Food Insufficiency Increased After The Expiration Of COVID-19 Emergency Allotments For SNAP Benefits In 2023

INTRODUCTION

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest US nutrition safety net program, providing over 41 million families with monthly cash benefits for the purchase of food.^1–3 SNAP has been shown to reduce poverty, food insecurity, and health expenditures, and to improve self-reported health, making it a highly effective form of economic stimulus during previous recessions.^1,4–7 During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress enacted several temporary changes to SNAP to combat economic distress and rising food insecurity, with the largest change being temporary Emergency Allotments (EAs) to boost benefit amounts.^8–11 EA modifications included increasing monthly SNAP allotments to the household maximum for household size in March 2020, increasing total monthly allotments by 15% in January 2021, and increasing allotments for those already receiving the household maximum by $95 per month in April 2021.² Recent studies have shown that the implementation of EAs improved food sufficiency, mental health, and financial well-being among SNAP-participating households.^12,13

These changes were not intended to be permanent, and some states discontinued EAs as early as March 2021. Despite continued food and economic insecurity and high food inflation, Congress ended EAs for the remaining 35 states/territories still providing them in March 2023 with the end of the national public health emergency declaration (Appendix Exhibit A1¹⁴).^2,15 After EA expiration, households in these states/territories faced a decrease of at least $95/month and for some households up to $250/month or more in benefits.^15,16 Recently published findings across the first states that discontinued EAs prior to the nationwide expiration have found exacerbation of food insufficiency and financial hardships among SNAP participants.^16–20 No studies, to our knowledge, have examined the impacts of EA expirations for the remaining 35 states/territories, nor examined the impacts of benefit expiration after significant increases to program benefits by the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) revisions in October 2021.^21–23

This present study addresses these knowledge gaps, providing some of the first evidence of the impact of the expiration of the SNAP EAs on food insufficiency, mental health, and financial well-being in the states in which EAs expired in March 2023. This study also examines whether the expiration affected inequities by race/ethnicity or income. This study therefore provides evidence to policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders designing changes to safety net nutrition policies to meet the continued need for food and nutrition assistance in the wake of inflated food prices and increased cost of living, as well as significant increases in food insecurity across US households.^24,25

METHODS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

In this national evaluation of the expiration of SNAP EAs in March 2023, we found that discontinuation of EAs led to an 8.4 pp (12%) increase in food insufficiency. In the secondary analysis using state SNAP eligibility criteria, we found discontinuation of EAs led to a 6.9pp increase in food insufficiency, 2.1pp increase in use of food pantries, and 2.0pp increase in difficulty paying expenses. It is noteworthy that our observed increase in food insufficiency occurred after a permanent 21% increase in benefits from the TFP in October 2021.^21,22 While TFP revisions likely mitigated a steeper rise in food insecurity after EAs expired,^23,34 our results highlight that perhaps the TFP fell short in curbing food insufficiency in the US during this critical window. These findings highlight the persistent need for food and financial support even after the official “end” of the public health crisis, especially in the face of significant increases in food insecurity across US households and inflated food prices projected to increase by 5.8% in 2023 following increases of 9.9% seen in 2022.^24,25 The observed increase in food insufficiency represents a meaningful change across the US population, given roughly 1 in 8 Americans receives SNAP benefits.³

Our findings on increased food insufficiency were robust to specification of SNAP eligibility. Our findings on use of food pantries and difficulty paying expenses were consistent in direction but only reached statistical significance using state, but not federal, SNAP eligibility criteria. This is likely because state SNAP eligibility is inclusive of larger income ranges (≤130% to 200% FPL) compared to federal income ranges (≤130% only), which increased sample size and power. It is valuable to compare the two specifications given limitations of each classification; while state eligibility criteria capture additional individuals who are eligible for SNAP, HPS data does not include all criteria necessary to estimate eligibility, which could lead to misclassification.³⁵

Our results are complementary to research investigating the effects of EA expirations in states that discontinued them earlier.^17,18,20 One found a 21% relative increase in household and child food insufficiency among SNAP recipients, while a second reported a 1.0 pp decline in food sufficiency and 1.1 pp increase in difficulty paying for household expenses.^17,18 A third found early EA discontinuation increased food insufficiency, with disparities among non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, and low income survey respondents.²⁰ Notably, our study used a different population, comparing income-eligible SNAP participants with income-eligible non-participants in states that did not end EAs early, contributing rigorous evidence to this growing knowledge base around the health effects of SNAP modifications during the pandemic.

Our study also found increased anxiety symptoms among Black SNAP participants compared with White SNAP participants. One possible explanation may be racial inequities in wealth. Black families on average have less wealth—including housing and assets—and therefore fewer buffers against economic hardship; this is true even among low-income and working-class families who comprise a substantial proportion of SNAP households.^36–41 Literature has demonstrated racial and ethnic disparities in food security, financial well-being, and mental health that were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, and prior research suggested that SNAP EAs reduced disparities, for example by reducing child poverty most among Black children.^19,42–48

Contrary to prior research that has found SNAP benefit increases to be linked with reduced financial insecurity and improved mental health,^1,12 we did not detect an effect on mental health or financial well-being in the overall sample under federal eligibility criteria. It is possible food insufficiency may be influenced by SNAP benefits more immediately compared to mental health and financial well-being, so future work should examine longer-term impacts on these outcomes. Alternately, the coinciding of the EA expiration with tax season—and the receipt of income support from the earned income tax credit during this window of the year—may have been sufficient to offset the pressures of other household expenses in the short-term, but not for food spending.

While the SNAP EAs were intended as a temporary relief, the expiration nonetheless resulted in adverse effects on food sufficiency even in the presence of the expanded benefits from the TFP revisions. For SNAP participants, it may have been especially challenging that the expiration took place in a period of continued food and economic insecurity and high food prices and that many states did not provide an “off-ramp” for loss of extra benefits.^15,24,25,49

It is worth noting that SNAP EAs were designed to address specific temporary challenges during the pandemic. In March 2020, in response to widespread income loss and the need to streamline processes for SNAP offices affected by the pandemic, SNAP EAs raised benefit allotments for all SNAP participants to the household maximum. For example, households with a non-elderly person with a disability received, on average, an extra $148.69 from SNAP EAs, while households with children received, on average, an extra $164.12 from SNAP EAs.⁵⁰ These substantial increases in SNAP benefit amounts were critical in mitigating severe poverty or food-related hardship as a result of the pandemic. However, there was also concern that sustaining EAs over time will result in a large cliff effect, whereby increased employment and earnings would lead to either a larger reduction in SNAP benefits or program disqualification, thus disincentivizing employment and self-sufficiency. While the design of the temporary EAs was not a long-term solution, our results support the need for off-ramp policies (e.g., eliminating asset limits, raising income eligibility cut-offs) to help transition SNAP participating households back to the pre-pandemic norms.⁵¹

This study has several strengths. We used a large diverse national dataset and a rigorous quasi-experimental study design to assess associations between a major change in safety net benefits and health.³⁰ Food and financial insecurity, as well as mental health remain among the top public health areas of concern and warrant increased attention in light of persistent food and financial insecurity and inflated food prices, even after the end of the public health crisis.^{9,10,24,47,52}

This study also has several limitations. Like other national surveys, HPS suffers from a high non-response rate, so results may not be generalizable to those not included in this study.^26,53 HPS is also a repeated cross-sectional survey, so we were unable to observe changes in specific individuals’ outcomes. Covariates, outcomes, and SNAP participation were self-reported and may suffer from standard reporting biases. For example, previous research has highlighted potential misclassification in self-reported receipt of safety net benefits,⁵⁴ and recent evidence estimated SNAP participation was underreported by roughly one-third in the HPS survey.¹⁸ Use of administratively derived SNAP participation would be valuable in future studies, although such linkages with survey data are often infeasible due to legal barriers. As with any DiD analysis, there may also be residual confounding based on contemporaneous policy changes or other exposures that differentially affected treatment and control groups. For example, the end of the Public Health Emergency led to several other changes to SNAP (i.e. recertification process, work requirements, college student eligibility) which could make it harder to disentangle the impact of the EA expiration. To address this issue we selected a study period to minimize other policy changes, such ending our study period before many of the other changes to SNAP took effect (Appendix Exhibit A2¹⁴). Finally, the SNAP EAs were designed to be a temporary relief, and results therefore may not generalize to longer-term policy changes.

Conclusion

Since the pandemic onset, SNAP has remained at the forefront of America’s COVID-19 pandemic safety net response, and recent findings have shown that expanding monthly allotments led to improvements in food insufficiency, mental health, and financial well-being among SNAP participants.^12,13,19 Indeed, during the pandemic, expansions to the US safety net more generally resulted in resources for structurally marginalized families. In this study, we demonstrated that the expiration of SNAP EAs in March 2023 (reduction of at least $95/month) led to a substantial increase in food insufficiency, as well as more adverse impacts on mental health among Black families. These findings are timely and relevant for ongoing policymaking regarding changes to program funding in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the upcoming Farm Bill reauthorization. This study adds evidence to a growing knowledge base regarding the importance of pandemic-era expansions to the social safety net and the negative health impacts of removing these supports.

Supplementary Material