How have SNAP expenditures changed since 2008 and during COVID-19 (2020–2021)?
Executive summary
SNAP expenditures rose steadily after the 2008 recession, peaked during the Great Recession era, then declined through 2019 before surging sharply in 2020–2021 largely because of temporary pandemic-era policy changes — not solely because caseloads grew — and then fell from the 2021 peak as emergency measures expired [1] [2] [3].
1. Post‑2008 baseline: growth tied to recession, then a slow decline
Following the 2008 financial crisis SNAP spending expanded substantially as caseloads rose, with inflation‑adjusted outlays climbing from roughly $44.5 billion in FY2007 to about $96.9 billion in FY2013 during the Great Recession period, driven primarily by increased participation tied to higher poverty and unemployment [1]; after that peak participation and spending trended downward through FY2019 as the labor market recovered [4] [1].
2. The COVID shock: participation rose but benefits drove the dollar surge
When the pandemic began, average monthly participation rose from about 35.7 million in FY2019 to roughly 41.5–41.6 million in FY2021, an increase that mattered but was insufficient alone to explain the dramatic jump in spending — federal spending spiked in FY2020–FY2021 because of multiple benefit policy changes, not just more people on the rolls [1] [2] [5].
3. The mechanics of the 2020–2021 spending spike: emergency allotments and benefit re‑benchmarks
Three distinct policy moves explain most of the 2020–2021 spending increase: emergency allotments that raised households’ monthly benefits to the program maximum (implemented starting March–April 2020), a temporary 15 percent bump in maximum benefits in January 2021, and the October 2021 Thrifty Food Plan revision that permanently increased maximum benefits by about 23 percent above FY2021 levels [3] [2] [5]. Those actions pushed monthly regular benefit costs up — for example, regular monthly costs rose from about $5.3 billion in December 2020 to $6.4 billion in February 2021 — and produced a large annual spending peak in FY2021 [2] [3].
4. How large was the peak — and why reported numbers differ
Estimates of the FY2021 peak vary across sources depending on whether figures are nominal or inflation‑adjusted and which subset of benefits are counted; ERS charts report SNAP spending peaking around $113.8 billion in one table and about $125.0 billion for FY2021 in another, while other analysts present inflation‑adjusted estimates around $132.4 billion for FY2021 — the variation reflects methodological differences in adjustment and scope, but all sources agree spending in FY2021 was substantially higher than pre‑pandemic levels [5] [3] [6]. ERS explicitly attributes most of that rise to benefit increases and emergency allotments rather than caseload growth alone [2].
5. The policy debate and downstream effects: competing interpretations
Observers agree the pandemic-era policies raised household food budgets — studies find increased food spending for families during the pandemic — but they disagree on long‑term appropriateness: researchers and program analysts frame emergency allotments and rebenchmarks as necessary responses that reduced food hardship [7] [8], while critics, including AEI, argue that pandemic-era actions and the Thrifty Food Plan change pushed SNAP expenditures “well beyond caseload increases” and raise concerns about future fiscal baselines and potential labor disincentives [9]. Those competing priorities — anti‑poverty impact versus fiscal restraint and program design — drive current policy debates about returning benefits to historical levels or retaining portions of the increases [9] [10].
6. Trajectory since 2021 and limits of available reporting
After FY2021 spending peaked, outlays fell as emergency allotments ended and temporary increases expired, with ERS showing a decline from the high point to $112.8 billion in FY2023 — indicating a partial retreat from the pandemic peak though remaining well above some pre‑pandemic baselines [3]. Reporting consistently documents the proximate causes of the FY2020–FY2021 spike, but reconciling every dollar across sources requires care because different series use nominal versus inflation‑adjusted dollars and vary in what they include [6] [5] [3]; this analysis relies on ERS for the programmatic timeline and peer analyses to capture alternative perspectives [2] [9].