Poster #117 - Addressing the SNAP Benefit Cycle: Evidence from State-Level Emergency Allotment Patterns

• In Event: Saturday Poster Luncheon

Abstract

Introduction: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the largest food safety net in the United States. Although SNAP participation reduces food insecurity by approximately 30%, over half of SNAP participants reported food insecurity in 2024. Over 80% of SNAP benefits are redeemed within two weeks of receipt, leaving many households without benefits in the final weeks of each month. A split issuance schedule, where benefits are distributed across two monthly allotments, has been proposed to address this issue, but would require Congressional action and has never been implemented nationally.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, states had discretion in distributing Emergency Allotments (EAs), which increased the monthly SNAP benefit to the maximum amount for that household size beginning March 18, 2020. On January 1, 2021, all benefits were increased by an additional 15%. States distributed EAs differently: some delivered EAs with regular SNAP allotments, while others issued them in a separate allotment. This natural policy variation provides an opportunity to test whether split issuance reduces food insufficiency.

Methods: We merged Household Pulse Survey data (August 2020–March 2021; N=31,857) with a novel database of state EA disbursement schedules created from USDA waiver approvals, creating nine pre-policy waves and six post-policy waves. States were classified as one-allotment (EA within 4 days of regular allotment, n = 18 states) or two-allotment (EA ≥5 days from regular allotment, n = 22 states). Ten states with inconsistent allotment schedules were excluded. We used a triple-difference model comparing SNAP-eligible participants to SNAP-eligible non-participants, before and after the January 1, 2021, 15% increase, stratified by state allotment structure. Models included demographic controls and state and week fixed effects. The outcome was binary food insufficiency in the past 7 days. 

Results: Following the 15% SNAP increase, food insufficiency declined by 0.9 percentage points (p = 0.561, 95% CI: [-0.039 - 0.021]) among SNAP participants in one-allotment states compared to SNAP-eligible non-participants and 2.9 percentage points among SNAP participants in two-allotment states compared to SNAP-eligible non-participants  The differential effect between two vs. one allotment SNAP participants was 0.8 percentage points, which was not statistically significant. No significant effects were observed for mental health outcomes or other food-related measures.

Conclusions: This analysis represents the first quasi-experimental test of split SNAP issuance on food insufficiency. We observed no statistically significant differences between states distributing benefits in one versus two allotments. These null findings may reflect the broader COVID-19 safety net expansion, where other concurrent policies, along with elevated benefit levels, masked the effects of allotment timing alone. Future research and pilot testing of SNAP split issuance outside of the COVID-19 policy environment should be conducted.

Author

• Elise Sheinberg, Harvard University
  Presenting Author