What state-level factors explain racial disparities in SNAP participation from 2020–2023?
Executive summary
State-level policies and administrative choices — especially work requirements, waiver use, immigrant eligibility rules, and how states implement enrollment and recertification — shape racial gaps in SNAP participation from 2020–2023 by interacting with underlying economic disparities in food insecurity and employment; SNAP served about 41.7 million people in FY2024 (12.3% of residents) and adults 18–59 were 42% of participants in FY2023 [1] [2]. Research and advocacy groups say SNAP reduces food insecurity disproportionately for Black, Latino and AIAN households but state variation in Medicaid expansion, work rules, and administrative burdens preserves disparities [3] [4].
1. How state policy levers translate into racial differences
States control administrative implementation, waivers and work‑requirement enforcement even though SNAP is federally funded; when states tighten work rules or cut waivers, able‑bodied adults without dependents face increased exits — a dynamic that disproportionately affects Black and Latino communities who are overrepresented among low‑wage, unstable employment — and experts warn tightened rules will remove millions from the rolls [5] [6] [4].
2. Economic cycles and participation patterns widen preexisting gaps
SNAP is strongly countercyclical: participation rises in recessions and falls only as recovery fully arrives. The pandemic-era boost in benefits and suspension of some requirements increased participation; subsequent expirations and state‑by‑state responses produce uneven retrenchment, which compounds racial disparities because Black, Latino and Indigenous households experienced higher baseline food insecurity [7] [3].
3. Administrative friction and outreach create de facto unequal access
Research identifies enrollment practices, recertification requirements and state reporting as sources of racialized barriers: administrative complexity reduces take‑up among those with unstable hours, limited childcare, language barriers, or precarious immigration status — all more common in communities of color; Health Affairs emphasizes that seemingly neutral administrative rules can produce unequal outcomes [4].
4. Immigrant eligibility and recent federal changes reshape state‑level racial patterns
Changes in federal immigrant eligibility — and states’ choices to implement or supplement federal rules — alter participation for Hispanic and immigrant households. Reporting notes recent federal moves and rule changes that remove eligibility for some groups (refugees, asylum seekers) and that state adoption will determine who loses benefits, affecting racial/ethnic shares of participants [5] [8] [6]. Available sources do not mention granular state-by-state racial share changes for 2020–2023.
5. Data definitions and measurement affect apparent disparities
National USDA tables show whites are the largest single racial group among recipients by share, but a substantial portion of recipients have “race unknown,” and different reports (USDA, FRAC, PolitiFact) give similar but not identical percentages; this matters because raw share does not equal need-adjusted participation rates, and misread charts have circulated widely [9] [10]. The reporting underscores that mischaracterizing who “uses” SNAP can obscure the role of state policy in producing unequal take‑up [9].
6. SNAP’s demonstrated impact on racial food insecurity gaps
Evidence shows SNAP reduces food insecurity across groups and has proportionally larger effects for Black, Latino and Indigenous households; one JAMA Network Open summary and CBPP analysis report that SNAP helped lift people above the poverty line and narrowed food insecurity gaps, but access barriers and state choices limit full equalization [11] [3].
7. Where state differences matter most: benefit levels, supplementation and program reach
Although benefit rules are federally set, states vary in broad‑based categorical eligibility, administrative funding, outreach, and whether they supplement benefits — all levers that determine effective reach. Analyses from ERS and FRAC emphasize wide state variation in participation rates (New Mexico 21.2% vs Utah 4.8% in FY2024), showing place matters for who receives help [1] [10].
8. Conflicting narratives and political incentives
Federal rhetoric about fraud and “deconstructing” SNAP has driven tighter scrutiny and rule changes; some administration claims lack transparent data per reporting, while advocacy groups warn cuts will hit communities of color hardest — a political tension shaping state decisions and public perceptions that can influence state compliance and enforcement [12] [13] [5].
9. Limitations and unanswered questions in current reporting
Available sources document policy levers, national snapshots and research on SNAP’s effects, but they do not provide a comprehensive, state‑by‑state causal decomposition of how each state policy uniquely changed racial disparities between 2020–2023. Specifically, available sources do not mention a unified statistical model quantifying how much of racial disparity in participation is explained by each state factor during 2020–2023 [1] [4].
10. Bottom line for policymakers and reporters
If the goal is to shrink racial gaps in SNAP participation, the evidence in current reporting points to state actions that matter: preserve flexible waivers in downturns, reduce administrative friction, expand outreach and supplemental benefits, and avoid blanket work‑requirement rollbacks — each step demonstrably influences who stays on the program and who falls through the cracks [4] [3] [6].