What specific SNAP eligibility expansions occurred under ARRA in 2009?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) implemented concrete, temporary expansions to SNAP that raised benefit levels across the board and relaxed rules that had excluded many jobless, working‑age adults—most notably Able‑Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs)—from continued receipt of benefits; the law also produced administratively significant guidance on how recent unemployment compensation changes would be treated in SNAP eligibility calculations [1] [2] [3] [4]. These changes—a 13.6 percent increase in maximum allotments (about $80/month for a family of four, roughly $24 for one person), an option for states to suspend ABAWD time limits, and related income‑counting guidance tied to the $25/week unemployment payment—drove both higher participation and measurable improvements in food security during 2009 [1] [2] [5] [6].
1. Benefit boost: a 13.6 percent raise in maximum allotments
ARRA raised SNAP maximum allotments by 13.6 percent relative to the June 2008 value of the Thrifty Food Plan, a statutory increase that the USDA implemented as a flat dollar bump by household size—equating to about $80 more per month for a four‑person family and roughly $24 for a single‑person household—and producing average monthly increases of roughly $46 per household [1] [2] [7] [5]. USDA Economic Research Service analyses attribute increased food spending and reductions in food insecurity among low‑income households to that benefit increase, which was designed both as antipoverty relief and as a demand‑side stimulus [6] [2].
2. ABAWD rules relaxed: states could suspend time limits for jobless adults without children
ARRA gave states the option to suspend provisions that limited how long certain jobless, working‑age adults without dependents could receive SNAP benefits, effectively expanding eligibility for able‑bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) by allowing them to remain on the rolls longer during the recession [2] [3]. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service monitored state implementation closely to ensure the April 1, 2009 effective date was met and tracked plans for client notification, benefit increases, and ABAWD rule changes [3]. USDA ERS research specifically notes that ARRA “expanded SNAP eligibility for jobless adults without children,” tying the policy change to observed caseload growth [8].
3. Unemployment‑related income treatment and state options
ARRA’s Division B, Title II included a $25/week federal unemployment compensation add‑on option for states; federal SNAP guidance clarified the complicated administrative treatment of that payment. FNS issued guidance in March 2009 and later instructions that affected whether the $25 weekly amount would be treated as countable income, ultimately directing state agencies on exclusion of that payment from income and resources for SNAP calculations as of November 6, 2009, to avoid penalizing recipients [4]. That guidance mattered because how unemployment benefits are counted can shift gross and net income tests and thus determine eligibility and benefit size.
4. Net effect: participation, food security, and contested impacts
The combined effect of higher maximum allotments, eased ABAWD limits, and related administrative changes was an increase in SNAP participation—from 28.4 million in 2008 to 33.7 million in 2009 per USDA administrative data—and measurable improvements in low‑income household food security and food expenditures, with researchers estimating a 2.2 percentage‑point decline in food insecurity among likely SNAP‑eligible households and roughly a 5.4 percent rise in food spending [8] [6] [9]. Alternative analyses temper the headline gains: some studies found limited or no significant effects of ARRA’s SNAP changes on diet quality for children and adolescents, indicating that higher benefits and broader eligibility did not uniformly translate into improved nutritional outcomes for every subgroup [10] [9].
5. Scope, temporariness, and administrative supports
ARRA’s SNAP provisions were explicitly temporary; the higher allotments and many of the relaxed rules were sunset provisions later reversed or modified [11]. The law also funneled extra administrative resources and required state planning and monitoring to ensure timely implementation, and advocacy groups documented that ARRA eased other eligibility frictions and provided states funding to administer the expanded program during the peak of the recession [3] [12]. Reporting here is limited to policy elements and empirical outcomes documented in USDA/FNS and peer‑reviewed analyses available in the provided sources; other ancillary state‑level implementation choices and longer‑term behavioral effects are outside the documented scope of these citations.