SNAP is comparatively the most effective IKB at combating poverty

SNAP funding—which, as mentioned, is a key part of the farm bill—reached a record high of more than $113 billion in 2021. Although this was due largely to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the funding level has exceeded $60 billion every year since 2008 and is expected to remain at this level or higher. All these factors help explain why the largest source of farm bill funding for rural areas is not financial support for farms, but SNAP. U.S. rural areas have higher participation rates in SNAP than urban areas. Also, a USDA study of the program following the Great Recession found that SNAP increased employment and economic output more than twice as much in rural areas as in metropolitan areas. Over the six years of the study (2009-2014), SNAP benefits calculated in 2014 dollars generated, on average, an annual increase in rural economic output of $49 billion. This far exceeds the impact of the rest of the farm bill on the rural economy. The contributions of SNAP to rural areas are also more significant than those of other federal programs. When USDA studied the impact of SNAP benefits on local employment during the Great Recession, it found that, per dollar spent, “SNAP had a greater effect on employment than [other] government payments combined, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and veterans’ benefits… [The effects] were also larger than the employment effects, per dollar spent, of all [other] federal government spending combined.” SNAP contributed more to reducing unemployment than any other federal poverty program. Unlike the rural development title of the farm bill, SNAP is designed to prioritize people in areas with the highest poverty rates and most depressed economies. Making areas with the greatest need a top priority, along with more resources, could improve the rural development component of the farm bill.