Fact check: What is the average employment rate of food stamp recipients in the United States as of 2025?

Executive summary — short answer you can use now

The sources provided do not support a single, definitive “average employment rate” for all U.S. food‑stamp (SNAP) recipients in 2025; figures vary sharply depending on who is counted and how “employment” is defined. One analysis of able‑bodied adults reports about 38% were working in 2017–2019, while more recent reporting cites that 86% of adults on SNAP earned income in the prior year, reflecting different metrics and timeframes rather than a clear change in one universal employment rate ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

1. Different claims, different numbers — the headline contradictions that matter

The set of analyses contains two starkly different headline claims: a May 2024 study reports that 38% of able‑bodied SNAP recipients worked during 2017–2019 while 62% did not, a snapshot emphasizing sustained nonemployment among work‑capable recipients; in contrast, July 2025 reporting asserts that 86% of adults on SNAP earned legal income in the last year, implying widespread employment or income receipt among recipients. Other pieces highlight that SNAP participation tracks economic conditions and low wages rather than simple unemployment, so the disparity flows from different populations (able‑bodied versus all adults), different recall windows (current employment versus any earned income in 12 months), and different analytic goals (policy critique versus descriptive demographics) ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}.

2. Why definitions and timing flip the result — employment today vs income over a year

A central reason numbers diverge is definitional: counting “able‑bodied adults without dependents” and measuring work in a specific multi‑year pre‑pandemic window yields a much lower employment share than counting all adults who had any earned income in the prior 12 months, which inflates the employment signal by including sporadic, seasonal, or short‑term work. The older study’s 2017–2019 window captures labor market behavior before pandemic and inflation shocks, while 2024–2025 reporting reflects later economic conditions and measurement that includes part‑year income. This means apparent contradictions are often artifacts of methodology rather than direct empirical conflict ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

3. What official and policy reviews add — no single national employment rate published for 2025

Recent policy reviews and technical reports looked at SNAP work programs and outcomes but do not offer a single national “employment rate” for SNAP recipients in 2025. A final report on SNAP Employment and Training summarizes research on program components without producing a national employment statistic, and policy primers conclude that work requirements have not reliably increased employment while they reduce participation, reinforcing that programmatic changes and measurement choices shape reported rates more than a single underlying employment trend ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Policy framing shapes the numbers pushed into public debate — consequences and motivations

Analyses used in policy debates often emphasize figures that support a particular change: projections estimating millions would lose benefits under expanded work requirements stress the hardship effects of tighter rules, while advocacy reporting highlighting high shares with earned income stresses that many recipients already work. The policy estimate that 1.2 million families could see reduced benefits under proposed rule changes illustrates how different metrics and forecasts become rhetorical tools in debates, so the numbers cited have practical consequences for rulemaking and public opinion rather than simply describing a neutral fact ^{[7] [2]}.

5. Bottom line for a concise answer and how to report this responsibly

There is no single, authoritative “average employment rate” for SNAP recipients in 2025 within the provided material; depending on definitions, the figure can look like roughly 38% employed for work‑capable adults during 2017–2019 or up to 86% of adults having earned income in the prior year when using broader measures. For responsible reporting or policymaking, always state the population, timeframe, and metric (current employment vs any earned income) alongside any percentage; otherwise, numbers will be misleading and easily weaponized in policy debates ^{[1] [2] [3] [6]}.