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.
How does SNAP participation vary by state in 2022?
Executive Summary
The USDA’s analyses find that an estimated 88% of SNAP-eligible people received benefits in fiscal year 2022, but participation varied substantially across States: 19 States plus the District of Columbia had statistically higher participation than the national average, while 19 States had statistically lower rates. The Midwest Region reported the highest estimated region-level participation at 98%, while the Southwestern Region was lowest at 80%, and the report cautions that 2021 estimates are unavailable because data collection was disrupted during the COVID-19 emergency [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the 88% headline matters — and how robust it is
The 88% national participation estimate comes from USDA/FNS work combining survey and administrative data and represents the highest estimated share in decades; this figure is central to claims that SNAP reached most people it could in 2022. The FNS report explains that the estimate uses empirical Bayes shrinkage methods to meld direct survey estimates from CPS ASEC with regression-based predictions informed by administrative counts and ACS variables, which improves precision for smaller States and subgroups. The authors flag that the 2020 estimates were revised after updated Census weights and that no 2021 participation rates were estimated because data collection was suspended during the pandemic, meaning direct year-to-year comparisons must be made cautiously. The methodological transparency strengthens confidence in the 2022 headline while also exposing sensitivity to underlying survey weights and administrative inputs [3] [2].
2. Where participation was unusually high — and which States stand out
The report identifies geographic clusters with notably higher-than-average participation, most prominently the Midwest Region at an estimated 98% participation rate, and specific jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia, Illinois, and Oregon that consistently show high take-up across available years. High regional or State rates can reflect better outreach, simpler enrollment rules, higher measured need, or measurement interactions between surveys and State administrative systems. The FNS analysis highlights that 19 States plus DC had statistically significantly higher participation than the national average, which indicates these differences exceed what sampling variability alone would predict. These patterns point to plausible program and policy levers — administrative capacity, targeted outreach, and demographic composition — that correlate with higher SNAP reach [1] [2].
3. Where participation lagged — regional and State-level shortfalls
Conversely, 19 States had participation rates significantly below the 88% national estimate, and the Southwestern Region’s 80% rate was the lowest among regions. Lower take-up can result from administrative barriers, stigma, lack of awareness, or differences in eligibility estimation methods across States. The empirical Bayes approach used in the report reduces extreme noise but still yields clear lower-than-average flags for many States; these statistically significant shortfalls warrant policy attention because they represent pockets where eligible people are less likely to access nutrition support. The FNS cautions that demographic and socioeconomic predictors — such as income distribution and the share of families below certain thresholds — influence both eligibility and participation patterns, so solutions must consider both outreach and structural access issues [2] [3].
4. Statistical methods and the limits of comparison across years
FNS used empirical Bayes shrinkage to combine direct CPS ASEC estimates with regression predictions based on ACS and administrative data, which stabilizes State estimates especially for small samples. This method is standard for small-area estimation but also means reported State rates are partially influenced by predictors and neighboring-State information in the model. The report emphasizes revisions to 2020 estimates when Census weights were updated and explicitly omits 2021 estimates due to suspended data collection during the pandemic, creating a discontinuity in trend analysis. Analysts should therefore treat the 2022 results as robust cross-sectional estimates that are not fully comparable to a disrupted 2021 observation and may reflect model-driven smoothing as well as real program changes [3] [4].
5. What the findings imply for policy and reporting priorities
The FNS findings show both achievement and gaps: high overall reach in 2022 but meaningful State-level disparities that are statistically significant and geographically patterned. Policymakers should use the State eligibility counts and participation flags provided by FNS to prioritize outreach to low-takeup States and to study high-performing States for replicable practices. The report’s transparent delineation of data sources, revisions, and estimation methods equips researchers to target further work on causes of low take-up — whether administrative, informational, or structural — while recognizing the constraints imposed by missing 2021 data and model-based smoothing in 2022 estimates [2] [1] [4].