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.
What caused major increases in SNAP enrollment between 2008 and 2013?
Executive Summary
Major increases in SNAP enrollment from 2008–2013 were driven primarily by the Great Recession’s economic shock — rising unemployment and broader income loss — supplemented by deliberate federal and state policy changes that expanded eligibility, raised benefits, and relaxed time/asset rules. Quantitative studies disagree on exact shares, but academic analyses and policy reports consistently show a dominant role for economic conditions with meaningful, measurable contributions from the 2009 Recovery Act and state-level program choices [1] [2] [3].
1. Big-picture claim: the economy did the heavy lifting
Academic analyses conclude that local and national labor-market deterioration accounted for the largest share of the caseload surge between 2007 and 2011. A detailed study finds that changes in local unemployment can explain at least two-thirds of the increase during that interval, estimating a one-percentage-point rise in unemployment produced roughly a 20 percent jump in SNAP enrollment over three years [1] [4]. This economic-channel finding is reinforced by multiple studies which show participation tracked national unemployment and by datasets documenting the peak caseload in 2013 at roughly 47–48 million people, consistent with the recession and slow recovery narrative [5] [2]. The consensus across academic work is clear: the surge was largely a response to weaker incomes and job losses rather than only program outreach.
2. Policy moves amplified the increase — the Recovery Act mattered
Federal policy changes after 2008, especially the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, raised benefits and strengthened incentives to apply, and policy analysts attribute a substantial but secondary role to that boost. The ARRA benefit increase delivered about $40 billion in additional benefits, temporarily increasing monthly payments for nearly all recipients and likely raising take-up among the newly eligible; analysts and advocates link that increase to higher participation through both income effects and administrative stimulus [3] [6]. Research also notes the ARRA benefit increase remained in place until late 2013, when its expiration produced a roughly 7 percent cut in benefits, corresponding temporally to caseload declines — a strong signal that benefit levels affected participation [6]. Policy design therefore magnified a demand-side shock.
3. Rule relaxations and expanded eligibility moved the margin
Beyond benefit levels, changes in rules — relaxed time limits for childless adults, eased asset and income thresholds, and administrative funding for states — expanded the pool of eligible people and lowered barriers to enrollment. Some research attributes about 18 percent of the 2007–2011 increase to state adoption of relaxed income/asset standards and temporary rule changes for adults without children; estimates also suggest millions more became technically eligible because of those policy shifts [1] [4]. The net effect combined more potential eligibles with higher take-up among already-eligible households, producing a caseload increase larger than the recession alone would have implied. These programmatic choices mattered both at the margin and in aggregate.
4. State variation and competing estimates: how big was policy’s role?
Estimates diverge on the relative weight of state policy versus economic conditions because methodology and time windows differ across studies. One study finds state economic conditions explain nearly half of the rise between 2007 and 2013 while also finding that state policy choices significantly affected the longer 2000–2016 trend [7]. Another policy analysis emphasizes increases in eligibility and participation rates — eligible individuals rose from 37 million in 2007 to 51 million in 2013, and participation among eligible people climbed from 69 to 85 percent — implying both more need and higher take-up drove the caseload [2]. The variation in numbers reflects real heterogeneity: some states expanded coverage or simplified rules more aggressively, and researchers use different counterfactuals and samples, producing divergent but complementary conclusions.
5. What the evidence omits and why agendas matter
The literature documents effects on caseload size but rarely isolates all behavioral channels—application behavior, stigma reduction, outreach funding, and macroeconomic composition changes each matter and are difficult to separate. Policy advocates highlighting anti-poverty benefits may emphasize ARRA’s stimulus role and administrative supports, while some academic work focuses on unemployment as the primary driver; both perspectives are supported by evidence in the record [3] [1]. Studies also examine downstream effects—one analysis links the SNAP expansion to mixed dietary quality outcomes—illustrating that caseload growth has complex welfare and health implications beyond counts alone [8]. Readers should weigh each source’s perspective and timeframe: federal advocacy groups emphasize human impacts and policy levers [3], while economists parse elasticities and local labor shocks [1] [7].