Abstract
This cross-sectional study reports participant attitudes regarding 11 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program policies and stratified by self-reported political affiliation.
Introduction
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps millions of US families afford food each year. In 2024, policymakers proposed several changes to SNAP, including making unhealthy items ineligible for purchase, limiting the US Department of Agriculture’s ability to increase benefits, and allowing hot and prepared items to be purchased.1,2 Although not yet enacted, these changes remain a priority for many policymakers during ongoing Farm Bill discussions. To better understand SNAP participant support for policies that could materially alter the size and use of benefits, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of recent participants about their attitudes toward 11 policies.
Methods
SNAP Experiences 2024 surveyed SNAP participants from June 7 to 17, 2024, using the probability-based NORC AmeriSpeak panel, with a 22.3% recruitment rate (eAppendix 1 in Supplement 1 provides survey administration details). Respondents provided demographic information and answered questions about 11 SNAP policies, which were selected based on prior research evaluating policy perspectives of SNAP participants.3 The survey was fielded among US adults with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level who participated in SNAP for at least 3 months in 2023. Participants with missing policy support or political party were excluded, resulting in a sample size of 1656. The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this cross-sectional study. NORC’s IRB obtained written informed consent from all AmeriSpeak panel participants. We followed the STROBE reporting guideline.
We calculated the weighted proportion of respondents who supported each policy, with responses of somewhat support, support, and strongly support dichotomized as support (Appendix 2 in Supplement 1 for question wording). We used χ2 tests to compare support by political party, with leaners included with Democrats or Republicans, resulting in 3 categories: Democrat, Independent or none, and Republican. Survey weights were used to ensure representativeness of the sampled population. We conducted all analyses using Stata 18 (StataCorp LLC).
Results
A total of 1656 adults (55.6% females, 44.4% males; mean [SD] age, 45.5 [17.2] years) completed the survey. Of these respondents, 46.7% identified their political party as Democrat; 26.5% as Republican; and 26.8% as Independent, do not know, or none (Table 1).
Table 1. Unweighted and Weighted Sample Characteristics.
| Characteristic | Unweighted, No. (%) | Weighted, % |
|---|---|---|
| ESS | 1656 | 1634 |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 459 (27.7) | 44.4 |
| Female | 1197 (72.3) | 55.6 |
| Age, y | ||
| 18-29 | 168 (10.1) | 22.9 |
| 30-44 | 553 (33.4) | 29.2 |
| 45-59 | 446 (26.9) | 20.1 |
| ≥60 | 489 (29.5) | 27.8 |
| Race and ethnicitya | ||
| Black, non-Hispanic | 417 (25.2) | 23.0 |
| Hispanic | 289 (17.5) | 27.3 |
| White, non-Hispanic | 822 (49.6) | 39.2 |
| Other, non-Hispanicb | 128 (7.7) | 10.6 |
| Educational level | ||
| ≤High school diploma | 619 (37.4) | 61.8 |
| Some college or associate’s degree | 746 (45.0) | 28.2 |
| ≥Bachelor’s degree | 291 (17.6) | 10.0 |
| Marital status | ||
| Married | 449 (27.1) | 26.7 |
| Widowed, divorced, or separated | 547 (33.0) | 27.6 |
| Never married | 660 (39.9) | 45.7 |
| Household income, $ | ||
| <10 000 | 291 (17.6) | 18.4 |
| 10 000-19 999 | 426 (25.7) | 25.8 |
| 20 000-24 999 | 173 (10.4) | 12.0 |
| 25 000-34 999 | 304 (18.4) | 17.6 |
| 35 000-49 999 | 213 (12.9) | 11.5 |
| 50 000-99 999 | 249 (15.0) | 14.6 |
| Employment status | ||
| Employed | 749 (45.2) | 45.1 |
| Laid off or looking for work | 160 (9.7) | 12.2 |
| Not working (retired, disabled, or other) | 747 (45.1) | 42.7 |
| Metropolitan area residency | ||
| Not in a metropolitan area | 281 (17.0) | 15.4 |
| In a metropolitan area | 1375 (83.0) | 84.6 |
| Housing ownership | ||
| Owned or being bought | 631 (38.1) | 39.6 |
| Rented | 934 (56.4) | 55.2 |
| Occupied without payment of rent | 91 (5.5) | 5.2 |
| Region | ||
| Northeast | 229 (13.8) | 18.8 |
| Midwest | 455 (27.5) | 18.5 |
| South | 593 (35.8) | 41.8 |
| West | 379 (22.9) | 21.0 |
| Political party | ||
| Democrat | 818 (49.4) | 46.7 |
| Independent, do not know, or none | 409 (24.7) | 26.8 |
| Republican | 429 (25.9) | 26.5 |
Abbreviation: ESS, effective sample size.
Race and ethnicity were self-reported by study participants. Race and ethnicity were included in this study to assist in describing the sample, which informed the national estimates of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants’ policy support in 2024 and may be useful in comparing to prior estimates.
Other category included 70 respondents who identified as non-Hispanic and 2 or more races, 34 who identified as non-Hispanic and Asian or Pacific Islander, and 24 who identified as other, non-Hispanic.
Table 2 displays support for 11 SNAP policies, stratified by respondents’ political party. Overall, 8 policies had majority support: increase SNAP minimum benefit (79.9%; 95% CI, 76.6%-83.1%), increase benefits by 15% (78.8%; 95% CI, 75.5%-82.0%), provide extra funds for healthy foods (74.5%; 95% CI, 71.2%-77.8%), allow prepared foods (72.9%; 95% CI, 69.5%-76.2%), provide extra funds for fruits and vegetables (69.9%; 95% CI, 66.4%-73.4%), increase nutrition education funding (64.9%; 95% CI, 61.4%-68.4%), require SNAP stores to stock healthy items (62.7%; 95% CI, 59.1%-66.3%), and increase SNAP distribution frequency (61.5%; 95% CI, 58.0%-65.1%). Three policies had below-majority support: exclude candy (30.4%; 95% CI, 27.1%-33.7%), exclude sugary drinks (28.9%; 95% CI, 25.8%-32.0%), and prohibit SNAP stores from advertising unhealthy items (24.5%; 95% CI, 21.5%-27.6%). Although support for some policies differed significantly by political party, each policy with majority support overall also had support from most SNAP participants in each party.
Table 2. SNAP Policy Support Among All Adult Participants and Stratified by Political Party.
| SNAP policies | Participants by political party, % (95% CI) | P valuea | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All adults | Democrat | Independent | Republican | ||
| Increase SNAP minimum benefit | 79.9 (76.6-83.1) | 85.2 (80.9-89.4) | 72.0 (65.2-78.7) | 78.4 (71.8-85.0) | <.001 |
| Increase benefits by 15% | 78.8 (75.5-82.0) | 83.2 (78.9-87.5) | 70.6 (63.8-77.4) | 79.3 (72.6-86.0) | .01 |
| Provide extra funds for healthy foods | 74.5 (71.2-77.8) | 78.0 (73.5-82.5) | 69.2 (62.4-76.0) | 73.5 (66.8-80.2) | .10 |
| Allow prepared foods | 72.9 (69.5-76.2) | 78.2 (73.8-82.6) | 61.7 (54.5-69.0) | 74.8 (68.3-81.2) | <.001 |
| Provide extra funds for fruits and vegetables | 69.9 (66.4-73.4) | 74.9 (70.2-79.5) | 61.8 (54.7-69.0) | 69.3 (62.2-76.4) | .01 |
| Increase nutrition education funding | 64.9 (61.4-68.4) | 67.6 (62.6-72.5) | 65.7 (58.9-72.5) | 59.4 (52.3-66.6) | .17 |
| Require SNAP stores to stock healthy items | 62.7 (59.1-66.3) | 66.7 (61.7-71.6) | 57.8 (50.6-65.0) | 60.8 (53.4-68.3) | .12 |
| Increase SNAP distribution frequency | 61.5 (58.0-65.1) | 66.6 (61.4-71.7) | 57.4 (50.3-64.5) | 56.8 (49.7-63.9) | .04 |
| Exclude candy | 30.4 (27.1-33.7) | 31.4 (26.6-36.2) | 25.8 (19.5-32.1) | 33.3 (26.8-39.9) | .23 |
| Exclude sugary drinks | 28.9 (25.8-32.0) | 29.2 (24.8-33.5) | 26.4 (20.0-32.8) | 31.0 (24.8-37.1) | .58 |
| Prohibit SNAP stores from advertising unhealthy items | 24.5 (21.5-27.6) | 26.1 (21.5-30.6) | 22.0 (16.2-27.8) | 24.4 (18.6-30.2) | .57 |
Abbreviation: SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
P values of policy support differences by political party were calculated using χ2 tests. Two-sided P < .05 indicated statistical significance.
Discussion
This nationally representative study found that most SNAP participants, regardless of political affiliation, supported policies to expand SNAP, whereas restrictive policies were broadly unpopular. These findings highlight multiple potentially bipartisan strategies for expanding SNAP that could improve food access and diet quality. For example, similar to past studies, this study found high levels of support for increasing SNAP benefits for healthy foods specifically; evidence suggests increased benefits for healthy foods can improve diet quality and may be cost-effective due to reduced health care spending.4,5,6
Study limitations include variation in participants' understanding of policy options and potential nonresponse bias. Although survey weights helped address nonresponse bias, it may still exist due to unobserved differences between respondents and nonrespondents.
As part of Farm Bill discussions, policymakers concerned about SNAP participants’ diet quality may consider prioritizing these policies and other proposals to expand SNAP, given their broad, bipartisan support.
eAppendix 1. Survey Administration Details
eAppendix 2. SNAP Policy Question Wording
Data Sharing Statement
References
- 1.Llobrera J. House Agriculture Committee Chairman proposes cut in SNAP benefits, reversing bipartisan directive to improve the Thrifty Food Plan. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Accessed August 8, 2024. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-agriculture-committee-chairman-proposes-cut-in-snap-benefits-reversing-bipartisan
- 2.Congress must protect and strengthen SNAP and other federal nutrition programs. June 2024. Food Research & Action Center. Accessed September 29, 2024. https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/SNAP-Leave-Behind-2024.pdf
- 3.Wolfson J, Leung C, Moran A. Meeting the moment: policy changes to strengthen SNAP and improve health. Milbank Quarterly Opinion. April 13, 2021. Accessed September 29, 2024. https://www.milbank.org/quarterly/opinions/meeting-the-moment-policy-changes-to-strengthen-snap-and-improve-health/
- 4.Franckle RL, Polacsek M, Bleich SN, et al. Support for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) policy alternatives among US adults, 2018. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(7):993-995. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Karpyn A, Pon J, Grajeda SB, et al. Understanding impacts of SNAP fruit and vegetable incentive program at farmers’ markets: findings from a 13 state RCT. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(12):7443. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19127443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Choi SE, Seligman H, Basu S. Cost effectiveness of subsidizing fruit and vegetable purchases through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Am J Prev Med. 2017;52(5):e147-e155. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.12.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
eAppendix 1. Survey Administration Details
eAppendix 2. SNAP Policy Question Wording
Data Sharing Statement
