Internet Explorer 11 is not supported

For optimal browsing, we recommend Chrome, Firefox or Safari browsers.

SNAP Categorical Eligibility State Data

Forty states allow for "categorical eligibility" in administering SNAP.

snap-food-stamps-map
Forty states have adopted an option known as "categorical eligibility" for administration of food stamps, allowing them to provide more households with benefits. The option allows states to align gross income and asset requirements with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other assistance programs.

If Congress eliminates categorical eligibility, as some lawmakers have proposed, an estimated 1.8 million SNAP participants would lose benefits, according to a report by the Congressional Budget Office. The White House released its own estimates, projecting that about 3 million Americans would lose SNAP benefits.

The following table shows White House estimates for states with categorical eligibility, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's most recent individual enrollment totals (initial numbers for April):

           
State Categorical Eligibility Estimated Individuals Losing SNAP SNAP Enrollment TANF/MOE Asset Limit TANF/MOE Gross Income Limit
Alaska No   95,371    
Arkansas No   500,689    
Indiana No   924,463    
Kansas No   316,523    
Missouri No   931,761    
South Dakota No   104,175    
Tennessee No   1,343,265    
Utah No   252,378    
Virginia No   939,775    
Wyoming No   38,502    
Alabama Yes 70,100 909,254 No limit on assets 130%
Arizona Yes 81,300 1,099,471 No limit on assets 185%
California Yes 279,600 4,163,620 No limit on assets 130%
Colorado Yes 34,500 510,696 No limit on assets 130%
Connecticut Yes 28,800 423,328 No limit on assets 185%
Delaware Yes 10,300 153,857 No limit on assets 200%
Florida Yes 234,100 3,548,465 No limit on assets 200%
Georgia Yes 135,500 1,945,001 No limit on assets 130%
Hawaii Yes 12,200 189,366 No limit on assets 200%
Idaho Yes 17,400 229,927 $5,000 130%
Illinois Yes 136,600 2,029,103 No limit on assets 130%
Iowa Yes 28,500 420,360 No limit on assets 160%
Kentucky Yes 62,700 873,899 No limit on assets 130%
Louisiana Yes 67,300 919,032 No limit on assets 130%
Maine Yes 18,900 250,434 No limit on assets 185%
Maryland Yes 50,800 773,137 No limit on assets 200%
Massachusetts Yes 61,900 888,531 No limit on assets 200%
Michigan Yes 146,800 1,773,173 $5,000 ( first vehicle is excluded) 200%
Minnesota Yes 38,500 555,209 No limit on assets 165%
Mississippi Yes 47,400 663,151 No limit on assets 130%
Montana Yes 9,500 130,952 No limit on assets 200%
Nebraska Yes 13,300 179,816 $25,000 for liquid assets 130%
Nevada Yes 25,400 358,319 No limit on assets 200%
New Hampshire Yes 8,600 117,148 No limit on assets 185%
New Jersey Yes 57,800 871,760 No limit on assets 185%
New Mexico Yes 31,500 441,550 No limit on assets 165%
New York Yes 228,400 3,181,218 No limit on assets 200%
North Carolina Yes 121,100 1,706,588 No limit on assets 200%
North Dakota Yes 4,600 56,676 No limit on assets 200%
Ohio Yes 135,500 1,844,692 No limit on assets 130%
Oklahoma Yes 46,800 614,471 No limit on assets 130%
Oregon Yes 58,800 817,676 No limit on assets 185%
Pennsylvania Yes 130,800 1,776,949 $9,000 for elderly and disabled; $5,500 for all other households 160%
Rhode Island Yes 12,200 180,731 No limit on assets 185%
South Carolina Yes 64,300 873,591 No limit on assets 130%
Texas Yes 302,800 3,992,627 Asset limit of $5,000 (excludes 1 vehicle and includes excess vehicle value) 165%
Vermont Yes 7,000 100,985 No limit on assets 185%
Washington Yes 80,300 1,111,505 No limit on assets 200%
West Virginia Yes 26,300 349,325 No limit on assets 130%
Wisconsin Yes 61,000 860,186 No limit on assets 200%

Gross income limits represent percent of federal poverty guidelines for TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and MOE (State maintenance of effort benefit).
Households with seniors or disabled individuals and gross incomes exceeding 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines are subject to a $3,000 asset limit in the following states: Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina and West Virginia.
Households without children face gross income limits of 130 percent of poverty in Massachusetts.




Mike Maciag is Data Editor for GOVERNING.
Special Projects
Sponsored Stories
Sponsored
In this episode, Marianne Steger explains why health care for Pre-Medicare retirees and active employees just got easier.
Sponsored
Government organizations around the world are experiencing the consequences of plagiarism firsthand. A simple mistake can lead to loss of reputation, loss of trust and even lawsuits. It’s important to avoid plagiarism at all costs, and government organizations are held to a particularly high standard. Fortunately, technological solutions such as iThenticate allow government organizations to avoid instances of text plagiarism in an efficient manner.
Sponsored
Creating meaningful citizen experiences in a post-COVID world requires embracing digital initiatives like secure and ethical data sharing, artificial intelligence and more.
Sponsored
GHD identified four themes critical for municipalities to address to reach net-zero by 2050. Will you be ready?
Sponsored
As more state and local jurisdictions have placed a priority on creating sustainable and resilient communities, many have set strong targets to reduce the energy use and greenhouse gases (GHGs) associated with commercial and residential buildings.
Sponsored
As more people get vaccinated and states begin to roll back some of the restrictions put in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic — schools, agencies and workplaces are working on a plan on how to safely return to normal.
Sponsored
The solutions will be a permanent part of government even after the pandemic is over.
Sponsored
See simple ways agencies can improve the citizen engagement experience and make online work environments safer without busting the budget.
Sponsored
Whether your agency is already a well-oiled DevOps machine, or whether you’re just in the beginning stages of adopting a new software development methodology, one thing is certain: The security of your product is a top-of-mind concern.