General · EdgepediaSeptember 17, 20269 min read

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the United States' largest nutrition assistance program, providing monthly food benefits to low-income households through Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards that are redeemed at authorized food retailers. Administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in cooperation with state social service agencies, it served an average of 42.1 million participants per month in fiscal year 2025 at an annual federal cost of $101.7 billion, accounting for 69 percent of USDA nutrition assistance spending.¹

Key fact	Detail
Purpose	Provides food benefits to low-income families to supplement their grocery budgets so they can afford nutritious food²
Scale, FY 2025	42.1 million participants per month on average; $101.7 billion in annual federal cost; 69 percent of USDA nutrition assistance spending¹
Authorizing law	Title IV (Nutrition Title) of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, which maintains basic eligibility guidelines and work requirements¹
Administration	USDA pays the full cost of benefits and sets regulations; states determine eligibility, calculate benefit amounts, and issue benefits on EBT cards³
Origins	First Food Stamp Program in 1939; permanent program established by the Food Stamp Act of 1964⁴
Economic multiplier	$1 billion in new benefits during a slowing economy raises GDP by $1.54 billion and supports 13,560 jobs⁵
Payment accuracy, FY 2023	Estimated 11.7 percent of benefits paid were improper, about $10.5 billion of $90.1 billion in outlays⁶

History

The first Food Stamp Program, 1939 to 1943. The idea is credited to various people, most notably Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace and the program's first administrator, Milo Perkins. People on relief bought orange stamps equal to their normal food expenditures, and for every $1 of orange stamps purchased received 50 cents worth of blue stamps; orange stamps could buy any food, while blue stamps could buy only foods the Department determined to be surplus. The first recipient was Mabel McFiggin of Rochester, New York, on May 16, 1939. Over nearly four years the program reached about 20 million people at one time or another in nearly half of U.S. counties, with peak participation of 4 million at a total cost of $262 million. It ended in the spring of 1943, when the unmarketable food surpluses and widespread unemployment that had brought it into being no longer existed.⁴

Pilot programs and permanence, 1961 to 1964. After eighteen years of studies and legislative proposals, President Kennedy's first Executive Order called for expanded food distribution, and on February 2, 1961 he announced pilot food stamp programs. The pilots retained the requirement that stamps be purchased but eliminated special surplus-food stamps. Isabelle Kelley, part of the four-person team that designed the new program, became its first director and the first woman at USDA to head an action program. The first recipients were Mr. and Mrs. Alderson Muncy of Paynesville, West Virginia, on May 29, 1961, who bought $95 in stamps for their 15-person household and used them to purchase a can of pork and beans. By January 1964 the pilots had expanded to 43 areas in 22 states with 380,000 participants.⁴ On January 31, 1964, President Johnson asked Congress to make the program permanent, and the Food Stamp Act of 1964 (PL 88-525) passed with the stated purposes of strengthening the agricultural economy and improving nutrition among low-income households.⁴

Expansion and standardization, 1965 to 1974. Participation grew rapidly, primarily through geographic expansion: from 561,261 people in April 1965 to 1 million in March 1966, 3 million in February 1969, 10 million in February 1971, and 15 million in October 1974.⁴ The Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1970 established uniform national eligibility standards, required allotments to equal the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet, limited household purchase requirements to 30 percent of income, and expanded the program to Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 required expansion to every political jurisdiction before July 1, 1974 and added seeds and plants that produce food for human consumption to eligible purchases.⁴

Modernization. Electronic Benefit Transfer was developed between 1988 and 2004, replacing paper stamps with card-based benefits.⁴ Later legislative markers include the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996), the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (2002), the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (2008), the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (2009), the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (2010), and the Agricultural Act of 2014.⁴

How the program works

Federal statute and regulation set household eligibility rules, including income tests and work-related requirements, and USDA's Food and Nutrition Service oversees the state functions while handling most retailer matters.⁷ States determine applicant eligibility, calculate benefit amounts, and issue benefits on EBT cards; USDA pays the full cost of the benefits and ensures state compliance with program rules.³ Nonfinancial eligibility criteria include school status, citizenship or legal immigration status, residency, household composition, work requirements, and disability status.⁸

Work requirements have been part of the program since the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 conditioned benefits for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) on satisfying work requirements.⁹ Recipients must meet such requirements to receive benefits beyond a limited period, and USDA may approve waivers of the ABAWD requirement in specific circumstances.⁹

Where benefits are spent

SNAP benefits must be spent on food purchased at grocery stores, supercenters, and other authorized food retailers, but most participants spend their own cash in addition to benefits to buy adequate food.⁵ In 2024, recipients redeemed a little more than $96 billion in benefits; the majority, 74 percent, was spent at superstores and supermarkets, a category including large chains such as Walmart and Kroger, and around 14 percent at smaller grocery and convenience stores.¹⁰ The program also shapes the retail landscape itself: retailers choose locations based on demand, and SNAP participation is part of that demand.¹¹

Economic effects

Because low-income households spend most benefits soon after receiving them, SNAP acts as an automatic stabilizer: during downturns, more people become eligible and enroll, and their spending generates income for those who produce, transport, and market food and other goods.⁵ An Economic Research Service analysis estimated that during a slowing economy, $1 billion in new SNAP benefits would raise GDP by $1.54 billion and support 13,560 jobs, including nearly 500 agricultural jobs. The largest effects fall on the trade and transportation industries, which would gain $406 million in income and 4,450 jobs, while agriculture industries would gain $32 million and 480 jobs. The relatively modest farm share reflects the non-farm inputs in food prices and the fact that imports, almost 13 percent of U.S. food and beverage spending in 2016, generate no domestic farm income.⁵

The spending effect on food is larger for SNAP than for cash assistance: each additional $1 of benefits raises food-at-home spending by an estimated 30 cents, whereas $1 of cash assistance raises it by 5 to 10 cents, a difference attributed partly to SNAP's targeting toward food at home.⁵

Food security and benefit adequacy

Research reviewed by the National Academies found that, although the prevalence of food insecurity is relatively high among SNAP participants, it would be even higher absent SNAP benefits; in other words, SNAP benefits reduce households' likelihood of food insecurity.¹² USDA has asked the Institute of Medicine to examine whether an objective, evidence-based definition of benefit adequacy could be established consistent with the program's goals of improving food security and access to a healthy diet.¹³

Payment integrity

For fiscal year 2023, USDA estimated that 11.7 percent of SNAP benefits paid were improper, meaning payments were the wrong amount or otherwise should not have been made, about $10.5 billion of $90.1 billion in outlays excluding disaster benefits; this was up from the prior year's estimate of 11.5 percent, about $8.8 billion of $76.0 billion.⁶ USDA's Food and Nutrition Service develops the national estimate through a two-tiered quality control process: state agencies review their own eligibility determinations, and FNS regional offices independently review a subsample of about half the cases states submit, roughly 25,000 cases each year.⁶

Changes under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 made some of the most substantial changes in the program's history, altering eligibility factors including work requirements and non-citizen eligibility.⁴^•¹⁴ The act expanded requirements for many adult recipients to work, volunteer, or participate in job training at least 80 hours per month, raised the age limit for ABAWD work requirements from 54 to 64, and removed exemptions for homeless people and veterans as well as eligibility for many lawful immigrants.¹⁵^•¹⁶ Those who do not meet the requirements are limited to three months of benefits in a three-year period, and implementation dates vary by state.¹⁵

Participation fell by nearly 4.3 million people from January 2025 to January 2026 according to preliminary USDA data. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins attributed the decrease to reduced fraud and an improved economy, but experts cited by the Associated Press say the primary driver was the new legislation; the law also shifted a portion of administrative costs to the states.¹⁷ The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated participation fell by more than 4.5 million people between the act's July 2025 enactment and April 2026.¹⁶ Food banks and small grocers report immediate effects: grocers often operate on profit margins of 1 to 2 percent, and advocates have urged Congress to delay the act's cost-sharing deadline.¹⁰^•¹⁶

References

Topic: Encyclopedia › Society and history › Politics and government › Government and public administration › Civil service, government agencies, and public administration › United States federal government

Initially written Sep 17, 2026 · Reviewed: Sep 30, 2026; Oct 25, 2026 · Edited: Sep 30, 2026; Oct 25, 2026 · Last review: Oct 25, 2026

Notice something wrong?