SPOTLIGHT ON
SNAP recipients in New York City and the consequences of federal cuts to SNAP
Authors: Christopher Yera and Sophie Collyer
1
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
INTRODUCTION The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as SNAP, plays a significant role in alleviating hunger in the United States. As the nation’s largest nutrition assistance program, SNAP serves nearly 42 million individuals in a typical month and provides critical support for helping families cover the cost of food. 1 The income support provided by SNAP benefits also makes the program one of the nation’s most effective tools in fighting poverty, helping keep roughly 4.3 million people above the poverty line in a typical month. 2 Studies have also shown that SNAP recipiency is linked to better health and nutrition, 3 improvements in children’s test scores and academic performance, 4 and even reductions in crime. 5 In the long term, every $1 spent on the SNAP program leads to $14 in benefits for society overall, likely more. 6 Despite SNAP’s critical role in U.S. anti-hunger and anti-poverty policy, recipients’ benefits must be stretched to meet food needs while many of their other basic needs are left unmet. Recent Poverty Tracker research reveals that nearly half of SNAP recipients in New York City needed more money to afford sufficient food for their family. 7 Clearly, there are avenues for expanding the program that could further bolster recipients’ economic security. However, recent federal actions are likely to have the opposite effect. In July 2025, Congress passed the H.R.1 reconciliation bill — sometimes referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) — which instituted several changes to the SNAP program (detailed in this Spotlight) that will result in a 20% reduction in federal investment in the coming years. 8 The federal cuts to SNAP will be felt across the country, but in this Spotlight, we focus on SNAP beneficiaries in New York City and how these cuts could affect them. We document how SNAP currently moves many New Yorkers above the poverty line, but many recipients still remain in precarious situations even after accounting for these supports. We then explore how they are currently getting by in the city, managing the affordability crisis, and what is at stake for them given the federal government’s actions, including how many may be pushed into poverty with these cuts. Finally, we discuss how the state and local government can help offset these consequences. 1 Jones, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — Key Statistics and Research.” 2 Wimer, et al., “The Impact of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) on Monthly Poverty Rates.” 3 Carlson and Llobrera, “SNAP Is Linked with Improved Health Outcomes and Lower Health Care Costs.” Gunderson, “Food Assistance Programs and Child Health.” 4 Frongillo, et al., “Food Stamp Program Participation Is Associated with Better Academic Learning among School Children.” 5 Barr and Smith, “Fighting Crime in the Cradle: The Effects of Early Childhood Access to Nutritional Assistance.” 6 Koutavas, et al., “The Economic Costs of Cutting SNAP: Every $1 in SNAP Cuts to Families with Children Costs Society $14 to $20.” 7 Vinh, et al., “Spotlight on: Food Budget Shortfalls in New York City.” 8 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the cuts to the SNAP program under OBBBA will reduce federal spending on the program by $187 billion over 10 years, which amounts to a roughly 20% reduction in investment in the program. For more details, see: Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, relative to CBO’s January 2025 Base- line”; Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Effects of Public Law 119-21 on Participation and Benefits Under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.”
2
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
KEY FINDINGS
g SNAP benefits, as designed under pre-OBBBA policy, lift approximately 1 in 10 recipients in New York City above the poverty line.
g Children and seniors comprise roughly half of SNAP recipients in New York City and also see the greatest poverty reduction effects from the program.
g Food hardship remains common among SNAP recipients, even with benefits. More than 60% of SNAP recipients often or sometimes run out of food before they have money to buy more. Roughly 80% of SNAP recipients experience at least some form of material hardship.
g The majority of working-age SNAP recipients in New York City are employed or have a partner who is employed in the years that they receive benefits.
g Adult SNAP recipients are more than three times as likely to have a work-limiting disability or health condition than non-recipients (52% vs. 16%) and more than twice as likely to rate their health as fair or poor (43% vs. 18%). g While the exact shape of the cuts to SNAP resulting from recent federal action is unknown, estimates suggest the OBBBA SNAP cuts are likely to push roughly 70,000 New York City residents into poverty each year between 2028 and 2034.
3
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
How does SNAP affect poverty in New York City? While SNAP is designed to be an anti-hunger program, it also plays a substantial role in reducing poverty both nationwide and in New York City. Poverty Tracker data collected between 2022 and 2024 provides insights into how SNAP, as designed under pre-OBBBA policy, reduces poverty among recipients in New York City. Roughly 1.8 million New Yorkers receive SNAP benefits in a typical month, with families receiving an average benefit value of $389 per month, or $4,668 per year if one received benefits in all months of the year. 9 Estimates from the Poverty Tracker show that SNAP benefits comprise more than 10% of the incomes of the average recipient in New York City and have a notable impact on recipients’ poverty rates. We find that SNAP reduces the poverty rate by more than 19% — or 10 percentage points (p.p.) — among all recipients in New York City (Figure 1). In other words, SNAP lifts approximately 1 in 10 recipients in New York City above the poverty line. Of recipients in the city, more than 1 in 4 (28%) are children and more than 1 in 5 (22%) are seniors, according to Poverty Tracker data. 10 SNAP has even more pronounced anti-poverty effects among these groups (12 p.p. and 13 p.p. reductions, respectively) (Figure 1). 11 Anti-poverty impact of SNAP among recipients in New York City (2022-2024) Figure 1 Anti-poverty impact of SNAP
Poverty rate without SNAP Poverty rate with SNAP
70%
65%
19% (13 p.p.)
60%
52%
51%
19% (10 p.p.)
50%
47%
25% (12 p.p.)
41%
40%
35%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Overall
Children
Elderly
Source: Annual Poverty Tracker survey data, second through sixth Poverty Tracker cohorts. Note: Results based on three-year average of 2022, 2023, and 2024 data.
9 These averages are drawn from monthly SNAP caseload and expenditure data from January through October 2025. See New York State Office of Tem- porary and Disability Assistance, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Caseloads and Expenditures: Beginning 2002.” 10 Our estimate of the share of SNAP recipients in New York City that are children or seniors align with state and congressional-district level administra- tive data. According to the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, 30% of SNAP recipients across New York State are children and 21% are seniors. Across congressional districts entirely within New York City (NY-04 to NY-15), the share of SNAP recipients that are children rang- es from 18% to 36%, and the share who are seniors ranges from about 18% to 46%. See New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, “SNAP Benefits by Congressional District.” 11 Note that the SPM poverty thresholds in New York City are higher than in other areas of the county because of the city’s high cost of living. SNAP bene- fits may have a more substantial impact on the poverty rate of recipients in areas with a lower cost of living.
4
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
While SNAP moves many recipients above the poverty line, the poverty line is often considered a very low threshold, which represents what is needed for families to meet only their most basic needs. Figure 2 presents the median share of income relative to needs for SNAP recipients both before and after counting benefits. This share demonstrates the percentage of one’s total income relative to the poverty line, and thus describes their proximity to the poverty line. A share of 100% means the family’s income equals the poverty line; below 100% indicates income is below the threshold, and above 100% indicates income exceeds it. SNAP recipients’ proximity to the poverty line, before and after counting SNAP benefits (2022-2024) Figure 2
Before counting SNAP income After counting SNAP income
145%
132%
112%
Poverty Line
98%
72%
59%
All SNAP recipients
SNAP recipients living in poverty
SNAP recipients living above the poverty line
Source: Annual Poverty Tracker survey data, second through sixth Poverty Tracker cohorts. Note: Results based on three-year average of 2022, 2023, and 2024 data.
As seen in Figure 2, the median share of income relative to needs of SNAP recipients after counting SNAP income is 112%, meaning that the majority of SNAP recipients are living near the poverty line even after accounting for benefits . However, it is important to also acknowledge the meaningful impact that SNAP has on the income of beneficiaries — raising their median share of income from below the poverty line (98%) to above the poverty line (112%).
5
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
SNAP recipients are working yet struggling to get by A common misconception is that SNAP recipients are not engaged in the labor market; however, Poverty Tracker data shows that this is not the case. Figure 3 examines labor market engagement among working- age SNAP recipients, with working age defined as ages 25-64. 12 Between 2022 and 2024, more than half (54%) of working-age (25-64) adult SNAP recipients reported working or living with a spouse or partner who worked at some point in the year they received benefits (Figure 4.3). Roughly 1 in 3 (33%) working-age adult recipients worked for the full year, 15% worked for part of the year, and 6% had a spouse or partner who worked. Among those not engaged in the labor market, most had a work-limiting disability or were in poor health , representing 40% of all working-age SNAP recipients. Just 5% of working-age adults were not working, did not have a working partner in the year that they received benefits, and were not experiencing a work-limiting health condition. Average engagement in labor market among working-age adult SNAP recipients in New York City (2022-2024) Figure 3
All working-age SNAP recipients
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Worked full-year (11 to 12 months)
33%
15%
Worked part-year (1 to 10 months)
6%
Has working spouse or partner Had work-limiting health problem or poor health and did not work Not working in past 12 months
41%
5%
Source: Annual Poverty Tracker survey data, second through sixth Poverty Tracker cohorts. Note: Results based on three-year average of 2022, 2023, and 2024 data.
In addition to asking about recipients’ engagement with the labor market, the Poverty Tracker collects data on their wages. These data shed light on why employment alone does not guarantee that an individual will not need to rely on nutrition assistance to put food on the table. We find that the vast majority of working adults receiving SNAP (85%) are earning less than $25 per hour (Figure 4). In comparison, the share of adult non-recipients earning less than $25 per hour was roughly 43%.
12 Between 2022 and 2024, nearly 1 in 3 (31%) adult SNAP recipients in New York City were seniors and no longer working age (see Appendix Figure A.1). Thus, in this figure, our results focus on the remaining 69% of adult SNAP recipients who are working age.
6
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
Low-wage work among SNAP recipients in New York City (2022-2024) Figure 4 Low-wage work among SNAP recipients in New York City
Hourly earnings under $25 per hour Hourly earnings above $25 per hour
15%
43%
57%
85%
SNAP recipients
Non-recipients
Source: Annual Poverty Tracker survey data, second through sixth Poverty Tracker cohorts. Note: Results based on three-year average of 2022, 2023, and 2024 data.
The results documented here show that labor force participation is prevalent among working-age adults receiving SNAP, yet, as discussed further below, OBBBA will impose a new set of administratively burdensome work-reporting requirements on many working-age New Yorkers. Such requirements could deter eligible individuals from applying for benefits despite qualifying and meeting the requirements, 13 exacerbating the economic hardships that they are facing. Health challenges among SNAP recipients As seen above in the discussion of labor market engagement, health challenges are particularly common among SNAP recipients. Here, we further examine the prevalence of these challenges among recipients— regardless of whether they are working or not. Figure 5 shows that, on average, adult SNAP beneficiaries were far more likely to report their health as “Fair” or “Poor” compared to non-recipients in the city. More than 2 in 5 (43%) of adult SNAP recipients rate their health as fair or poor, compared to just 18% of non- recipients (Figure 5). Conversely, just over 1 in 4 (28%) SNAP recipients rate their health as “Very Good” or “Excellent,” versus nearly half (48%) of non-recipients.
13 Schweitzer, “How to Address the Administrative Burdens of Accessing the Safety Net.”
7
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
Average self-rated health among adult New Yorkers receiving SNAP (2022-2024) Figure 5 Average self-rated health among adult New Yorkers receiving SNAP (2022-2024)
Poor
Fair
Good Very Good Excellent
28% Very Good or Excellent Health
43% Poor or Fair Health
SNAP recipients
10%
33%
29%
17%
11%
18% Poor or Fair Health
48% Very Good or Excellent Health
Non-recipients
14%
16%
34%
34%
2%
Source: Annual Poverty Tracker survey data, second through sixth Poverty Tracker cohorts. Note: Results based on three-year average of 2022, 2023, and 2024 data.
The overlap between health challenges and SNAP recipiency is further emphasized when examining the share of recipients who have a work-limiting health condition. New Yorkers receiving SNAP are more than three times as likely as non-recipients to report having a work-limiting health condition or disability (52% vs 16%) (Figure 6). Share of adult SNAP recipients in New York City with a work-limiting disability or health condition (2022-2024) Figure 6 Share of adult SNAP recipients in New York City with work-limiting disability or health condition (2022-2024)
Has a work limiting disability or health condition
52%
SNAP recipients
16%
Non-recipients
Source: Annual Poverty Tracker survey data, second through sixth Poverty Tracker cohorts. Note: Results based on three-year average of 2022, 2023, and 2024 data.
8
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
Overall, health challenges are particularly prevalent among SNAP recipients in New York City. Given the intersection between health and nutrition, potential cuts to the SNAP program could worsen these conditions if they lead more New Yorkers to rely on less nutritious food or skip meals. The cuts to the SNAP program thus threaten not only the economic security of New Yorkers, but also their health. Added economic hardships faced by SNAP recipients Prior Poverty Tracker work has demonstrated that rising food costs and increases in the cost of living in recent years have left SNAP recipients especially vulnerable, with roughly half of SNAP recipients reporting needing more money to meet their food needs since the onset of the pandemic. 14 Here, we find that even with SNAP benefits, more than 3 in 5 (62%) families sometimes or often ran out of food, or worried that food would run out, before having enough money to buy more (Figure 7). The combination of low wages, poorer health, and work-limiting health conditions among SNAP recipients — as we have highlighted throughout this Spotlight — also leaves these families at high risk of experiencing other forms of material hardship. In recent years, more than 3 in 5 (70%) families receiving SNAP reported sometimes or often running out of money before the end of the month or between paychecks (Figure 7). Poverty Tracker data also shows that more than 1 in 3 (34%) families receiving SNAP reported falling behind on utility payments because they were unaffordable, nearly 1 in 3 (34%) fell behind on rent or mortgage payments, and roughly 1 in 5 (17%) could not afford to see a doctor. Roughly 80% of families receiving SNAP benefits report experiencing at least some form of material hardship in the year that they received benefits, and nearly half (46%) experienced severe material hardship. Overall, SNAP recipients face disproportionate health challenges and endure high rates of material hardship. While not fully remedying these challenges, SNAP provides a stable form of support. However, as we will discuss in the next section, cuts to the program resulting from recent federal actions are likely to exacerbate these challenges and hardships.
14 Vinh, et al., “Spotlight on: Food Budget Shortfalls in New York City.”
9
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
Experiences of material hardship among New York City families receiving SNAP (2022-2024) Figure 7
Food hardship
Financial hardship
Ran out of food or worried food would run out without money for more...
Ran out of money before the end of the month or between paychecks...
Often*
16%
Often*
30%
46%
Sometimes
40%
Sometimes
26
Housing hardship
Bills hardship
Missed rent or mortgage payment because you didn't have enough money
Fell behind on utility bills because they were unaffordable Had utilities shut off due to missed payments*
34%
34%
Stayed in a shelter or "doubled up"*
4%
16%
Medical hardship
Any material hardship
Unable to see a doctor because of cost*
80%
Any material hardship
17%
Any severe material hardship
46%
Source: Annual Poverty Tracker survey data, second through sixth Poverty Tracker cohorts. Note: Results based on three-year average of 2022, 2023, and 2024 data. *Denotes the indicator used to determine severe hardship status within each domain.
10
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
The increased risk of poverty and economic insecurity resulting from federal cuts to SNAP As previously mentioned, the H.R.1 budget reconciliation law, also referred to as OBBBA, cuts nearly $187 billion 15 from SNAP — or, approximately 20% of SNAP’s federal funding—through a series of funding, eligibility, and administrative policy changes that will cut off access to the program altogether for some families and could reduce benefit amounts for remaining recipients (see text box below). Federal cuts and changes to SNAP under OBBBA 16 1. Shifting SNAP costs to state governments: Beginning in October 2027, states will have to cover a larger share of SNAP’s administrative costs, increasing from 50% to 75%. States will also have to start paying for a portion of recipients benefits, which the federal government has traditionally fully funded. Starting in October 2028, states will have to pay anywhere between 0% to 15% of their benefit costs, with the exact rate depending on their SNAP payment error rate. 2. Enacting stricter work requirements: SNAP recipients between the ages of 55 and 64, as well as adults with dependents over the age of 14, are now subject to the program’s additional set of work rules for “able-bodied adults without dependents,” or ABAWDs. Under this set of rules, recipients must work a minimum of 20 hours per week to receive SNAP benefits for more than three months over a three-year period. OBBBA also eliminates exemptions to these work rules previously in place for unhoused individuals, veterans, and certain individuals previously in foster care. While states can request waivers to exempt residents in certain areas from the ABAWD work requirements, such as those in areas with high unemployment rates, OBBBA makes it more difficult for states to request them. States may now only request waivers when an area’s unemployment rate exceeds 10%. 3. Limiting how much benefit values can increase by adjusting the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP): OBBBA limits updates to the TFP to be cost-neutral, meaning future increases to SNAP benefits will be tied to inflation alone. This will reduce benefit values over time because benefit amounts will no longer account for possible changes in dietary guidelines. Such guideline changes can lead the cost of a minimally adequate diet (which informs SNAP benefit amounts) to increase more substantially than is reflected in the inflation rate. 4. Changing how energy and internet costs are considered in determining families’ monthly benefit amounts: SNAP benefit values are determined depending on a family’s net income, which can be reduced by certain deductions, including excess shelter costs (i.e., household expenses that sum to more than half of a family’s income after other deductions, including, but not limited to, electricity, water, rent or mortgage payments, and property taxes). OBBBA reduces SNAP benefits for certain families by barring families without an elderly or disabled member from deducting the value of their state energy assistance payments (e.g., LIHEAP) from their net income, and prohibiting the inclusion of internet costs in excess shelter costs. 5. Limiting SNAP eligibility for noncitizens: Refugees, asylees, and noncitizen trafficking survivors previously eligible for SNAP are no longer eligible under OBBBA.
15 Congressional Budget Office, “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline.” 16 For additional details on SNAP cuts under OBBBA, see: United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 — Information Memorandum”; No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices, “Summary Changes to SNAP in H.R.1.”
11
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
The consequences of work reporting requirements for New Yorkers nearing retirement: Edna’s story The data from this Spotlight highlight how many New Yorkers who receive SNAP are living with work-limiting disabilities, serious health conditions, and poor health. New Yorkers have also shared stories underscoring the importance of SNAP and how even modest monthly benefits provide critical support, particularly for those facing significant health challenges. Yet access to this vital assistance will soon become more difficult for many New Yorkers nearing retirement who are also managing health challenges, due to stringent new work requirements enacted in the 2025 reconciliation bill. Consider Edna: She is a 67-year-old living alone in Staten Island who receives Social Security benefits and a $200 per month SNAP benefit. She thought her carefully-planned retirement would go smoothly. She worked all her life in manufacturing jobs, climbing up the ladder. Divorced, she retired and moved to New York City to be near her daughter. But then things went awry. Her osteoarthritis got worse, and she has difficulty walking. A car repair of $1,200 set her back. The cost of food is now a constant worry. “Food costs have skyrocketed. Everything’s gone up, food, gas—but my income doesn’t change accordingly... [in the past] for $50, you’d get three or four bags of food. Now, it’s like two bags for $50.” She calculates that her SNAP benefits allow for a little over $6.00 a day for 2-3 meals. Even then, “Usually, I’m short every month about anywhere from $20 to $50.” She stretches out her protein by eating a single chicken breast over three meals. She cooks dry beans, freezes them, vacuum-seals bulk meat from Costco, and plans menus around coupons. She now eats “usually two meals a day, maybe a snack, and that’s it. No extras, no sodas and things like that.” In the end, she says, you “don’t have enough money... to get those things that you really need for nutrition.” She also lives in what she calls a “food desert.” The most affordable grocery store is “literally a 30-minute drive.” After years of working in manufacturing, she developed severe osteoarthritis which limits her mobility, so even food pantries are inaccessible. “I can’t stand in line to go to a pantry… There’s no avenue that I can see to be able to get additional foods without being there.” She keeps a tight budget, tracking every dollar. She rarely uses her car because of the price of gas and is even thinking of canceling her one entertainment outlet—streaming services—because of the cost. The stress is constant. “It’s very stressful… when you’re limited on what you can even do to alleviate those issues, then you’re stuck.” Stories like Edna’s demonstrate how SNAP provides vital assistance to New Yorkers facing financial hardship, particularly those with disabilities and chronic health conditions. Even so, benefits often fall short of meeting basic food needs, and will likely fall further as OBBBA cuts take effect. At 67, Edna will not be subject to the law’s new work requirements. But had she been just a few years younger, recently enacted policy changes would have required her to either continuously report that she is working or repeatedly document that her osteoarthritis is severe enough to qualify for an exemption. Under law, cases are deemed severe only if an individual is consistently unable to walk, stand, or use their arms or hands. Either scenario would have put her SNAP eligibility at risk. The jobs available to her are limited by her osteoarthritis regardless of how it is classified, and repeatedly proving her condition meets an extremely narrow definition would impose significant administrative hurdles – barriers that make accessing and maintaining benefits especially difficult for people with disabilities.
12
ST NH AE PS TRAETCEI POI EFNPTOSVIENRNTEYWA NY OD RDKI SCAI TDYVA N TDATGHE EI NC ON NE WS EYQOUREKN C EI TSYO F F E D E R A L C U T S TO S N A P VOL. 8
Understanding the potential effects of these cuts is difficult, however, as there remains substantial ambiguity as to how these changes will be implemented. For example, some states may not have sufficient funding to cover the costs passed onto them, and they could eliminate the program in their state entirely; others may need to reduce benefit amounts to cover the costs, or further limit eligibility. 17 While it is unclear how exactly these cuts will play out in New York City and State, Wimer and Gorzig (2026) 18 developed a new methodology to estimate the number of New York State residents likely to be pushed into poverty by OBBBA’s SNAP cuts that rely on the estimated cuts to the SNAP budget. The results documented here extend Wimer and Gorzig’s analysis to New York City, using state administrative data on SNAP participation and benefits both state- and citywide to estimate the number of New Yorkers likely to fall into poverty as a result of OBBBA’s cuts to SNAP. Using SNAP administrative data, we find that New York City makes up approximately 61% of the state’s total SNAP participation. Applying this share of SNAP participation to the New York State results published by Wimer and Gorzig (2026), we find that the OBBBA SNAP cuts are likely to push roughly 70,000 New York City residents into poverty each year between 2028 and 2034 (Table 1). Projected estimates of the number of New York City residents pushed into poverty by OBBBA SNAP cuts Table 1
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034
New Yorkers pushed into poverty by OBBBA SNAP cuts
27,000 53,000 70,000 69,000 67,000 65,000 73,000 73,000 72,000
Source: Author’s calculations using estimates from Wimer and Gorzig, “How many New Yorkers will be pushed into poverty by federal cuts to the SNAP program?” and administrative SNAP participation data from New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Caseloads and Expenditures: Beginning 2002.” It is important to note that these results are limited to the impacts of OBBBA’s cuts to SNAP and do not include the law’s nearly $1 trillion cuts to Medicaid 19 nor future potential cuts to federal housing assistance programs. 20 Cuts to Medicaid will disproportionately affect SNAP recipients in New York City, as could cuts to federally-supported housing assistance programs. Figure 8 shows that more than 2 in 3 (67%) families receiving SNAP benefits include at least one adult covered by Medicaid, and nearly 1 in 3 (32%) receive a Section 8 voucher or reside in NYCHA public housing . Recent Poverty Tracker research 21 and other studies 22 suggest that SNAP recipients are likely to observe even more losses in their resources as a result of cuts to these programs, which will further diminish their ability to meet their basic needs and increase their risk of poverty. 17 Villa and Scott, “SNAP Changes will Upend State Budgets.” 18 Wimer and Gorzig, “How Many New Yorkers will be Pushed into Poverty by Federal Cuts to the SNAP Program? Estimates from a New Methodology in the Face of Policy Uncertainty.” 19 American Medical Association, “Changes to Medicaid, the ACA and Other Key Provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Congressional Budget Office, “Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14 Title VII, Finance, Subtitle B, Health, Chapter 1, Medicaid.” 20 National Low Income Housing Coalition, “President Trump Releases ‘Skinny’ Budget Request Foreshadowing Historic Cuts to HUD in Full FY26 Re- quest — Take Action!” 21 Koutavas, et al., “Spotlight on: Housing Affordability and the Threat of Cuts to Federal Housing Assistance Programs.” 22 Internicola, “How Federal Budget Changes Could Reshape The New York City Public Housing Authority.” Congressional Budget Office, “Public Law 119- 21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14 Title VII, Finance, Subtitle B, Health, Chapter 1, Medicaid.”
13
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
Rates of Medicaid coverage and Section 8 recipiency or NYCHA public housing resi- dency among families receiving SNAP (2022-2024) Figure 8 Rates of Medicaid coverage and Section 8 recipiency or NYCHA public housing residency among families receiving SNAP (2022-2024)
Received Medicaid Received Section 8 voucher or reside in NYCHA public housing
67%
32%
Source: Annual Poverty Tracker survey data, second through sixth Poverty Tracker cohorts. Note: Results based on three-year average of 2022, 2023, and 2024 data.
The state and local response to federal SNAP cuts Recent federal actions are likely to result in substantial cuts to the SNAP program in the coming years. However, there are several opportunities at the state and local level to offset the consequences of these federal policy changes. These include: FOOD: g Establish a targeted state-funded SNAP minimum supplement of $100 for households receiving the lowest federal SNAP benefits , prioritizing seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families, regardless of immigration status g Bolster funding for New York’s emergency food providers and benefit navigator programs to help households access food , including $75 million for Hunger Prevention and Nutrition Assistance Program and Nourish NY, $20 million for frontline service providers and their networks, $8.5 million to sustain statewide access to SNAP navigators through the Nutrition Outreach and Education Program, $30 million for the Women, Infants, & Children program to stabilize and modernize operations and support outreach, and $4.6 million for CUNY Comprehensive Access to Resources and Essential Services for all campuses. HOUSING: g Expand the Housing Access Voucher Program , a statewide rental assistance program for households experiencing and at risk of homelessness. A pilot version of the program was established last year but increasing annual funding to $250 million and making the program permanent would help thousands more households across New York remain stably housed. g Improve and expand CityFHEPS , New York City’s local housing voucher for households experiencing homelessness by reducing administrative burdens to help households move out of shelter more quickly and piloting preventative vouchers for target populations to prevent homelessness before it occurs. Lorem ipsum
14
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
HEALTH COVERAGE AND SUPPORTS: g Fund health insurance coverage for the approximately 450,000 New Yorkers at risk of losing coverage under the Essential Plan as a result of OBBBA. g Reform the State’s Temporary Disability Insurance program and prevent financial hardship for New York workers taking medical leave by eliminating the $170 weekly cap on benefits, increasing the wage replacement rate to 67% to be on par with the Paid Family Leave benefits, providing job protection, and guaranteeing continued health coverage during medical leave. g Invest $300 million in Community Health Centers, where 1 in 3 uninsured patients in New York State currently receive health care , including a $150 million state contribution to update the Medicaid reimbursement methodology to more accurately cover cost of care. CHILD TAX CREDIT: g Permanently expand and strengthen the Empire State Child Credit by increasing its value to $1,500 per child (ages 0 to 17) , indexing the credit and income threshold to inflation, and making the FY2026 changes to the credit structure permanent.
15
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
This report examines the state of poverty and disadvantage among New Yorkers in 2024. Poverty Tracker data shows that, in 2024, more than 1 in 4 New Yorkers (26%) lived in poverty — the highest rates since we began collecting data in 2012. When looking at the population that lived below 200% of the poverty line, these numbers were even higher, with over half of adults (56%) and over two in three children (69%) considered low-income. This is especially relevant because economic difficulty was not just limited to the domain of poverty; material hardship was more common than poverty in 2024. Half of adults and children were in families that experienced at least some form of material hardship in 2024, and roughly a quarter were in families that experienced at least on form of severe material hardship. In regards to health, 1 in 5 (20%) New Yorkers reported a health problem, such as a work-limiting health condition, and more than 1 in 4 (27%) experienced either a health problem or severe psychological distress. Altogether, half of New Yorkers (50%) experienced at least one form of disadvantage: poverty, severe hardship, or health problems. The continued prevalence of poverty and disadvantage in 2024 provides a clear example of the gaps in income that social policies can be designed to fill. While recent federal actions will narrow the impact of existing policies in coming years, there are also several opportunities at the state and local level to help offset this retrenchment. These policy options — ranging from supplementing SNAP benefits, to expanding the Housing Access Voucher Program, to funding health insurance coverage and permanently expanding the Empire State Child Tax Credit, among others — will guarantee a more secure safety net for New Yorkers, countering the consequences of recent federal action and potentially reversing the troubling rise in poverty documented in this report.
16
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
REFERENCES American Medical Association. (2025). Changes to Medicaid, the ACA and other key provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Access here. Barr, A. and Smith, A. A. (2023). Fighting Crime in the Cradle: The Effects of Early Childhood Access to Nutritional Assistance. Journal of Human Resources, 58(1) 43-73. Access here. Carlson, S. and Llobrera, J. (2022). SNAP Is Linked With Improved Health Outcomes and Lower Health Care Costs. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Access here. Congressional Budget Office. (2025). Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline. Access here. Congressional Budget Office. (2025). Estimated Effects of Public Law 119-21 on Participation and Benefits Under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Access here. Congressional Budget Office. (2025). Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14 Title VII, Finance, Subtitle B, Health, Chapter 1, Medicaid. Access here. Frongillo, E. A., Jyoti, D. F., Jones, S.J. (2006). Food Stamp Program Participation Is Associated with Better Academic Learning among School Children. The Journal of Nutrition, 136(4), 1077-1080. Access here. Gunderson, C. (2015). Food Assistance Programs and Child Health. The Future of Children, 25(1), 91–109. Access here. Internicola, S. (2025). How Federal Budget Changes Could Reshape The New York City Public Housing Authority. New York: New York City Independent Budget Office. Access here. Jones, J. (2025). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) - Key Statistics and Research. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Access here. Koutavas, A., Collyer, S., Jia, Y. (2025). Spotlight on: Housing Affordability and the Threat of Cuts to Federal Housing Assistance Programs. The Poverty Tracker. New York: Robin Hood. Access here. Koutavas, A., Wang, B., Garfinkel, I., Ananat, E., Collyer, S., Curran, M., Hartley, R. P., and Wimer, C. (2025). The Economic Costs of Cutting SNAP: Every $1 in SNAP Cuts to Families with Children Costs Society $14 to $20. Poverty and Social Policy Brief, 9(6). New York: Center on Poverty and Social Policy, Columbia University. Access here. National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2025). President Trump Releases “Skinny” Budget Request Foreshadowing Historic Cuts to HUD in Full FY26 Request – Take Action!. Access here. New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. (2025). SNAP Benefits by Congressional District. Access here. New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance. (2026). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Caseloads and Expenditures: Beginning 2002. Access here.
17
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
No Kid Hungry Center for Best Practices. (2025). Summary Changes to SNAP in H.R.1. Access here.
Schweitzer, J. (2022). “How To Address the Administrative Burdens of Accessing the Safety Net.” Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress. Access here. U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. (2025). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 – Information Memorandum. Access here. Villa, M. and Scott, S. (2025). SNAP Changes Will Upend State Budgets. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality, Georgetown University Law Center. Access here. Vinh, R., Collyer, S., Jia, Y., Lens, V., Ross, S., Schwinn, T., Wimer, C., and Yera, C. (2025). Spotlight on: Food Budget Shortfalls in New York City. The Poverty Tracker. New York: Robin Hood. Access here. Wimer, C. and Gorzig, M. (2026). How many New Yorkers will be pushed into poverty by federal cuts to the SNAP program? New York: Robin Hood. Access here. Wimer, C., Lee, J., Collyer, S., Curran, M., and Parolin, Z. (2025). The Impact of the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) on Monthly Poverty Rates. Poverty and Social Policy Fact Sheet. New York: Center on Poverty and Social Policy, Columbia University. Access here.
18
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
APPENDIX A.
Average engagement in labor market among adult SNAP recipients in New York City (2022-2024) Figure A.4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Worked full-year (11 to 12 months)
23%
11%
Worked part-year (1 to 10 months) Has working spouse or partner No longer working age (65+) and did not work Had work-limiting health problem or poor health and did not work Not working in past 12 months
4%
31%
27%
3%
Source: Annual Poverty Tracker survey data, second through sixth Poverty Tracker cohorts. Note: Results based on three-year average of 2022, 2023, and 2024 data.
19
SNAP RECIPIENTS IN NEW YORK CITY AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL CUTS TO SNAP
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator