HUNGER IN THE LAND OF PLENTY - September–October 2012 Volume 46, Numbers 5–6 - SNAP Application Delay Litigation Project

Sep 19, 2026

September–October 2012 Volume 46, Numbers 5–6 presents analysis of hunger and food insecurity in the United States through a human rights–based lens. It outlines SNAP basics and highlights major barriers to participation, emphasizing how application delays in many states reduce timely access. The document connects these failures to policy incentives and economic stimulus effects, citing federal timelines and state performance data. It also describes litigation-focused advocacy regarding justice for SNAP recipients accused of fraud, including leadership from national legal organizations.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages12

Reading Time4 min

AccessFree to download

SNAP Basics

Participation rates and geographic variation

Federal eligibility and timeliness requirements

SNAP Application Delay Litigation Project

Application delays and their impacts

State compliance statistics

Advocacy context and related movements

HUNGER IN THE LAND OF PLENTY September–October 2012 Volume 46, Numbers 5–6 hunger in America 2012 A human Rights–Based Approach SNAP Application Delay Litigation Project The Farm Bill as a Resource Antihunger and Food Justice Movements in Arkansas and Mississippi SNAP Basics No Kid hungry Campaign Preventing SNAP Terminations Immigrants’ Access to Food from Private Charities Private Food Banks and Public Programs Staggered SNAP Issuance Toward a healthy, Sustainable Food System Food Insecurity Among Elders Climate Change, Food, and Poverty Solutions to the Failure of Institutional Food Advocacy Story: Justice for SNAP Recipients Accused of Fraud in Georgia Marc Cohan Director of Litigation Mary R . Mannix Program Director/Senior Attorney National Center for Law and Economic Justice 275 Seventh Ave. Suite 1506 New York, NY 10001-6708 212.633.6967 [cohan@nclej.org](cohan@nclej.org)[ ](cohan@nclej.org)[mannix@nclej.org](mannix@nclej.org) By Marc Cohan and Mary R. Mannix n the wake of the deepest recession since the Great Depression, states, counties, and localities have largely failed to ensure that basic safety-net programs such as food estgibamps are readily availle individuals increaasbeldebfoyr15allphousercenholdsfromn nhe 2eed008.1 Thfisecanluymbearro f fheo2od00st9ampfisca–l year.2 Yet food stamp participation lagged significantly. For example,“[o]fthe nearly 45 million individuals eligible for…benefits in an average month in FY 2009, 32 million (72 percent) participated and more than 12 million did not.”3 Indeed, only 66 percent of people eligible for food stamps in the 2008 fiscal year received them.4 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation rates vary greatly between states and demographic groups. The lowest participation rate is in the West at 58 percent.5 Participation rates between cities and counties also vary considerably. The Food Research and Action Center estimates that “only 76 percent of eligible people in the 22 cities and urban counties studied participated in the program in December 2008, with rates in individual cities ranging from 40 percent to 98 percent.”6 1Effective October 1, 2008, the federal Food Stamp Program was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the federal Food Stamp Act was renamed the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-246, §§ 4001–4002, 122 Stat. 1651, 1853–1860) . In many states, SNAP benefits are commonly known as food stamps. Here we use the term “food stamps” when referring to the program, enacting federal legislation, and implementing federal regulations. For a discussion of SNAP participation rates, see Joshua lEftin Et al., food and nutrition sErvicE, u. s. dEpartmEnt of agriculturE, trEnds in supplEmEntal nutrition assistancE program participation ratEs: fiscal yEar 2002 to fiscal yEar 2009, at xiii–xiv (Aug. 2011), [http://bit.ly/NryBDb](http://bit.ly/NryBDb). 2lEftin Et al. , supra note 1, at xiii. 3Id. 4Karen Cunnyngham & Laura A. Castner, Food and Nutrition Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Reaching Those in Need: State Supplemental Nutrition Program Rates in 2008, at 1–2 (Dec. 2010), [http://bit.ly/MSg51R](http://bit.ly/MSg51R). 5Id. In the West, Wyoming had the lowest participation rate, with only 46 percent of eligible households participating. 6Food Research and Action Center, SNAP Access in Urban America: A City-by-City Snapshot 2 (Jan. 2011), [http://bit.ly/P28Ck7](http://bit.ly/P28Ck7) . The Food Research and Action Center’s lowest estimates of the proportion of SNAP-eligible people who are actually enrolled in the program in the twenty-two survey areas were for San Diego, California (40 percent); Denver, Colorado (46 percent); and Los Angeles, California (56 percent) . The highest were for Washington, D.C. (98 percent); Wayne County, Michigan (97 percent); and Jefferson County, Kentucky (96

FAQs

What are the document’s main concerns about SNAP access?

It focuses on hunger and food insecurity and argues that many eligible households fail to receive benefits due to profound application delays and uneven state participation rates.

What federal processing timelines does the document reference for SNAP applications?

It states applications generally must be processed, eligibility decided, and benefits provided within thirty days, with some very low-income households entitled to processing within seven calendar days and expedited cases often requiring even faster delivery.

How does the document evaluate state performance on timely SNAP processing?

It provides examples such as Rhode Island processing only 63.64% of applications timely in FY 2009 and notes that, in FY 2010, only twenty states and the District of Columbia were processing fewer than 10% of applications late.

Sep 19, 2026

Upload by Theodore