When SNAP Benefits End: Impacts of Emergency Allotment Expiration on Child Maltreatment

Background and Purpose:

Food insecurity is a well-documented risk factor for child maltreatment. The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated financial burden further intensified these risks. In response, the U.S. Department of Agriculture authorized states to issue Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Emergency Allotments (SNAP-EA), which increased benefits to at least $95 or up to the maximum allotment based on household size. Beginning in April 2021, states began discontinuing SNAP-EA at different times, creating substantial cross-state variation in benefit levels. While prior research has focused largely on policy expansion, less attention has been given to policy de-implementation. As policy discussions continue regarding future eligibility and benefit levels for SNAP, understanding the potential protective role of SNAP-EA is important for informing safety net policy and child maltreatment prevention efforts. Leveraging state variations in SNAP-EA expiration, this study examines whether the expiration of SNAP-EA was associated with changes in substantiated child maltreatment in the child welfare system.

Methods:

We linked nationwide data from multiple sources aggregated at the state, county, and biweekly levels from January 2021 through February 2022, focusing on the first wave of SNAP-EA expirations. Outcomes included bi-weekly county-level rates of substantiated child maltreatment from child protective services investigations per 1,000 children, drawn from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. The data suppressed county identifiers with fewer than 700 reports during the fiscal year, meaning that less populated counties were excluded. We also examined county-level rates of substantiated physical abuse and neglect separately. Counties were classified based on whether their states discontinued SNAP-EA during the study period (treatment) or maintained it (control). Models adjusted for a set of time-vary variables including COVID-19 case and death rates, other SNAP policy waivers, unemployment rates, and eviction and utility moratoriums. We used two-way fixed-effects difference-in-differences models with county and biweekly time fixed effects to estimate changes in maltreatment following SNAP-EA expiration. Supplemental analyses used heterogeneous difference-in-differences models to account for staggered policy timing and potential bias from differential effects across states and over time.

Results:

Among 1,153 counties across 50 states (including Washington, DC), 205 counties in 10 states experienced SNAP-EA expiration during the study period. SNAP-EA expiration was associated with increases in total substantiated maltreatment (b = 0.05, p < .05, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.09) and neglect (b = 0.03, p < .05, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.05), relative to counties that retained SNAP-EA. The estimate for physical abuse was positive but not statistically significant (b = 0.01, p < .10, 95% CI = 0.00, 0.02). Heterogeneous difference-in-difference estimates suggest that effects emerged gradually after SNAP-EA expiration and increased over time, indicating delayed and accumulating impacts.

Conclusions and Implications:

The expiration of pandemic-expanded SNAP benefits was associated with increases in substantiated child maltreatment, particularly neglect. These findings suggest that income and food support policies may play a protective role in reducing maltreatment risk at the population level. As policymakers consider future SNAP benefit structures and related safety net programs, maintaining or strengthening such supports have important implications for child well-being.