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.
Fact check: What percentage of food stamp recipients have jobs or are actively seeking employment?
Executive Summary
Two contrasting pictures emerge from the supplied sources: one study says only 38% of able-bodied SNAP recipients were employed in May 2024, while several policy analyses and advocacy reports indicate a majority of working-age, non‑disabled SNAP participants had earnings in a typical year or over a 12‑month span [1] [2] [3] [4]. The discrepancy reflects differences in population definitions, time frames, and measurement methods, meaning there is no single percentage that unambiguously answers how many food‑stamp recipients are working or actively seeking work [1] [3].
1. Startling study versus broader workforce snapshots — what's being claimed and why it matters
The May 2024 study is explicit: 38% of able‑bodied adults receiving SNAP were employed in the study period, leaving 62% not working at that snapshot [1]. That claim paints a picture of large non‑employment among “work‑capable” recipients and has policy resonance because it suggests many could be affected by stricter work requirements. Countervailing claims from July 2024 and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities position SNAP as a workforce supplement, noting millions of workers — roughly 15.7 million — used SNAP during the year, and that substantial shares of working‑age, non‑disabled recipients had earnings in the year analyzed [2] [3] [4]. These competing claims matter because policymakers use such statistics to justify or oppose changes to SNAP rules [1] [3].
2. Methods explain the mismatch — different populations, windows, and measures
The sources diverge on who is counted: the 38% figure targets “able‑bodied adults” at a point in time, producing a low employment share for that subgroup [1]. By contrast, other analyses measure employment over longer periods: over a month, 12 months, or any earnings during a year, which naturally produce higher shares [3] [4] [2]. The difference between a monthly snapshot and a 12‑month cumulative measure is critical: many low‑wage or sporadically employed people cycle in and out of work, so annual measures show higher incidence of employment than monthly snapshots [3] [4]. Recognizing these methodological differences clarifies why one source reports a low immediate employment rate while others report broader workforce participation.
3. National advocacy reports portray SNAP as a worker safety net, not a work‑avoidance program
Policy‑oriented sources emphasize that most SNAP participants who can work do so at least part of the year, with over half working in a typical month and 74% working in the 12 months before or after that month, and high shares of households showing earnings during the year [3] [4]. A July 2024 report quantified about 15.7 million workers using SNAP, approximately 10% of all workers, underscoring the program’s role in supplementing low wages rather than replacing wages [2]. These figures support a narrative that SNAP primarily helps working families meet basic needs amid low pay and unstable schedules [2] [3].
4. Special categories and policy rules change the calculus; ABAWDs are treated differently
SNAP’s rules distinguish Able‑Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWDs) and impose stricter time‑limited work or training requirements on them, which affects how employment statistics are interpreted [5] [6]. The ABAWD population is a smaller, policy‑relevant subset that may exhibit lower employment rates in monthly snapshots, thereby pulling down employment shares in studies focused on “work‑capable” participants [1] [5]. Understanding SNAP employment statistics requires separating households with children, disabled adults, seniors, and ABAWDs, because work patterns and eligibility rules differ across these groups [5] [6].
5. State variation and on‑the‑ground realities reshape headline numbers
State examples matter: more than 70% of Maine households receiving SNAP had at least one person working, showing substantial subnational variation and the influence of local labor markets [6]. Economic context — availability of jobs, transportation, and rural constraints — can depress or elevate employment rates among recipients, a point raised in October 2025 reporting about veterans, rural residents, and older adults who may struggle to meet work requirements [7] [6]. Thus, national averages mask important state and demographic differences, which policymakers must consider when designing or enforcing work rules [7] [6].
6. Recent policy shifts and reporting through October 2025 changed stakes but not measurement differences
October 2025 news accounts describe tightening work requirements and potential impacts on veterans and rural recipients, intensifying policy debates but not resolving underlying data disagreements [7]. Advocacy and economic reports likewise highlight SNAP’s economic role, citing jobs supported in the broader economy, but they do not reconcile snapshot versus annual measures [8] [3]. The policy shift increases the real‑world consequences of how researchers define “working” and which subgroups are counted, making methodological clarity more consequential [7] [8].
7. Bottom line: no single percentage fits every question — use the right measure for the policy question
Summing the supplied sources yields a clear conclusion: monthly snapshot estimates can show low employment among certain able‑bodied recipients (38%), while annual or cumulative measures show most working‑age, non‑disabled SNAP recipients have earnings at some point in the year [1] [3] [4]. Policymakers and the public must distinguish between point‑in‑time employment, year‑long earnings, and subgroup dynamics like ABAWDs or state differences. The relevant statistic depends on whether the question is about immediate work activity, annual labor market attachment, or eligibility under work‑requirement rules [1] [3].