Urban scholars have conducted research and offered evidence-based solutions that improve lives and strengthen communities across a rapidly urbanizing world. Their objective research helps expand opportunities for all, reduce hardship among the most vulnerable, and strengthen the effectiveness of the public sector. Copyright © February 2018. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute. Cover image by Tim Meko. Contents Acknowledgments iv Executive Summary v The Antipoverty Effects of SNAP 1 Program Background 1 Measuring the Antipoverty Effect of SNAP 4 Data and Methods 8 How Much Does SNAP Reduce Poverty? 9 Effect of Full Participation in SNAP 17 Discussion 20 Appendix A. Details of SNAP Eligibility Rules 22 How Are Eligibility and Benefits Determined? 22 Benefit Calculation 22 State Flexibility in Eligibility Rules 23 Appendix B. SNAP Simulation Methodology 24 Identifying Eligible Households 24 Calculating the Benefit 25 Selecting Participants 26 Correction for Underreporting 26 Appendix C. SPM Estimation 28 Adjustments to the SPM for This Report 28 Effect of TRIM3 Adjustments on the SPM 30 Effect of TRIM3 Adjustments on Program Antipoverty Effects 32 Appendix D. Additional Tables 35 Notes 39 References 42 About the Authors 44 Statement of Independence 45 IV A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S Acknowledgments This report was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation with support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. We are grateful to them and to all our funders, who make it possible for Urban to advance its mission. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, or the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine research findings or the insights and recommendations of Urban experts. Further information on the Urban Institute’s funding principles is available at http://www.urban.org/aboutus/our-funding/funding-principles. We appreciate assistance and insights from several of our Urban colleagues, including Gregory Acs, Linda Giannarelli, Jon Schwabish, Elaine Waxman, and Stephen Zuckerman. We thank Lorraine Blatt, Elizabeth Crowe, Ben Goehring, Sweta Haldar, Kara Harkins, Alyssa Harris, Christopher Hayes, Christine Heffernan, Paul Johnson, Jessica Kelly, Elaine Maag, Sarah Minton, Joyce Morton, Caleb Quakenbush, Elena Ramirez, Silke Taylor, Megan Thompson, and Kevin Werner for their contributions to the development of the 2015 TRIM3 baseline simulations and support of the TRIM3 system. E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y V Executive Summary The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps millions of poor and low-income Americans purchase food, is the nation’s largest nutrition assistance program. By providing people assistance to buy food, SNAP also reduces poverty. When a family receives SNAP benefits, more of the family’s resources are available to purchase other necessities, such as clothing, housing, and medical care. In this report, we estimate SNAP’s effect on poverty using the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM). The SPM is a comprehensive measure developed by the Census Bureau that captures family income, the benefits families receive from public programs, and the effects of taxes and other necessary expenses. The effects of government programs on poverty are often understated because respondents underreport their benefits in the survey data used for the estimates. This report augments the SPM by using data that have been corrected for underreporting of SNAP and other mean-tested benefits. Key findings from our analysis are as follows: SNAP has a substantial antipoverty effect as measured by the SPM. SNAP removed 8.4 million people from poverty in 2015, reducing the poverty rate from 15.4 percent to 12.8 percent (a reduction of 17 percent). The reduction in poverty was particularly pronounced among children: the number of children in poverty fell 28 percent due to SNAP benefit receipt. SNAP also substantially reduced poverty among people living in nonmetropolitan areas (24 percent), individuals in families with a working adult (21 percent), and non-Hispanic blacks (21 percent). SNAP reduced the number of people in deep poverty (those below 50 percent of the SPM poverty level) 28 percent in 2015. The reduction in deep poverty was highest among children: SNAP reduced the number of children in deep poverty 49 percent. SNAP also substantially reduced deep poverty among Hispanics (37 percent), n
