Examines prevalence of joint participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Unemployment Insurance (UI) by the unemployed since the Great Recession.

“This paper used panel data from the nationally representative Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) from years 2000-2011, to examine changes in the prevalence and character of joint participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Unemployment Insurance (UI) among job losers during the Great Recession…. Descriptive statistics examining changes following the onset of the Great Recession indicated heightened use of Unemployment Insurance and Food Stamps/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a change in the sequencing of program entrance with joint participants became less likely to access SNAP first, and the composition of the group joint participants became more advantaged across a range of demographic characteristics” (p.1).(Abstractor: Author)This paper was presented at an APAM conference. No publication date or funding source was indicated.

Full Publication Title: Supported from Both Sides? Changes in the Dynamics of Joint Participation in SNAP and UI Following the Great Recession

Major Findings & Recommendations

“Our results show that the social safety net responded to the changes in the nature of unemployment following the Great Recession, as job losers experiencing more lengthy spells of unemployment could take up both SNAP and UI, as well as through planned counter-cyclical features and through the fortuitously timed expansion of the SNAP program. Our descriptive results show that the least- and most-advantaged job losers were less likely to participate jointly. For the most advantaged job losers, it is possible that they were able to turn to private safety nets during their unemployment spells. This is less likely for the least advantaged job losers. More work needs to be done in order to determine whether other aspects of the social safety net responded to their needs during the economic downturn, and if not, why the most vulnerable members of society were less likely to receive public aid” (p.13).(Abstractor: Author)