Greetings—


We wanted to share with you a
[link removed]
new blog post from Urban Institute researchers that further analyzes the potential impact of a proposal to require states to cover a portion of the costs of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).


Using the example of a recession of similar magnitude to the Great Recession, in which more people would need SNAP benefits, state budgets would take on additional costs ranging from $2 million per year in Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming to $92 million in Texas and $111 million in California.

[link removed]


To cover the additional SNAP costs a recession would cause, states would have to raise taxes, cut other spending, reduce SNAP benefits, or limit the number of households eligible for SNAP. Additionally, because SNAP is associated with lower health costs for adults, cutting SNAP may increase costs for programs like Medicaid, in which states already foot some of the bill.


Read the
[link removed]
blog post and
[link removed]
brief to learn more. If you have questions for the research team, please reply to this email so we can connect you.

Greetings—


As Congress considers spending cuts for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), one proposed option would require states to cover a portion of the costs. In a new analysis,
[link removed]
Urban Institute researchers explore what that might mean in a recession, contrasting potential outcomes under current law with those under a 10 percent state cost-share.


Using the example of a recession of similar magnitude to the Great Recession, the researchers estimate that under current law, with SNAP benefits fully paid by the federal government, American households would experience the following:
- 1.8 million households experiencing job loss would apply for and receive SNAP.
- 1.3 million households already participating in SNAP would qualify for higher benefits.
- 481,000 people in families experiencing job loss would be kept above the poverty level by the new or increased SNAP benefits. In contrast, under the same set of recession assumptions but with a 10 percent state cost-share,
[link removed]
the researchers find:
- States would need to spend an additional $980 million to cover increased benefit costs in the first year of the recession on top of what they would already be paying under a cost-share model.
- If states could not increase their spending during the recession and instead reduced benefits to keep costs down, all SNAP recipients would face an average annual benefit reduction of $327 and 862,000 people who would be above the poverty level if SNAP were fully funded would fall below the federal poverty level.
[link removed]
Read the report to learn more. For additional Urban analyses of legislative proposals being considered for the upcoming reconciliation process,
[link removed]
visit the webpage.


If you have questions for the research team, please reply to this email. We’re happy to connect you.


Thanks,


- The Stakeholder Outreach team

U R B A N I N S T I T U T E

[link removed]
www.urban.org




Urban Institute is a nonprofit research organization that believes in the power of evidence to improve people’s lives. Urban as an organization does not take policy positions but Urban’s independent experts are empowered to make recommendations based on their research.


You are receiving this email because External Affairs believes the featured information is relevant to your field of work. If you would like to stop receiving communications like this, please email
mailto:[email protected]?subject=Please remove me from External Affairs communications
[email protected] .









----------------------------------------
This email was sent by: Urban Institute
500 L’Enfant Plaza SW,
Washington, DC, 20024

Privacy Policy: [link removed]
Update Profile: [link removed]
Manage Subscriptions: [link removed]
Unsubscribe: [link removed]