An Overview of SNAP

by Sarah Terzo

—

Myths Vs. Reality

Many people claim that programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) allow lazy people to avoid working. They imagine a “welfare queen” who lives high on the hog on government benefits while refusing to work. They resent their tax dollars going to help such a person.

People aren’t eating lobster and steak on SNAP. The average monthly benefit is $157 per person. Next time you go shopping, check your grocery bill to get an idea of how much that covers.

Second, only a tiny fraction of people on SNAP are nondisabled adults who aren’t working. Let’s look at some statistics.  

The Vast Majority of People on SNAP are Disabled, Elderly, or Children

Here are some numbers. In 2022, nearly 40% of those receiving food stamps were children (with 11.6% of those younger than five). People 60 or older made up 18.3% of recipients.

And in 2015, 28% of adults under age 60 who received SNAP were disabled, meaning either they received disability-related benefits or reported health problems.

Using available numbers from 2015 about the total number of people who receive SNAP and specifically adults 18-59 without disabilities who receive SNAP, we can estimate that about 30% of SNAP recipients are non-disabled adults of working age.

This means that 70% of SNAP recipients are disabled, elderly, or children.

Now, let’s look at households. In 2019-2020, 36% of households that received SNAP benefits contained at least one member who was older or disabled, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In addition, 65% of households receiving SNAP had children in them.

Most Nondisabled Adults on SNAP Are Working Full-Time

According to the US Government Accountability Office, 51% of adults on SNAP (between the ages of 19 and 64) were working full-time in 2018. An additional 21% were working full-time part of the year (49 weeks or less). Thus, over 70% of those on SNAP between the ages of 19-64 were working full-time for at least part of the year.

The remaining 30% would include at least some of the 28% of people on SNAP who are disabled.

And these numbers don’t include those working part-time.

Wages are so low, and the cost of living so high, that many people working full-time can’t afford food.

My friend who worked in a homeless shelter told me many people she worked with had full-time jobs, but still couldn’t afford housing. They slept in their cars, showered at the shelter, then went to their jobs.

These were all single men only trying to support themselves. A single parent trying to raise kids would have an even harder time making ends meet.

It’s impossible to get an exact percentage for people on SNAP who aren’t disabled, are of working age, and aren’t working. Statistics are from different years, some disabled people work, and some people work part-time and aren’t included in any of these percentages.

However, if only around 30% of people on SNAP are nondisabled adults of working age, to begin with, and we know that 70% of working-age people on SNAP are working full time at least part of the year, and at least some of the remaining people are working part-time, we can guess that the percentage of able-bodied people on SNAP who aren’t working at all is very low.

We can surmise that the vast majority of people on SNAP are disabled, older, children, or working.

What About Those Who Aren’t Working? 

For the small percentage of SNAP beneficiaries who aren’t working, and who will lose their benefits when the work requirements recently pushed through Congress go into effect, most have very good reasons for not working. 

Many are in the process of looking for jobs, but due to a lack of education or the area they live in, they can’t find a place to hire them. 

Many of those who aren’t legally “disabled” but on SNAP have chronic illnesses or health problems that don’t qualify them for disability (which is extremely hard to get) but interfere with their ability to find and hold a job. 

Others cannot work because they are caregivers to elderly or disabled relatives. Still others are homeless. 

Yet none of the people in these categories are exempt from the work requirements that will soon go into effect for SNAP. 

Caregivers will have to choose between abandoning their family members or having the family go hungry. Homeless people, who are sleeping on the street with no access to showers or clean clothing, must somehow find jobs. Those with chronic illnesses who are in the process of applying for disability (a process that can take years) or who so far have not been able to qualify will simply go hungry. 

Most People Are on SNAP Only Temporarily

In contrast to the myth of the lazy person living on food stamps, most people are on SNAP only for a short time.

According to data from 2012, over 30% of SNAP participants were off benefits within a year. Almost 50% were off them within two years. And over 60% were off within three years.

SNAP is often a temporary safety net utilized only until people or families get back on their feet.

SNAP and Abortion

Many pregnant people have abortions because they can’t provide for a child or another child. In a study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 73% of people having abortions gave not being able to afford a baby as a reason.

Only 16% of US women of childbearing age live below the poverty line. But in 2014, they had 49% of all abortions in the country.

Thus, about half of all abortions are done on the country’s poorest women. Sixteen percent of American women are having half of all abortions.  

Additionally, 26% of women having abortions had incomes of 100% to 199% of the poverty line. They are the second-poorest women in our country. Yet they make up only 18% of the population.

A relatively small proportion of the US population is having the majority of abortions, and they are the poorest groups in our society. The 66% of American women who are not poor or close to poor account for only about a quarter of women having abortions.

In other words, for every abortion a middle-class or wealthy person in the US has, there are three abortions among the nation’s poor.

Having a child is something many poor people feel they cannot afford. Researcher Laura Hussey, in her book The Pro-Life Pregnancy Help Movement: Serving Women or Saving Babies? (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2020), asked women who had abortions the following question:

Other countries provide a lot of assistance to women and their families that the government, employers, and schools in the US do not provide. These countries give women things like free childcare, free healthcare, money they can use to pay their family’s expenses, and the chance to take months or even years off of work with pay after giving birth.

Would you have made a different decision about your pregnancy if you could get that kind of help? (pp. 207-208)

Twenty-two percent of the women who responded said that if such programs had been available, they would have rejected abortion and had their babies. Another 34% said they were unsure.

Only 44% of the women said they still would have aborted. This means more than half of the people having abortions might have changed their minds if the United States had a better social safety net.  

Government programs to help the poor, then, would save the lives of between 22% and 56% of babies being aborted today.

Overturning Roe v. Wade didn’t do that. Abortions are more common now than they were before Dobbs. The abortion rate has not gone down since Roe was overturned—it’s gone up.

For those of us who hoped overturning Roe would prevent most abortions, we have been sorely disappointed. When you factor in people who are ordering the abortion pill online (an unknown but likely high number), the situation is even more dire.

Twenty-two percent of one million abortions is 220,000. We pro-lifers have the power to save at least 220,000 babies a year just by creating a more robust social safety net.

And this is something we could easily do. Most pro-abortion people won’t fight us on it.

Some have pointed out problems with government safety net programs. The answer is to reform them, not eliminate them.

Cutting SNAP could lead to more babies being aborted as parents struggle to put food on the table. It’s a step in the wrong direction.

Take a moment to tell Congress to undo the cuts to SNAP.