Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What share of SNAP participants report a disability and how is disability measured?
Executive Summary
About 10–13% of nonelderly SNAP participants are identified as having a disability in recent administrative snapshots, but broader survey-based estimates find substantially higher shares — over 20% or even around 25% — when functional limitations and self-reports are counted. The gap reflects different measurement approaches: SNAP administrative records count disability primarily by receipt of disability-related benefits or official program exemptions, while health surveys count functional limitations, chronic conditions, or self‑reported disability, producing higher estimates [1] [2].
1. Why the headline share varies — a story of two measurement systems
Estimates diverge because administrative SNAP data and health surveys capture different concepts of disability. The USDA’s Fiscal Year 2023 Quality Control data reports that roughly 10% of SNAP participants were nonelderly people with a disability, and that households including children, elderly, or a disabled nonelderly person received most benefits (79% of households, 83% of benefits) [1]. By contrast, analyses using the National Health Interview Survey and other health-focused datasets count functional or work limitations and receipt of federal disability benefits together, producing higher figures — one analysis estimated over 25% of SNAP participants show a functional or work limitation or receive disability benefits [2]. The difference is methodological: program records flag formal disability status for eligibility and exemptions, whereas surveys capture lived functional limitations that may not qualify for or be documented by program rules.
2. What administrative definitions actually measure — eligibility rules and program flags
SNAP’s administrative definition focuses on eligibility-relevant indicators: receipt of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), state disability payments aligned with SSI rules, or other documented determinations that create exemptions from work requirements or different income/resource treatment [3]. The USDA report relies on state agency administrative reporting via the SNAP Quality Control system, so it records those beneficiaries who are formally identified within case records as disabled for program purposes [1]. That approach undercounts people with limiting health conditions who either don’t receive disability benefits, lack documentation, or have not been coded as disabled in administrative systems, producing a lower headline share than survey-based estimates [2].
3. Survey-based counts reveal a larger population of people with disabilities on SNAP
Health surveys and research that ask about functional limits, chronic conditions, and receipt of disability benefits show a larger population dependent on SNAP. A 2015-style estimate cited that about 1 in 5 SNAP households included someone with a disability, and more recent NHIS-based work estimated over 11 million individuals — more than one-quarter of participants — with functional or work limitations or on disability benefits [4] [2]. These broader measures capture people experiencing barriers to work or daily functioning who may face food insecurity yet do not appear in administrative disability flags, underlining that SNAP serves many with unmet health needs beyond those formally recognized by program eligibility rules.
4. Policy debates hinge on which definition policymakers use
Proposals to expand or enforce work requirements turn on the administrative definition of disability because exemptions are applied to those formally recognized as disabled — via benefit receipt, caseworker determinations, or medical documentation — not to everyone with functional limitations [5] [3]. Advocacy groups and policy analysts argue that narrow administrative definitions risk denying exemptions to people with real barriers to work, while proponents of stricter rules contend that program integrity requires objective evidence. The tension explains why researchers emphasize both figures: the administrative share matters for current program rules and benefit distribution, while survey-based shares matter for understanding unmet need and potential impacts of policy changes [5] [2].
5. Bottom line for practitioners, reporters, and policymakers
Use the administrative 10–13% figure when discussing who is formally counted as disabled within SNAP program records and whose cases typically receive exemptions or special rules [1]. Use the higher 20–25% survey-based estimates when assessing the broader population affected by disability-related work barriers, food insecurity, and policy changes that rely on functional limitations rather than benefit receipt [2] [4]. Both are factually correct but answer different questions: one measures program design and eligibility coding; the other measures population need and lived limitations. Decision-makers should cite both measures and be explicit which they mean, because policy consequences — benefit access, work requirement exemptions, and projected hardship — depend critically on that choice [1] [2].