Effect of the Reevaluated Thrifty Food Plan and Emergency Allotments (Urban Institute)
Summary
Urban Institute brief by Laura Wheaton and Danielle Kwon, dated August 2022, supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It examines the reevaluated Thrifty Food Plan, which increased the maximum SNAP benefit 21 percent, and temporary COVID-19 “emergency allotments” in the fourth quarter of 2021, using the ATTIS microsimulation model. The authors estimate that the higher benefits from the reevaluated plan kept nearly 2.3 million people out of poverty and that emergency allotments kept 4.2 million people out of poverty. They estimate that the combined effect reduced poverty by 14.1 percent in states with emergency allotments.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Archived web capture. Preserved source — captured from www.urban.org; archived 2026-09-30.
Cite this document
“Effect of the Reevaluated Thrifty Food Plan and Emergency Allotments (Urban Institute).”
Original at www.urban.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/urban-institute-effect-of-the-reevaluated-thrifty-food-plan-and-emerge-262c7b47e4/
, SHA-256 b42013cb5d85cc2bb8055f3a20af04316a95f48eac7063aee04bd443915d7973.Full text
Support for this research was
provided by the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation. The views
expressed here do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Foundation.
Effect of the Reevaluated Thrifty Food
Plan and Emergency Allotments on
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Benefits and Poverty
Created with ATTIS
Laura Wheaton and Danielle Kwon
August 2022
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the nutritional cornerstone
of the nation’s safety net, providing monthly benefits to help millions of Americans to
purchase food. In this brief, we examine the individual and combined effects of two
policies affecting SNAP benefits in the fourth quarter of 2021: (1) a reevaluation of the
Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) that increased the maximum SNAP benefit 21 percent, and (2)
“emergency allotments,” a temporary measure enacted in response to the COVID-19
pandemic that provides SNAP participants in participating states with the maximum
SNAP benefit for their family size. We estimate the effects of these policies on SNAP
benefits and quarterly poverty using the Urban Institute’s Analysis of Transfers, Taxes,
and Income Security (ATTIS) microsimulation model.
We estimate that the SNAP benefit increases from the reevaluated TFP and emergency allotments
substantially reduced poverty in the fourth quarter of 2021 relative to the estimated poverty rate in
that quarter without these policies. The higher benefits from the reevaluated TFP will continue to have
important antipoverty effects, but the emergency allotments are temporary measures in response to
the pandemic. Emergency allotments have ended in some states and will end nationwide following the
end of the federally declared COVID-19 public health emergency.1
We focus on the fourth quarter of 2021 because the higher benefits from the reevaluated TFP took
effect in October 2021 and emergency allotments were still in effect in all but eight states. We project
data to reflect 2021 from the 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) because actual ACS data for
2021 are not yet available. We assess poverty with the Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), which
incorporates the value of SNAP and other noncash benefits. Key findings from our projected data
include the following:
The increase in SNAP benefits from the reevaluated TFP kept nearly 2.3 million people out of
poverty in the fourth quarter of 2021, reducing poverty by 4.7 percent relative to a scenario
without TFP reevaluation in which SNAP benefits were lower. Child poverty was reduced by
8.6 percent, and the greatest decrease was among Black, non-Hispanic2 children for whom
poverty fell by 12.2 percent.
The reevaluated TFP would have had larger antipoverty effects in October to December 2021
if two major pandemic-related benefits, emergency allotments and the advance child tax credit
(CTC), had not been in effect. Without the poverty reduction achieved by emergency
allotments and the advance CTC, we estimate that the higher SNAP benefits from the
reevaluated TFP would have kept 2.9 million people out of poverty.
We estimate that emergency allotments kept 4.2 million people out of poverty in the fourth
quarter of 2021, reducing poverty by 9.6 percent in states with emergency allotments, relative
to a scenario in which emergency allotments were eliminated. Child poverty was reduced by
14.0 percent in states with emergency allotments and was reduced most among Black, non-
Hispanic children, falling by 18.4 percent.
The combined effect of the reevaluated TFP and emergency allotments reduced poverty by
14.1 percent in states with emergency allotments and reduced child poverty by 21.8 percent
relative to a scenario without these benefit expansions.
The emergency allotments and the reevaluated TFP reduced poverty among all racial and
ethnic groups, and the greatest reductions in poverty occurred among Black, non-Hispanic
people and Hispanic people, narrowing the difference in poverty rates of these groups relative
to white, non-Hispanic people. The estimated effect for non-Hispanic Asian Americans and
Pacific Islanders is less than the effect for non-Hispanic white people, slightly increasing the
estimated difference in poverty rates between these two groups.
We provide additional details about the poverty measure, the reevaluated TFP, emergency allotments,
and the estimated effects of these policies in the sections below.
Poverty Measure
We use the ATTIS model to estimate the effect of emergency allotments and the reevaluated TFP on
poverty in the fourth quarter of 2021. Because household survey data used for poverty estimates are
not yet available for 2021, we project data from the 2018 ACS to reflect 2021 (see box 1).
2 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
We use the SPM, an expanded poverty measure that uses a broad measure of family resources. The
SPM considers not only a family’s cash income but also their tax payments, child care, other work-
related expenses, medical out-of-pocket expenses, tax credits, and in-kind benefits such as housing
subsidies and nutrition help. The SPM counts a dollar of SNAP benefits as equivalent to a dollar of cash,
increasing the family’s resources by the dollar amount of the family’s SNAP benefit. A family is counted
as living in poverty if their resources are below a given threshold based on family size; number of
children; geographic location; and whether the family rents, owns their home with a mortgage, or owns
their home without a mortgage.
We base our approach on the Census Bureau’s SPM methodology (Fox 2019; Fox, Glassman, and
Pacas 2020) and adapt it for use with projected ATTIS data for the fourth quarter of 2021. To calculate
quarterly resources for the SPM, we count each family’s projected income and benefits for the fourth
quarter of 2021, assume perfect withholding of federal and state income taxes, and subtract taxes paid
on fourth-quarter income from family resources. We count the advance CTC payments distributed in
October to December 2021 as income but do not count other refundable tax credits or stimulus checks
received in earlier months of the year.
To develop the 2021 projected SPM thresholds, we begin with the 2019 SPM thresholds developed
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for renters and for owners with and without a mortgage, adjust for
inflation between 2019 and 2021, apply the Census Bureau’s adjustments for family size and number of
children, and apply the geographic adjustments developed by the Census Bureau.3 We then assign the
thresholds to families in the projected 2021 data.
The average projected 2021 annual SPM poverty threshold is $13,667 for a one-person family,
$24,516 for a family with one adult and two children, and $33,183 for a married couple with three
children.4 The projected thresholds are lowest for families in rural Arkansas who own their home
without a mortgage, at $9,733 for a one-person family, $17,437 for a family with one adult and two
children, and $23,394 for a married couple with three children. The projected thresholds are highest for
families who own their own home, are paying a mortgage, and live in the San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa
Clara, California, metropolitan area. These families have projected thresholds of $21,845 for a one-
person family, $39,135 for a family with one adult and two children, and $52,505 for a married couple
with three children. We divide the annual poverty threshold by four to obtain a quarterly amount for
use in determining a family’s poverty level in October to December 2021.
EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS 3
BOX 1
Analytic Approach
We model the effects of emergency allotments and the reevaluated Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) using the
Urban Institute’s Analysis of Transfers, Taxes, and Income Security (ATTIS) microsimulation model.a
ATTIS is a powerful tool that provides national and state estimates using data from the US Census
Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS).b The model simulates eligibility and benefits for public
programs and assigns participation to eligible households so the size and characteristics of the
simulated caseload match those of the actual caseload. Rules governing eligibility and benefits for
various public assistance programs are coded into the model, so it can simulate the effects of changes in
any of those rules.
For this analysis, we use 2018 ACS data that have been modified to represent projected
employment, income, and safety net program eligibility and participation in 2021. We use projected
data because 2021 ACS survey data are not yet available. We build on our previously released 2021
annual projections (Wheaton, Giannarelli, and Dehry 2021), updating them to reflect SNAP eligibility
rules and participation levels in the fourth quarter of 2021.c Our SNAP projections match Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) datad for the average monthly number of participating SNAP households in
October to December 2021 by state, exceed FNS data for the number of participating people by 7
percent, and exceed FNS data for distributed SNAP benefits by 3 percent. We project that 35 percent of
SNAP benefits paid in October to December 2021 are emergency allotments, close to the
approximately 33 percent paid as emergency allotments according to FNS data.
a
“ATTIS Microsimulation Model,” Urban Institute, https://www.urban.org/research-methods/attis-microsimulation-model.
b
We use the version of the ACS made available by the University of Minnesota’s Integrated Public Use Microdata Series project
(Ruggles et al. 2020).
b
See Giannarelli, Wheaton, and Acs (2020) for additional background regarding the ATITS model’s approach to poverty
projection.
c
“January 2022 Keydata Report,” USDA Food and Nutrition Services, accessed April 18, 2022,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/data/keydata-report.
Policies Analyzed
We model the individual and combined effects of two policies affecting SNAP benefits in the fourth
quarter of 2021: (1) a reevaluation of the TFP that increased the maximum SNAP benefit 21 percent
(increasing benefits for all recipients, including those receiving less than the maximum benefit); and (2)
emergency allotments, a response to the COVID-19 pandemic during the federal public health
emergency. Without emergency allotments, a family’s SNAP benefit is phased out as their income rises.
Emergency allotments provide all eligible families with the maximum benefit for their family size and
guarantee a monthly increase of at least $95 for families that are already at or near the maximum
benefit. We provide additional details about the TFP and emergency allotments below.
Thrifty Food Plan
The TFP is designed to provide healthy meals prepared at home and is the lowest cost of the four food
plans by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that describe the cost of a healthy diet (USDA 2021).
Each year’s June TFP defines the maximum monthly SNAP benefit for the following federal fiscal year.
The maximum SNAP benefit is based on the June TFP for a reference family of four people, consisting of
4 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
a man and woman ages 20 to 50, one child between ages 6 and 8, and one child between ages 9 and 11.
The maximum SNAP benefit is then adjusted for differences in family size. The maximum SNAP benefit
is adjusted at the beginning of the federal fiscal year (October) based on the June TFP and remains
unchanged until the following October.
The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-334, the 2018 Farm Bill) required that the
USDA reevaluate the TFP by 2022 and repeat the reevaluation every five years. Prior updates to the
TFP required that updates be cost neutral after adjusting for inflation. The 2021 TFP was reevaluated
based on current dietary guidance, consumption patterns, food composition data, and current food
prices, without requiring cost neutrality. The resulting June 2021 TFP of $835.57 per month for the
reference family is 21 percent higher than if it had been based on the prior TFP when adjusted for
inflation. The TFP is the same for the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia and is
determined separately for Alaska and Hawaii to reflect the higher price of food in these states. The
USDA made a temporary adjustment to the TFP for Alaska and Hawaii in 2021 and plans to fully update
the Alaska and Hawaii TFPs in 2022.
FIGURE 1
Effect of Reevaluated TFP on Monthly SNAP Benefit for Hypothetical Families
By family size and monthly net income level, federal fiscal year 2022
Benefits without reevaluated TFP Increase from reevaluated TFP
In dollars
1 person, $0 207 43 250
1 person, $585 32 43 75
1 adult, 2 kids, $0 544 114 658
1 adult, 2 kids, $1,637 53 114 167
Married couple, 3 kids, $0 820 172 992
Married couple, 3 kids, $2,021 214 172 386
URBAN INSTITUTE
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Notes: SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; TFP = Thrifty Food Plan. Benefit levels are for families in the
contiguous US.
Figure 1 illustrates the effect of the TFP reevaluation on SNAP benefits for three example families:
a single individual, an adult with two children, and a married couple with three children. We show the
SNAP benefit without the TFP reevaluation, the increase in the benefit amount from the TFP
reevaluation, and the total benefit. The examples are for federal fiscal year 2022 (October 2021
through September 2022) and reflect the amounts that would be received in states in the contiguous US
that do not have emergency allotments. We show benefits for families without income who receive the
EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS 5
maximum benefit for their family size and for families whose monthly income makes them eligible for a
smaller benefit.5
A single individual without income would have received $207 per month in SNAP benefits in federal
fiscal year 2022 without the TFP reevaluation. They receive an additional $43 from the TFP
reevaluation, bringing their total monthly benefit to $250.
SNAP benefits generally decrease as family income increases because the SNAP benefit is
calculated by subtracting 30 percent of net monthly income (income after deductions) from the
maximum SNAP benefit for the family’s size.6 A single individual with net monthly income of $585
would receive $32 in monthly SNAP benefits without the TFP reevaluation, calculated by subtracting
30 percent of $585 ($175) from the maximum SNAP benefit of $207 for a single individual. Because the
reevaluated TFP increases the maximum SNAP allotment for a single individual by $43, the single
individual with net monthly income of $585 also receives a $43 increase in their monthly SNAP benefit,
bringing their total monthly benefit to $75.
The reevaluated TFP increases the SNAP benefit by $114 per month for a single adult with two
children, increasing the monthly benefit from $544 to $658 for a family without income and from $53 to
$167 for a family with $1,637 in monthly net income. A married couple with three children receives
$172 in additional benefits per month from the reevaluated TFP, increasing the SNAP benefit from
$820 to $992 for a family without income, and from $214 to $386 for a family with $2,021 in monthly
net income.
Emergency Allotments
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020 allows states to request waivers to provide the
maximum SNAP allotment to all households based on their household size. Because the SNAP benefit
formula reduces the SNAP benefit by $0.30 for each additional dollar of net income, emergency
allotments provide the largest benefit increase to relatively higher-income SNAP households who
receive the lowest benefits under the standard benefit rules. Before April 2021, households that were
already eligible for the maximum benefit did not receive any additional benefit from emergency
allotments. Beginning in April 2021, all SNAP households are guaranteed a monthly benefit increase of
at least $95 in states with emergency allotments.7
States can continue to provide emergency allotments so long as a federal government COVID-19
public health emergency declaration is in effect and the state has issued an emergency or disaster
declaration.8 All but eight states—Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, and South Dakota—provided emergency allotments in the fourth quarter of 2021.9 Since
January 31, 2020, the federal government public health emergency declaration has been extended for
successive 90-day intervals and was most recently renewed on July 15, 2022.10
Figure 2 illustrates the effect of the emergency allotment on the same three example families as
described in figure 1. SNAP benefits are calculated using the actual fiscal year 2022 values
(incorporating the effect of the reevaluated TFP) and are shown without and with emergency
allotments.
6 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
FIGURE 2
Effect of Emergency Allotment on Monthly SNAP Benefit for Hypothetical Families
By family size and monthly net income level and with reevaluated TFP, federal fiscal year 2022
Benefit without emergency allotment Increase from emergency allotment
In dollars
1 person, $0 250 95 345
1 person, $585 75 175 250
1 adult, 2 kids, $0 658 95 753
1 adult, 2 kids, $1,637 167 491 658
Married couple, 3 kids, $0 992 95 1087
Married couple, 3 kids, $2,021 386 606 992
URBAN INSTITUTE
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Notes: SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; TFP = Thrifty Food Plan. Benefit levels are for families in the
contiguous US.
Without emergency allotments, families without income receive the maximum benefit for their
family size. Emergency allotments increase the benefits for families without income by $95 per month,
raising the SNAP benefit from $250 to $345 for a single individual without income, from $658 to $753
for a family with one adult and two children without income, and from $992 to $1,087 for a married
couple and three children without income.
Without emergency allotments, families who have positive monthly net income receive less than
the maximum benefit for their family size. Emergency allotments increase the benefits for the example
families up to the maximum benefit amount for their family size, raising the benefit from $75 to $250
for a single individual with $585 in net monthly income, from $167 to $658 for a single adult with two
children who has $1,637 in net monthly income, and from $386 to $992 for a married couple with three
children who has $2,021 in net monthly income.11
Figure 3 illustrates the combined effect of the reevaluated TFP and emergency allotments on the
example families shown in figures 1 and 2. Without the reevaluated TFP and emergency allotments, a
single person with no income would receive $207 in monthly benefits. The combined effect of the
reevaluated TFP and emergency allotments increases their benefit by $138 to a total $345 in monthly
benefits. The combined effect of the reevaluated TFP and emergency allotments is much larger for
families with income than for families without income. The combination of these two changes increases
the monthly benefit for a single person with $585 in monthly net income from $32 per month to $250
per month, an increase of $218, whereas a single person without income receives a benefit increase of
$138. The monthly benefit for a married couple with three children and $2,021 in net monthly income
increases from $214 per month without the reevaluated TFP and emergency allotments to $992 per
EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS 7
month, an increase of $778 per month. By comparison, a married couple with three children and no
income receives a benefit increase of $267 per month, raising their monthly benefit from $820 to
$1,087.
FIGURE 3
Combined Effect of Reevaluated TFP and Emergency Allotment on Monthly SNAP Benefit for
Hypothetical Families
By family size and monthly net income level, federal fiscal year 2022
Benefit without reevaluated TFP and emergency allotment
Increase from reevaluated TFP and emergency allotment
In dollars
1 person, $0 207 138 345
1 person, $585 32 218 250
1 adult, 2 kids, $0 544 209 753
1 adult, 2 kids, $1,637 53 605 658
Married couple, 3 kids, $0 820 267 1087
Married couple, 3 kids, $2,021 214 778 992
URBAN INSTITUTE
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Notes: SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; TFP = Thrifty Food Plan. Benefit levels are for families in the
contiguous US.
Effect of the Thrifty Food Plan Reevaluation
We estimate that the increase in SNAP benefits arising from the reevaluated TFP kept nearly 2.3 million
people out of poverty in the fourth quarter of 2021, reducing the number of people with resources
below the SPM poverty threshold by 4.7 percent (table 1). This poverty reduction arose from an
estimated additional $1.8 billion per month distributed because of the reevaluated TFP, equivalent to
$37 per person receiving SNAP per month.12 We estimate that the number of people with resources
below half of the SPM poverty threshold (deep poverty) fell by 4.1 percent. The increased benefits from
the reevaluated TFP also reduced the depth of poverty among SNAP recipient families who remained
below poverty despite the benefit increase. The “poverty gap,” or amount needed to raise resources for
these families up to the SPM poverty threshold, fell from an average monthly amount of $318 per
person to $285 per person, for an average reduction of 10.3 percent. We estimate that the higher SNAP
benefits from the TFP reevaluation reduced the number of children below poverty by 8.6 percent, with
adults ages 18 to 59 years old and adults ages 60 and older experiencing smaller reductions at 3.9
percent and 2.9 percent, respectively.
Black, non-Hispanic people had the highest estimated percentage reduction in poverty of the
groups examined (6.9 percent). However, more white, non-Hispanic people were removed from poverty
than in the other groups (843,000), reflecting the relatively larger size of the white, non-Hispanic
population. Hispanic people had a 5.1 percent estimated poverty reduction, and white, non-Hispanic
8 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
people had a 4.0 percent estimated poverty reduction. The smallest estimated effect is among non-
Hispanic Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (a 2.0 percent poverty reduction). Because of data
limitations, we group together Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. However, people who identify as
Asian American or Pacific Islander are diverse and reflect many countries of origin and different
economic circumstances (Budiman and Ruiz 2021; Kochhar and Cilluffo 2018).13
TABLE 1
Estimated Effect of TFP Reevaluation on SNAP and Quarterly SPM Poverty
October to December 2021, numbers in thousands except per person averages
Without With
Reevaluated Reevaluated Percent
TFP TFP Change Change
Households receiving SNAP 21,434 21,660 226 1.1%
People receiving SNAP 43,494 44,428 934 2.1%
Total monthly SNAP benefits $8,485,516 $10,326,145 $1,840,629 21.7%
Average monthly SNAP per person $195 $232 $37 19.1%
People with income below poverty 48,029 45,753 -2,276 -4.7%
SPM poverty rate 14.9% 14.2% -0.7% -4.7%
SPM child poverty rate (<18) 14.7% 13.4% -1.3% -8.6%
Below 50% of SPM poverty level 15,569 14,929 -640 -4.1%
Deep poverty rate 4.8% 4.6% -0.2% -4.1%
Average monthly per person poverty gap
(in families with SNAP) $318 $285 -$33 -10.3%
People experiencing poverty
Age
Less than 18 years old 10,612 9,697 -915 -8.6%
18 to 59 years old 26,347 25,308 -1,039 -3.9%
60 years or older 11,069 10,748 -321 -2.9%
Race and ethnicity (all)
White, non-Hispanic 20,932 20,089 -843 -4.0%
Black, non-Hispanic 7,681 7,154 -527 -6.9%
Hispanic 14,172 13,454 -718 -5.1%
AAPI, non-Hispanic 3,351 3,283 -68 -2.0%
Race and ethnicity (under 18)
White, non-Hispanic 3,127 2,856 -271 -8.7%
Black, non-Hispanic 1,805 1,584 -221 -12.2%
Hispanic 4,497 4,154 -343 -7.6%
AAPI, non-Hispanic 558 540 -18 -3.2%
Source: Urban Institute ATTIS model applied to the 2018 American Community Survey data with employment, population, and
incomes projected to 2021.
Note: AAPI = Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; SPM = Supplemental
Poverty Measure; TFP = Thrifty Food Plan.
EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS 9
The relatively higher estimated poverty rate reductions for Black, non-Hispanic people and for
Hispanic people narrow the historical disparities in poverty rates between these groups and white, non-
Hispanic people.14 The poverty rate for white, non-Hispanic people falls from 10.9 percent without the
reevaluated TFP to 10.5 percent with the reevaluated TFP, while the poverty rate for Black, non-
Hispanic people falls from 19.6 percent to 18.2 percent (figure 4). Without the reevaluated TFP, the
estimated poverty rate for Black, non-Hispanic people is 8.7 percentage points above the rate for white,
non-Hispanic people (19.6 for Black, non-Hispanic people minus 10.9 for white, non-Hispanic people).
This difference narrows to 7.7 percentage points with the reevaluated TFP. The reevaluated TFP
reduces the estimated poverty rate for Hispanic people from 23.2 percent to 22.1 percent, narrowing
the gap between their rate and the rate for white, non-Hispanic people from 12.3 to 11.6 percentage
points. The estimated poverty rate for non-Hispanic Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders falls from
18.1 percent to 17.7 because of the reevaluated TFP. This 0.4 percentage point reduction matches the
percentage point reduction for white, non-Hispanic people, so the 7.2 percentage point difference in the
poverty rate for these two groups remains the same.
FIGURE 4
Estimated Effect of Higher SNAP Benefits from the Reevaluated TFP on Quarterly SPM Poverty Rate
By subgroup, October to December 2021
Without reevaluated TFP With reevaluated TFP
All ages
10.9%
White, non-Hispanic
10.5%
19.6%
Black, non-Hispanic
18.2%
23.2%
Hispanic
22.1%
18.1%
AAPI, non-Hispanic
17.7%
Under age 18
8.7%
White, non-Hispanic
7.9%
18.8%
Black, non-Hispanic
16.5%
24.1%
Hispanic
22.2%
16.3%
AAPI, non-Hispanic
15.8%
URBAN INSTITUTE
Source: Urban Institute ATTIS model applied to the 2018 American Community Survey data with employment, population, and
incomes projected to 2021.
Notes: AAPI = Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; SPM = Supplemental
Poverty Measure; TFP = Thrifty Food Plan.
The estimated percentage reduction in child poverty is greatest for Black, non-Hispanic children
(12.2 percent). A higher number of Hispanic children are estimated to be kept out of poverty than in
other groups shown here (343,000), reflecting the fact that more Hispanic children are estimated to
have resources below the SPM poverty threshold than children in any other racial or ethnic group. The
10 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
reevaluated TFP reduces the estimated poverty rate for Black, non-Hispanic children from 18.8 percent
to 16.5 percent and for Hispanic children from 24.1 percent to 22.2 percent.
The reevaluated TFP narrows the difference in the estimated Black, non-Hispanic child poverty rate
and white, non-Hispanic child poverty rate from 10.1 percentage points to 8.6 percentage points. The
gap for Hispanic children relative to white, non-Hispanic children narrows from 15.4 percentage points
to 14.3 percentage points. The antipoverty effect of the reevaluated TFP has a smaller effect on the
poverty rate for non-Hispanic Asian American and Pacific Islander children than among non-Hispanic
white children, so the difference in the estimated poverty rates of these groups increases slightly from
7.6 percentage points to 7.9 percentage points because of the reevaluated TFP.
The antipoverty effect of the reevaluated TFP is likely to be greatest in states where a relatively
high share of people below the poverty threshold receive SNAP benefits and have resources just below
the poverty threshold.15 Our projected data suggest that the antipoverty effect of the reevaluated TFP
in October to December 2021 was greatest in Oklahoma (with a poverty reduction of 8.2 percent), New
Mexico (with a poverty reduction of 9.4 percent), and Rhode Island (with a poverty reduction of 10.2
percent; table 2). We estimate that the antipoverty effect was smallest in Vermont and Wyoming (with a
poverty reduction of 2.4 percent and 1.8 percent, respectively).
TABLE 2
Estimated Effect of TFP Reevaluation on Quarterly SPM Poverty
By state, October to December 2021
Poverty Rate Poverty Rate Change
without with Reevaluated (Number in Percent
Reevaluated TFP TFP Poverty)a Change
Alabama 14.1% 13.3% -39 -5.7%
Arizona 15.8% 15.1% -54 -4.6%
Arkansas 17.0% 16.1% -26 -5.2%
California 18.4% 17.8% -248 -3.5%
Colorado 13.3% 12.9% -24 -3.1%
Connecticut 12.2% 11.7% -15 -3.7%
Delaware 14.9% 14.5% -4 -2.6%
District of Columbia 14.4% 13.4% -7 -6.9%
Florida 20.4% 19.6% -172 -3.9%
Georgia 14.7% 13.9% -93 -6.0%
Idaho 13.6% 13.2% -7 -3.0%
Illinois 13.3% 12.3% -122 -7.5%
Indiana 13.4% 12.8% -40 -4.6%
Iowa 9.9% 9.5% -14 -4.7%
Kansas 13.2% 12.9% -10 -2.6%
Kentucky 14.9% 14.1% -32 -5.0%
Louisiana 16.5% 15.5% -46 -6.3%
Maine 10.8% 10.4% -5 -3.6%
Maryland 12.2% 11.4% -49 -6.8%
Massachusetts 12.6% 12.0% -42 -5.0%
EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS 11
Poverty Rate Poverty Rate Change
without with Reevaluated (Number in Percent
Reevaluated TFP TFP Poverty)a Change
Michigan 13.6% 12.8% -69 -5.2%
Minnesota 10.6% 10.2% -20 -3.4%
Mississippi 15.8% 14.7% -31 -7.0%
Missouri 13.6% 12.8% -48 -5.9%
Montana 14.2% 13.7% -5 -3.3%
Nebraska 11.6% 11.3% -6 -2.7%
Nevada 16.6% 16.0% -20 -3.8%
New Hampshire 10.2% 9.9% -4 -3.2%
New Jersey 14.8% 14.1% -61 -4.7%
New Mexico 16.6% 15.1% -32 -9.4%
New York 16.8% 16.1% -129 -4.1%
North Carolina 13.6% 12.7% -89 -6.3%
North Dakota 11.7% 11.3% -2 -2.8%
Ohio 11.5% 10.8% -74 -5.6%
Oklahoma 12.4% 11.3% -39 -8.2%
Oregon 14.1% 13.3% -33 -5.6%
Pennsylvania 12.5% 11.8% -90 -5.8%
Rhode Island 11.3% 10.2% -12 -10.2%
South Carolina 15.0% 14.2% -36 -4.7%
South Dakota 13.1% 12.3% -7 -6.0%
Tennessee 14.3% 13.6% -49 -5.0%
Texas 16.7% 16.0% -203 -4.2%
Utah 10.4% 10.1% -9 -2.6%
Vermont 11.8% 11.5% -2 -2.4%
Virginia 13.6% 13.0% -51 -4.5%
Washington 11.8% 11.3% -37 -4.2%
West Virginia 13.7% 12.8% -15 -6.5%
Wisconsin 9.7% 9.1% -33 -6.0%
Wyoming 12.6% 12.4% -1 -1.8%
Source: Urban Institute ATTIS model applied to the 2018 American Community Survey data with employment,
population, and incomes projected to 2021.
Notes: SPM = Supplemental Poverty Measure; TFP = Thrifty Food Plan. Included are the 48 contiguous states and the District of
Columbia.
a
Number in thousands.
Effect of Thrifty Food Plan Reevaluation without Emergency Allotments and
Advance Child Tax Credit
The increase in SNAP benefits from the reevaluated TFP occurred at a time when two major pandemic-
related benefits were in effect. All but eight states were providing SNAP emergency allotments, and
many families with children received monthly advance CTC payments of up to $300 per child under age
6 and $250 per child ages 6 to 17. The advance CTC, a temporary measure enacted by the American
Rescue Plan, ended in December 2021, and emergency allotments will end nationwide after the end of
the federal COVID-19 public health emergency. However, the effect of the TFP reevaluation will
continue to contribute to higher SNAP benefits and alleviate poverty.
12 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
TABLE 3
Estimated Effect of TFP Reevaluation on SNAP and Quarterly SPM Poverty, without Emergency
Allotments and Advance CTC
October to December 2021, numbers in thousands except per person averages
Without With
Reevaluated Reevaluated Percent
TFP TFP Change Change
Households receiving SNAP 21,434 21,660 226 1.1%
People receiving SNAP 43,494 44,428 934 2.1%
Total monthly SNAP benefits $5,109,413 $6,698,328 $1,588,915 31.1%
Average monthly SNAP per person $117 $151 $33 28.3%
People with income below poverty 61,314 58,463 -2,851 -4.6%
SPM poverty rate 19.0% 18.2% -0.9% -4.6%
SPM child poverty rate (<18) 24.0% 22.1% -1.9% -7.6%
Below 50% of SPM poverty level 20,226 19,074 -1,152 -5.7%
Deep poverty rate 6.3% 5.9% -0.4% -5.7%
Average monthly per person poverty gap $290 $260 -$30 -10.3%
(in families with SNAP)
People experiencing poverty
Age
Less than 18 years old 17,343 16,025 -1,318 -7.6%
18 to 59 years old 31,837 30,638 -1,199 -3.8%
60 years or older 12,134 11,800 -334 -2.8%
Race and ethnicity (all)
White, non-Hispanic 25,623 24,582 -1,040 -4.1%
Black, non-Hispanic 10,876 9,998 -878 -8.1%
Hispanic 18,465 17,756 -709 -3.8%
AAPI, non-Hispanic 3,754 3,692 -63 -1.7%
Race and ethnicity (under 18)
White, non-Hispanic 5,212 4,812 -399 -7.7%
Black, non-Hispanic 3,508 3,066 -442 -12.6%
Hispanic 6,843 6,480 -363 -5.3%
AAPI, non-Hispanic 715 697 -18 -2.6%
Source: Urban Institute ATTIS model applied to the 2018 American Community Survey data with employment, population, and
incomes projected to 2021.
Note: AAPI = Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; CTC = child tax credit; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program;
SPM = Supplemental Poverty Measure; TFP = Thrifty Food Plan.
Emergency allotments and the advance CTC could either reduce or increase the antipoverty effect
of the reevaluated TFP. Some SNAP recipients are already removed from poverty by emergency
allotments or the advance CTC. Although they receive higher SNAP benefits from the reevaluated TFP,
this does not affect the estimated poverty rate because they are already above the poverty threshold.
For other families, emergency allotments and the advance CTC increase resources so that they are
close enough to the poverty threshold that the additional benefits from the reevaluated TFP are enough
EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS 13
to raise them above the poverty threshold. Without the emergency allotments and advance CTC, they
would be further below the poverty threshold, and the reevaluated TFP might not be enough on its own
to raise them above the threshold.
To investigate the potential effect of the reevaluated TFP without emergency allotments and the
advance CTC, we recalculate the October to December 2021 SPM quarterly poverty rate under a
scenario in which SNAP benefits are calculated with and without the reevaluated TFP, but without
emergency allotments and without including advance CTCs in the poverty measure.
Without the poverty reduction already achieved by emergency allotments and the advance CTC,
2.9 million people would have been removed from poverty by the reevaluated TFP in the fourth quarter
of 2021 (table 3), over half a million more than the 2.3 million kept out of poverty by the reevaluated
TFP when counting emergency allotments and the advance CTC (table 1). The reevaluated TFP would
have reduced the overall poverty rate (calculated without emergency allotments and without the
advance CTC) from 19.0 to 18.2, a reduction of 0.8 percentage points (figure 5). This is close to the 0.7
percentage point reduction in the estimated poverty rate from the reevaluated TFP when emergency
allotments and the advance CTC are in place. The reevaluated TFP reduces the estimated poverty rate
for children from 24.0 to 22.1 percent when not counting emergency allotments and the advance CTC.
This 1.9 percentage point reduction is slightly higher than the 1.3 percentage point reduction from the
reevaluated TFP when emergency allotments and the advance CTC are in effect.
FIGURE 5
Estimated Effect of Higher SNAP Benefits from the Reevaluated TFP on Quarterly SPM Poverty Rate,
with and without Emergency Allotments and the Advance CTC
October to December 2021
Without reevaluated TFP With reevaluated TFP
All ages
With emergency allotments 14.9%
and the advance CTC 14.2%
Without emergency allotments 19.0%
and the advance CTC 18.2%
Under age 18
With emergency 14.7%
allotments and the advance CTC 13.4%
Without emergency 24.0%
allotments and the advance CTC 22.1%
URBAN INSTITUTE
Source: Urban Institute ATTIS model applied to the 2018 American Community Survey data with employment, population, and
incomes projected to 2021.
Notes: CTC = child tax credit; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; SPM = Supplemental Poverty Measure; TFP =
Thrifty Food Plan.
14 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
Effect of Emergency Allotments
We estimate that emergency allotments kept 4.2 million people out of poverty in the fourth quarter of
2021, reducing the number of people with resources below the poverty threshold by 9.6 percent in
states with emergency allotments (table 4). This poverty reduction arose from an estimated $3.6 billion
distributed per month in emergency allotments, equivalent to an average additional $92 per month for
each person receiving SNAP benefits.16 We estimate that the number of people with resources below
half of the poverty threshold (deep poverty) fell by 6.2 percent in states with emergency allotments. The
additional benefits reduced the poverty gap among SNAP recipient families who remained below the
SPM poverty threshold by an average of $71 per person per month, reducing the average poverty gap
for people in these families by 20.8 percent.
We estimate that emergency allotments reduced the number of children below poverty by 14.0
percent in states with emergency allotments, with adults ages 18 to 59 years old and adults ages 60 and
older experiencing 8.3 percent and 8.6 percent reductions, respectively. Black, non-Hispanic people
have the highest estimated percentage reduction in poverty of the groups examined (13.0 percent).
More white, non-Hispanic people are estimated to be removed from poverty than in any other group
(1.7 million), reflecting the relatively larger size of their population. Emergency allotments are
estimated to have the smallest effect on non-Hispanic Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (a 4.2
percent poverty reduction).
The relatively higher estimated poverty reductions for Black, non-Hispanic people and for Hispanic
people slightly reduce disparities between these groups and white, non-Hispanic Americans in the
states with emergency allotments. The estimated poverty rate for white, non-Hispanic people falls from
11.2 percent without emergency allotments to 10.2 percent with emergency allotments in states with
emergency allotments (figure 6). The estimated poverty rate for Black, non-Hispanic people falls from
20.1 percent to 17.4 percent, and the estimated poverty rate for Hispanic people falls from 24.0 percent
to 21.6 percent. Without emergency allotments, the estimated poverty rate for Black, non-Hispanic
people in these states is 8.9 percentage points above the rate for white, non-Hispanic people. This gap
narrows to 7.2 percentage points with emergency allotments. The estimated poverty rate among
Hispanic people in these states is 12.8 percent above the estimated rate for white people without
emergency allotments and narrows to an 11.4 percentage point difference with emergency allotments.
The estimated poverty rate for non-Hispanic Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in states with
emergency allotments falls from 18.3 percent to 17.6 because of emergency allotments. This 0.7
percentage point reduction is slightly lower than the 1.0 percentage point reduction for white, non-
Hispanic people. As a result, the difference between the estimated poverty rate for non-Hispanic Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders and white, non-Hispanic people slightly increases with emergency
allotments, rising from 7.1 percentage points to 7.4 percentage points.
EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS 15
TABLE 4
Estimated Effect of Emergency Allotments on SNAP and Quarterly SPM Poverty in States with
Emergency Allotments
October to December 2021, numbers in thousands except per person averages
Percent
Without EA With EA Change Change
Households receiving SNAP 19,275 19,275 0 0.0%
People receiving SNAP 39,607 39,607 0 0.0%
Total monthly SNAP benefits $5,994,254 $9,621,849 $3,627,595 60.5%
Average monthly SNAP per person $151 $243 $92 60.5%
People with income below poverty 43,742 39,530 -4,212 -9.6%
SPM poverty rate 15.3% 13.9% -1.5% -9.6%
SPM child poverty rate (<18) 15.1% 13.0% -2.1% -14.0%
Below 50% of SPM poverty level 13,697 12,853 -844 -6.2%
Deep poverty rate 4.8% 4.5% -0.3% -6.2%
Average monthly per person poverty gap $342 $271 -$71 -20.8%
(in families with SNAP)
People experiencing poverty
Age
Less than 18 years old 9,777 8,413 -1,364 -14.0%
18 to 59 years old 24,041 22,049 -1,992 -8.3%
60 years or older 9,923 9,067 -856 -8.6%
Race and ethnicity (all)
White, non-Hispanic 18,801 17,110 -1,691 -9.0%
Black, non-Hispanic 6,979 6,069 -910 -13.0%
Hispanic 12,980 11,711 -1,270 -9.8%
AAPI, non-Hispanic 3,240 3,103 -136 -4.2%
Race and ethnicity (under 18)
White, non-Hispanic 2,817 2,409 -408 -14.5%
Black, non-Hispanic 1,607 1,311 -296 -18.4%
Hispanic 4,239 3,698 -541 -12.8%
AAPI, non-Hispanic 548 514 -34 -6.2%
Source: Urban Institute ATTIS model applied to the 2018 American Community Survey data with employment, population, and
incomes projected to 2021.
Note: AAPI = Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; EA = Emergency Allotments; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program; SPM = Supplemental Poverty Measure.
The estimated percentage reduction in child poverty is greatest for Black, non-Hispanic children
(18.4 percent). A higher number of Hispanic children are estimated to be kept out of poverty than in the
other groups (541,000), reflecting the higher overall number of Hispanic children with resources below
the poverty threshold. Emergency allotments reduce the estimated poverty rate for Black, non-Hispanic
children from 19.0 percent to 15.5 percent in states with emergency allotments and reduce the
estimated poverty rate for Hispanic children from 25.1 percent to 21.9 percent. Emergency allotments
narrow the difference in the estimated Black, non-Hispanic child poverty rate and white, non-Hispanic
child poverty rate from 10.1 percentage points to 7.9 percentage points. The gap for Hispanic children
relative to white, non-Hispanic children narrows from 16.2 percentage points to 14.3 percentage points.
16 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
Emergency allotments have a smaller effect on poverty among non-Hispanic Asian American and Pacific
Islander children than among non-Hispanic white children, and the difference in the estimated poverty
rates of these groups increases slightly, from 7.9 percentage points to 8.2 percentage points because of
emergency allotments in states with emergency allotments.
FIGURE 6
Estimated Effect of Emergency Allotments on Quarterly SPM Poverty Rate in States with Emergency
Allotments
October to December 2021
Without emergency allotments With emergency allotments
All ages
White, non-Hispanic 11.2%
10.2%
Black, non-Hispanic 20.1%
17.4%
Hispanic 24.0%
21.6%
AAPI, non-Hispanic 18.3%
17.6%
Under age 18
White, non-Hispanic 8.9%
7.6%
Black, non-Hispanic 19.0%
15.5%
Hispanic 25.1%
21.9%
AAPI, non-Hispanic 16.8%
15.8%
URBAN INSTITUTE
Source: Urban Institute ATTIS model applied to the 2018 American Community Survey data with employment, population, and
incomes projected to 2021.
Notes: AAPI=Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; SPM = Supplemental Poverty Measure.
TABLE 5
Estimated Effect of Emergency Allotments on Quarterly SPM Poverty
October to December 2021, by state
Poverty Rate Poverty Rate Change Percent
without EA with EA (Number in Poverty)a Change
Alabama 15.1% 13.3% -87 -12.0%
Alaska 13.4% 12.4% -7 -7.3%
Arizona 16.5% 15.1% -105 -8.6%
California 19.2% 17.8% -542 -7.4%
Colorado 13.8% 12.9% -51 -6.5%
Connecticut 12.6% 11.7% -32 -7.4%
Delaware 15.7% 14.5% -11 -7.2%
District of Columbia 15.5% 13.4% -14 -13.4%
EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS 17
Poverty Rate Poverty Rate Change Percent
without EA with EA (Number in Poverty)a Change
Georgia 15.7% 13.9% -199 -12.0%
Hawaii 15.6% 14.4% -17 -7.9%
Illinois 14.2% 12.3% -236 -13.6%
Indiana 13.9% 12.8% -74 -8.1%
Iowa 10.3% 9.5% -27 -8.5%
Kansas 13.5% 12.9% -17 -4.5%
Kentucky 15.6% 14.1% -65 -9.6%
Louisiana 18.0% 15.5% -112 -13.9%
Maine 11.4% 10.4% -14 -9.3%
Maryland 13.1% 11.4% -101 -13.0%
Massachusetts 13.4% 12.0% -91 -10.2%
Michigan 14.2% 12.8% -133 -9.6%
Minnesota 11.1% 10.2% -49 -7.9%
Mississippi 17.1% 14.7% -70 -14.3%
Nevada 17.5% 16.0% -48 -8.7%
New Hampshire 10.4% 9.9% -7 -5.1%
New Jersey 15.4% 14.1% -114 -8.5%
New Mexico 18.3% 15.1% -66 -17.5%
New York 17.6% 16.1% -280 -8.6%
North Carolina 14.5% 12.7% -182 -12.1%
Ohio 12.1% 10.8% -140 -10.2%
Oklahoma 13.5% 11.3% -85 -16.2%
Oregon 15.7% 13.3% -96 -14.8%
Pennsylvania 13.2% 11.8% -179 -11.0%
Rhode Island 12.1% 10.2% -20 -16.1%
South Carolina 15.8% 14.2% -78 -9.7%
Tennessee 15.1% 13.6% -102 -10.0%
Texas 17.4% 16.0% -425 -8.4%
Utah 10.7% 10.1% -18 -5.3%
Vermont 12.6% 11.5% -7 -9.2%
Virginia 14.3% 13.0% -106 -8.9%
Washington 12.6% 11.3% -95 -10.0%
West Virginia 14.8% 12.8% -34 -13.3%
Wisconsin 10.4% 9.1% -73 -12.4%
Wyoming 12.8% 12.4% -2 -2.8%
Source: Urban Institute ATTIS model applied to the 2018 American Community Survey data with employment,
population, and incomes projected to 2021.
Notes: EA = Emergency Allotments; SPM = Supplemental Poverty Measure. States excluded that did not have emergency
allotments in October to December 2021 are Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South
Dakota.
a
Number in thousands.
We estimate that the antipoverty effect of emergency allotments is smallest in Kansas and
Wyoming, reducing the number of people with resources below the poverty threshold by 4.5 percent
18 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
and 2.8 percent, respectively (table 5). The estimated antipoverty effect of emergency allotments is
highest in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island, with estimated poverty reductions of 17.5
percent, 16.2 percent, and 16.1 percent, respectively.
Combined Effect of Emergency Allotments and Reevaluated TFP
We estimate that the combined effect of emergency allotments and the TFP reevaluation reduced the
number of people with resources below the poverty level by 14.1 percent in October to December 2021
in states with emergency allotments and reduced the number of children in poverty by 21.8 percent in
these states (table 6). On average, SNAP participants received $125 more in SNAP benefits per person
per month than they would have received without these policy changes. The additional benefits reduced
the poverty gap among people in SNAP recipient families who remained below the SPM poverty level by
an average of $103 per person per month, or 27.5 percent.
We estimate that Black, non-Hispanic people experienced the greatest percentage reduction in
poverty from the combination of emergency allotments and the TFP reevaluation in states with
emergency allotments, with a 19.7 percent reduction in poverty overall and a 29.6 percent reduction in
poverty among children. A larger number of white, non-Hispanic people are estimated to rise above the
poverty level because of the two policies (2.5 million) than in any other single racial or ethnic group.
More Hispanic children (875,000) are estimated to rise above the poverty level than children in any
other racial or ethnic group.
In states with emergency allotments, emergency allotments and the reevaluated TFP reduced the
estimated poverty rate for white, non-Hispanic people by 1.5 percentage points and for Black, non-
Hispanic people by 4.3 percentage points (figure 7). The substantially larger effect for Black, non-
Hispanic people relative to white, non-Hispanic people reduces the difference in poverty rates for Black,
non-Hispanic people relative to white, non-Hispanic people from 10.0 percentage points to 7.2
percentage points. This reduction is even more pronounced for children; the combined effect of the
reevaluated TFP and emergency allotments reduces the difference in estimated poverty rates of Black,
non-Hispanic children relative to white, non-Hispanic children from 12.3 percentage points to 7.9
percentage points. The combined effect of emergency allotments and the reevaluated TFP reduces the
difference in the estimated poverty rate for Hispanic people relative to white, non-Hispanic people from
13.5 percentage points to 11.4 percentage points overall, and from 17.2 percentage points to 14.3
percentage points for children. The combined effect of emergency allotments and the reevaluated TFP
reduces poverty to a greater extent among white, non-Hispanic people than among non-Hispanic Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders, slightly increasing the difference in estimated poverty rates for these
groups in states with emergency allotments.
EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS 19
TABLE 6
Estimated Effect of Emergency Allotments and Reevaluated TFP on SNAP and Quarterly SPM
Poverty in States with Emergency Allotments
October to December 2021, numbers in thousands except per person averages
Without EA and With EA and
Reevaluated Reevaluated Percent
TFP TFP Change Change
Households receiving SNAP 19,070 19,275 205 1.1%
People receiving SNAP 38,757 39,607 850 2.2%
Total monthly SNAP benefits $4,574,473 $9,621,849 $5,047,376 110.3%
Average monthly SNAP per person $118 $243 $125 105.8%
People with income below poverty 45,997 39,530 -6,468 -14.1%
SPM poverty rate 16.1% 13.9% -2.3% -14.1%
SPM child poverty rate (<18) 16.7% 13.0% -3.6% -21.8%
Below 50% of SPM poverty level 14,387 12,853 -1,534 -10.7%
Deep poverty rate 5.0% 4.5% -0.5% -10.7%
Average monthly per person poverty gap $373 $271 -$103 -27.5%
(in families with SNAP)
People experiencing poverty
Age
Less than 18 years old 10,758 8,413 -2,345 -21.8%
18 to 59 years old 25,023 22,049 -2,974 -11.9%
60 years or older 10,216 9,067 -1,149 -11.2%
Race and ethnicity (all)
White, non-Hispanic 19,633 17,110 -2,522 -12.8%
Black, non-Hispanic 7,558 6,069 -1,488 -19.7%
Hispanic 13,636 11,711 -1,926 -14.1%
AAPI, non-Hispanic 3,310 3,103 -207 -6.2%
Race and ethnicity (under 18)
White, non-Hispanic 3,118 2,409 -709 -22.7%
Black, non-Hispanic 1,863 1,311 -551 -29.6%
Hispanic 4,573 3,698 -875 -19.1%
AAPI, non-Hispanic 571 514 -57 -9.9%
Source: Urban Institute ATTIS model applied to the 2018 American Community Survey data with employment,
population, and incomes projected to 2021.
Notes: AAPI = Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; EA = Emergency Allotments; SPM = Supplemental Poverty Measure; SNAP
= Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; TFP = Thrifty Food Plan. States excluded that did not have emergency allotments
in October to December 2021 are Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
We estimate that the combined antipoverty effect of the reevaluated TFP and emergency
allotments (among states with emergency allotments, and excluding Alaska and Hawaii) was smallest in
Kansas, Utah, and Wyoming, reducing the number of people with resources below the poverty
threshold by 7.8 percent, 7.4 percent, and 5.3 percent, respectively (table 7).17 The estimated combined
antipoverty effect of the reevaluated TFP and emergency allotments is highest in Louisiana, New
Mexico, and Oklahoma, with estimated poverty reductions of 21.1 percent, 26.4 percent, and 22.2
percent, respectively.
20 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
FIGURE 7
Estimated Effect of Emergency Allotments and Reevaluated TFP on Quarterly SPM Poverty in States
with Emergency Allotments
By subgroup, October to December 2021
Without reevaluated TFP and EA With reevaluated TFP and EA
All ages
White, non-Hispanic 11.7%
10.2%
Black, non-Hispanic 21.7%
17.4%
Hispanic 25.2%
21.6%
AAPI, non-Hispanic 18.7%
17.6%
Under age 18
White, non-Hispanic 9.8%
7.6%
Black, non-Hispanic 22.1%
15.5%
Hispanic 27.0%
21.9%
AAPI, non-Hispanic 17.5%
15.8%
URBAN INSTITUTE
Source: Urban Institute ATTIS model applied to the 2018 American Community Survey data with employment, population, and
incomes projected to 2021.
Notes: AAPI = Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; EA = emergency allotments; SPM = Supplemental Poverty Measure; TFP =
Thrifty Food Plan.
TABLE 7
Estimated Effect of Emergency Allotments and Reevaluated TFP on Quarterly SPM Poverty
October to December 2021, by state
Poverty Rate Poverty Rate
without EA and with EA and Change (Number Percent
Reevaluated TFP Reevaluated TFP in Poverty)a Change
Alabama 16.3% 13.3% -147 -18.7%
Arizona 17.2% 15.1% -156 -12.3%
California 19.9% 17.8% -797 -10.5%
Colorado 14.4% 12.9% -84 -10.3%
Connecticut 13.3% 11.7% -54 -11.8%
Delaware 16.0% 14.5% -14 -9.3%
District of Columbia 16.3% 13.4% -19 -17.6%
Georgia 16.7% 13.9% -299 -17.0%
Illinois 15.0% 12.3% -334 -18.2%
Indiana 14.4% 12.8% -110 -11.5%
Iowa 10.9% 9.5% -43 -13.0%
EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS 21
Poverty Rate Poverty Rate
without EA and with EA and Change (Number Percent
Reevaluated TFP Reevaluated TFP in Poverty)a Change
Kansas 13.9% 12.9% -31 -7.8%
Kentucky 16.6% 14.1% -109 -15.0%
Louisiana 19.7% 15.5% -186 -21.1%
Maine 12.0% 10.4% -21 -13.5%
Maryland 13.7% 11.4% -139 -17.2%
Massachusetts 14.1% 12.0% -137 -14.7%
Michigan 15.0% 12.8% -208 -14.3%
Minnesota 11.6% 10.2% -74 -11.5%
Mississippi 18.5% 14.7% -110 -20.8%
Nevada 18.3% 16.0% -73 -12.7%
New Hampshire 10.7% 9.9% -12 -8.2%
New Jersey 16.1% 14.1% -175 -12.5%
New Mexico 20.5% 15.1% -112 -26.4%
New York 18.3% 16.1% -413 -12.1%
North Carolina 15.6% 12.7% -301 -18.5%
Ohio 12.9% 10.8% -239 -16.2%
Oklahoma 14.6% 11.3% -126 -22.2%
Oregon 16.6% 13.3% -136 -19.7%
Pennsylvania 14.0% 11.8% -278 -16.1%
Rhode Island 12.8% 10.2% -27 -20.5%
South Carolina 16.8% 14.2% -129 -15.1%
Tennessee 16.1% 13.6% -169 -15.5%
Texas 18.3% 16.0% -664 -12.5%
Utah 10.9% 10.1% -26 -7.4%
Vermont 13.1% 11.5% -10 -12.2%
Virginia 14.9% 13.0% -160 -12.8%
Washington 13.2% 11.3% -139 -13.9%
West Virginia 16.2% 12.8% -58 -20.9%
Wisconsin 10.9% 9.1% -105 -16.8%
Wyoming 13.1% 12.4% -4 -5.3%
Source: Urban Institute ATTIS model applied to the 2018 American Community Survey data with employment,
population, and incomes projected to 2021.
Notes: EA = Emergency Allotments; SPM = Supplemental Poverty Measure; TFP = Thrifty Food Plan. States excluded that did not
have emergency allotments in October to December 2021 are Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, and South Dakota. Alaska and Hawaii are excluded from the table because TFP reevaluation had not yet occurred for
these states at the time of the analysis.
a
Number in thousands.
Discussion
The additional SNAP benefits from the reevaluated TFP and emergency allotments each
substantially reduce poverty. We estimate that the percentage reduction in poverty in the fourth
quarter of 2021 is highest for Black, non-Hispanic people and for Hispanic people, helping to reduce
22 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
disparities between these groups and non-Hispanic white people. This reduction in disparities is of
particular interest given current efforts by the USDA to identify areas to advance equity.18 The findings
demonstrate that both a temporary SNAP increase through emergency allotments and the permanent
increase from the reevaluated TFP help reduce differences in poverty rates that arise from broader
structural and historic factors. Although these policies reduce disparities, all racial and ethnic groups
benefit from the policy changes, and more white, non-Hispanic people are removed from poverty than
people in any other single racial or ethnic group examined. Children experience a greater percentage
reduction in poverty than adults under these policies. More Hispanic children are removed from
poverty by the reevaluated TFP and emergency allotments than children in any other racial and ethnic
group.
We estimate that non-Hispanic Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders experience the smallest
percentage reduction in poverty of the groups examined. This is consistent with our earlier finding that
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders were less likely than other racial and ethnic groups to be removed
from poverty by safety net and pandemic response policies in 2021 (Wheaton, Giannarelli, and Dehry
2021). Possible contributing factors are that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders with resources
below the SPM poverty threshold are less likely than other people with low income to be in families with
children and are more likely to live in higher-cost states and metropolitan areas, where more resources
are needed to be lifted out of poverty. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders with incomes below the
poverty threshold are also more likely than other non-Hispanic people with low income to be
immigrants and therefore may be less likely to be eligible for SNAP benefits. Even among people eligible
for SNAP benefits, noncitizens are less likely than citizens to participate in SNAP (Lauffer and Vigil
2021).
Our estimates do not account for the high inflation of food prices in 2021 and 2022,19 which erode
the purchasing power of SNAP benefits. SNAP benefit levels are adjusted for inflation, but this occurs
only once per year in October. In the meantime, families may find that their benefits do not extend as far
as in prior months. The additional benefits from emergency allotments help families purchase food, but
these benefits have ended in a growing number of states. In addition to the eight states without
emergency allotments in the fourth quarter of 2021, Mississippi and Tennessee stopped providing
allotments at the end of 2021, Iowa stopped providing allotments after March 2022, and Arizona,
Kentucky, and Wyoming stopped providing emergency allotments after April 2022.20
Emergency allotments were implemented as a temporary measure and will no longer be available in
any state after the end of the federally declared COVID-19 public health emergency. Although
emergency allotments will end, the higher SNAP benefits from the reevaluated TFP will continue to
reduce poverty and help families purchase food. The extent of the antipoverty effect may rise or fall
depending on levels of SNAP participation and economic circumstances, but the reevaluated TFP has
increased SNAP benefits to a level that can better meet the needs of resource-constrained Americans.
EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS 23
Notes
1 “Renewal of Determination That a Public Health Emergency Exists,” Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Preparedness and Response, last updated July 15, 2022, https://aspr.hhs.gov/legal/PHE/Pages/
covid19-15jul2022.aspx.
2 We use the term “Hispanic” throughout this brief, as this is the primary terminology used by the US Census
Bureau in the underlying ACS, which this analysis is based on. Survey respondents are asked to report race and
ethnicity, including whether or not they identify as being of “Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.”
3 We obtained the 2019 SPM thresholds from “2019 Research Experimental Supplemental Poverty Measures
Thresholds,” US Bureau of Labor Statistics, last updated September 9, 2020,
https://www.bls.gov/pir/spm/spm_thresholds_2019.htm.
We use geographic adjustments developed by the Census Bureau as part of their work to adapt the SPM to the
ACS (Fox, Glassman, and Pacas 2020). There are over 300 geographic adjustments, including identifiable
metropolitan areas, combined residual metropolitan areas within state, and combined nonmetropolitan areas
within state.
4 The threshold for a family of a given size and number of children varies by geographic location and whether the
family owns their home with a mortgage, owns without a mortgage, or rents. We calculate the average national
threshold for a family of a given size and number of children by calculating the weighted mean of thresholds
assigned to families of that size and number of children.
5 The example families have gross income equal to 126 percent of the poverty guideline used for SNAP eligibility
determination, just below the federal limit of 130 percent of poverty for families without a member age 60 or
older or with a disability. We assume that the single individual has temporary disability income of $1,359 per
month, the adult with two children has a combination of unemployment compensation and child support income
equal to $2,303 per month, and the married couple with three children has earnings of $3,247 per month. We
apply the standard deduction for each example family and calculate the earned income deduction for the family
with earnings. We calculate the excess shelter expense deduction for each family, assuming rent of $850 per
month for the single individual and $1,200 for the two example families with children, and we assume a standard
utility allowance of $353 per month for each example family. We subtract the deductions from gross income to
calculate net income.
6 Net income is calculated by subtracting the following deductions from the family’s gross income: a 20 percent
deduction from earned income, a standard deduction of $177 for households of one to three people and $184
for households with four people (and higher for larger households and households in Alaska and Hawaii), a
dependent care deduction, out-of-pocket medical expenses that exceed $35 per month for household members
age 60 or older or with a disability, and a shelter expense deduction equal to the amount by which shelter costs
exceed half of the household’s income after other deductions. Some states also deduct legally owed child support
payments and have a shelter deduction for homeless households (not modeled in this analysis). “SNAP
Eligibility,” US Department of Agriculture, accessed May 26, 2022,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility.
7
See “USDA Increases Emergency SNAP Benefits for 25 Million Americans; Ensures COVID-19 Relief Reaches
Those Struggling Most,” news release, US Department of Agriculture, April 1, 2021,
https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/04/01/usda-increases-emergency-snap-benefits-25-million-
americans-ensures.
8 “States Are Using Much-Needed Temporary Flexibility in SNAP to Respond to COVID-19 Challenges,” Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, last updated October 4, 2021. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-
assistance/states-are-using-much-needed-temporary-flexibility-in-snap-to-respond-to.
9 We obtained SNAP waiver information from the Food and Nutrition Service website on February 15, 2022. See
“SNAP COVID-19 Emergency Allotments Guidance,” US Department of Agriculture, last updated April 8, 2022.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/covid-19-emergency-allotments-guidance.
10 “Renewal of Determination That a Public Health Emergency Exists,” Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Preparedness and Response, July 15, 2022, https://aspr.hhs.gov/legal/PHE/Pages/COVID19-15jul2022.aspx.
11 Emergency allotments increase a family’s monthly SNAP benefit by the greater of $95 or the difference between
the calculated benefit and the maximum allotment for their family size. Therefore, a family whose income makes
them ineligible for the maximum allotment but whose calculated SNAP benefit is less than $95 below the
24 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
maximum allotment for their family size will receive $95 in emergency allotments, raising their total SNAP
benefit to higher than the maximum allotment for their family size.
12 In August 2021, the Food and Nutrition Service projected that SNAP participants would receive an average of
$36 more per person in fiscal year 2022 (October 2021 to September 2022) from the TFP reevaluation, not
counting the effect of pandemic-related benefits. We estimate an average increase of $37 per person in October
to December 2021, when simulated with state emergency allotments in effect, and an average increase of $33
per person in October to December 2021, when simulated without state emergency allotments in effect. See
“USDA Modernizes the Thrifty Food Plan, Updates SNAP Benefits,” Food and Nutrition Service, US Department
of Agriculture, August 16, 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/news-item/usda-0179.21.
13 Kochhar and Cilluffo found that income inequality is greater among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders than
among any other racial or ethnic group within the US (Kochhar and Cilluffo 2018).
14 A study by Iceland (2019) finds that racial and ethnic disparities in poverty rates are influenced by differences in
educational attainment, nativity, and family structure. These factors explain a growing share of the difference
among groups during the 1959 to 2015 period covered by his study, and in general, racial and ethnic disparities
in poverty decreased over this period. Nevertheless, a substantial amount of the difference in poverty rates
cannot be explained by these factors, especially for Black people and American Indians. Iceland cites literature
suggesting that ongoing racial discrimination, higher incarceration rates for Black men, historical inequalities,
intergenerational transmission of economic status, and social and cultural factors all likely contribute to
continued disparities. Further, differences in educational attainment and family structure may themselves be
influenced by these structural factors. For additional perspective on the role of structural factors in influencing
outcomes across racial and ethnic groups, see “Structural Racism in America,” Urban Institute,
https://www.urban.org/features/structural-racism-america.
15 The extent to which a state’s population is just below the poverty threshold and receives SNAP is influenced by
the extent to which people who are eligible for assistance apply for and receive SNAP and the extent to which
SNAP (prior to TFP reevaluation) in combination with other resources moves the state’s population close to but
not over the SPM poverty threshold. Changes in income, benefits, and taxes over time can affect the share of
people only slightly below the poverty threshold in a state. Differences in poverty thresholds by geographic area
may affect the extent to which a state’s SNAP recipients are concentrated near the poverty threshold, and
sampling variability can also influence results.
16 Our estimates do not capture the fact that some people who participated in SNAP in the fourth quarter of 2021
might not have chosen to participate without the higher benefits provided by emergency allotments. Including
this effect would likely increase the estimated antipoverty effect of emergency allotments.
17 We exclude Alaska and Hawaii from the table of state results for the reevaluated TFP because the TFP
reevaluation for these two states had not yet occurred. FNS used a temporary adjustment for these states in
federal fiscal year 2022.
18 Thomas J. Vilsac, “USDA Equity Action Plan,” US Department of Agriculture, February 2, 2022,
https://www.usda.gov/equity/action-plan.
19 “Summary Findings: Food Price Outlook, 2022,” Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, last
updated June 24, 2022, https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-outlook/summary-findings/.
20 We have not investigated which states end emergency allotments after May 2022. See “SNAP COVID-19
Emergency Allotments Guidance,” Food and Nutrition Service, US Department of Agriculture, last updated June
29, 2022, https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/covid-19-emergency-allotments-guidance.
EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS 25
References
Budiman, Abby, and Neil G. Ruiz. 2021. “Key Facts about Asian Americans, a Diverse and Growing Population.”
Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Fox, Liana. 2020. The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2019. Current Population Reports P60–272. Washington, DC:
US Census Bureau.
Fox, Liana, Brian Glassman, and José Pacas. 2020. “The Supplemental Poverty Measure Using the American
Community Survey.” SEHSD Working Paper 2020-09. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, Social, Economic,
and Housing Statistics Division.
Giannarelli, Linda, Laura Wheaton, and Gregory Acs. 2020. “2020 Poverty Projections.” Washington, DC: Urban
Institute.
Kochhar, Rakesh, and Anthony Cilluffo. 2018. “Income Inequality in the U.S. Is Rising Most Rapidly among Asians.”
Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Iceland, John. 2019. “Racial and Ethnic Inequality in Poverty and Affluence, 1959–2015.” Population Research and
Policy Review 38 (5):615–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-019-09512-7.
Lauffer, Sarah, and Alma Vigil. 2021. “Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates:
Fiscal Year 2016 to Fiscal Year 2018.” Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Service, US Department of
Agriculture.
Ruggles, Steven, Sarah Flood, Ronald Goeken, Josiah Grover, Erin Meyer, José Pacas, and Matthew Sobek. 2020.
IPUMS USA: Version 10.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis: IPUMS. https://doi.org/10.18128/D010.V10.0.
USDA (US Department of Agriculture). 2021. Thrifty Food Plan, 2021. FNS-916. Washington, DC: USDA.
Wheaton, Laura, Linda Giannarelli, and Ilham Dehry. 2021. 2021 Poverty Projections: Assessing the Impact of Benefits
and Stimulus Measures. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
About the Authors
Laura Wheaton is a senior fellow in the Income and Benefits Policy at the Urban Institute and co-directs
the TRIM3 and ATTIS microsimulation model projects. She specializes in SNAP and has conducted
research on SNAP eligibility and participation, churning, asset limits, work requirements, and the
potential effects of proposed policy changes.
Danielle Kwon is a research analyst in the Income and Benefits Policy Center at Urban. She primarily
works on the CCDF Policies Database and the TRIM3 microsimulation model. Her research interests
include racial and ethnic disparities in human services, early child care and education, and the
experiences of Asian Americans and Pacific Islander communities.
26 EFFECT OF THE REEVALUATED THRIFTY FOOD PLAN AND EMERGENCY ALLOTMENTS
Acknowledgments
This brief was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The views expressed do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Foundation.
The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation or to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. Funders do not determine
research findings or the insights and recommendations of Urban experts. Further information on the
Urban Institute’s funding principles is available at urban.org/fundingprinciples.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the large team that designed and implemented the many policy
simulations underlying our 2021 projected data, including Linda Giannarelli, Sarah Minton, Joyce
Morton, Ilham Dehry, Kelly Dwyer, Paul Johnson, Sarah Knowles, Elaine Maag, Katie Shantz, Silke
Taylor, and Kevin Werner. We also owe thanks to Jeffrey Passel for developing the 2021 population
weight adjustments; to Janet Holtzblatt, Jack Smalligan, and Wayne Vroman for advising on policy
changes in other programs; to staff of the California Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Public Policy
Institute of California for information on California policies; to Ed Bolen, presently, and Brynne Keith-
Jennings, formerly, at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities for information about state SNAP
waivers; to Barbara Murphy at the USDA FNS for information about FNS data and projections; and to
Gregory Acs, Linda Giannarelli, Sarah Minton, and Elaine Waxman for support in developing the
assumptions and for their comments on earlier drafts.
About ATTIS
The Urban Institute’s ATTIS microsimulation model allows Urban experts to examine how today’s
safety net supports US families and how changes to it could affect their economic well-being. By using
data and evidence created with ATTIS, today’s decisionmakers are better positioned to advance
equitable and effective policy solutions that help individuals and families meet their basic needs. To
learn more, visit urban.org/research-methods/attis-microsimulation-model.
ABOUT THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) is committed to improving health and
health equity in the United States. In partnership with others, we are working to
develop a Culture of Health rooted in equity, that provides every individual with a fair
and just opportunity to thrive, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much
money they have.
ABOUT THE URBAN INSTITUTE
The nonprofit Urban Institute is a leading research organization dedicated to
developing evidence-based insights that improve people’s lives and strengthen
communities. For 50 years, Urban has been the trusted source for rigorous analysis
of complex social and economic issues; strategic advice to policymakers,
philanthropists, and practitioners; and new, promising ideas that expand
opportunities for all. Our work inspires effective decisions that advance fairness and
500 L’Enfant Plaza SW
enhance the well-being of people and places.
Washington, DC 20024
Copyright © August 2022. Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction
www.urban.org
2021 CHILD 27
of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute.
File and source
- File
- effect-reevaluated-thrifty-food-plan-and-emergency-allotments-suppleme_114c2d7afc2d00e8.pdf
- Size
- 485,205 bytes
- SHA-256
- b42013cb5d85cc2bb8055f3a20af04316a95f48eac7063aee04bd443915d7973
- Original
- www.urban.org