Patterns of Churn in New Jersey's SNAP Caseload

• In Event: Access and Retention in SNAP and WIC: State-Level Patterns and Interventions

Abstract

“Churn" in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) refers to the process of an individual or family leaving and then subsequently returning to the program less than four months later. Research from the past decade has found that states have seen rates of churn anywhere from roughly 15 to 30% (Gray, 2019; Heflin et al., 2020; Lopoo et al, 2020; Mills et al. 2014). These churn rates vary substantially from state to state and studies have also found that experiences of churn have been greater for Hispanic households and households with children five or younger (Kenney et al., 2022), indicating that churn may exacerbate existing inequalities. Very few studies, however, have been conducted since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to administrative changes that may have impacted patterns of churn.

Of more concern from a policy perspective, longitudinal churn studies have been limited in their ability to assess differences by sociodemographic case characteristics as well as reasons associated with various lengths of churn. Most policymakers and administrators view churn as a negative experience, indicating that a household exited prematurely or experienced administrative burdens in meeting program requirements. However, without knowing the reasons behind both the exit and the return, it is possible that a quick return to SNAP may indicate program responsiveness if the reason for the return was a new household event.

Our study focuses on post-COVID experiences and expands the churn conversation to the State of New Jersey, using administrative data from 2023 and 2024 to examine which households churn and for what reasons. We distinguish between two categories of reasons. First, we consider administrative causes for churn, such as a failure to submit paperwork or show up for an appointment. These reasons may indicate areas for programmatic or process improvement such as recertification tasks. Second, we consider cases that churn due to changing household circumstances, such as loss of income or a new household member. Unlike administrative causes of churn, these situations indicate program responsiveness. Distinguishing between these two main causes of churn and better understanding which households experience which type have policy implications for enhancing caseload resiliency.

Authors

• Sophia Fox-Dichter, Rutgers University - New Brunswick
  Presenting Author

• Andrea Hetling, Rutgers University - New Brunswick
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Kirsten Meidlinger, Rutgers University - New Brunswick
  Non-Presenting Co-Author