The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a cornerstone of the United States’ social safety net, plays a pivotal role in addressing food insecurity across diverse populations. Recent research led by Alcantara, Kolesar, and Jozefowicz dives deep into the nuances of SNAP participation, with a focus on Pennsylvania’s counties. Their study, entitled “Rural–Urban Differences in SNAP Participation in Pennsylvania Counties,” published in the Atlantic Economic Journal, reveals striking disparities in how rural and urban areas engage with this crucial program, shedding light on broader socioeconomic patterns that influence public assistance uptake.
Understanding SNAP participation requires a multifaceted approach, as eligibility and enrollment are influenced by a complex web of economic, demographic, and geographic factors. The research team meticulously analyzed data from Pennsylvania, a state with heterogeneous landscapes ranging from densely populated urban centers like Philadelphia to expansive rural counties characterized by agricultural economies and limited infrastructure. This dichotomy serves as an ideal laboratory for exploring how place impacts public program participation.
One of the most prominent findings from the study is the persistent gap in SNAP engagement between rural and urban residents. Despite rural communities often facing higher rates of poverty and limited access to diverse food outlets, their SNAP participation rates tend to lag behind those in urban areas. This paradox suggests that economic need does not straightforwardly translate to program uptake. Instead, barriers such as distance to enrollment offices, internet connectivity issues complicating online applications, and social stigma uniquely affect rural applicants.
The researchers applied advanced econometric modeling techniques to isolate and quantify these influences. By controlling for income levels, household size, age distributions, and employment status, the study discerned that geographic disparities were not solely an artifact of economic conditions. The rural environment itself imposes structural challenges that reduce program participation rates, pointing to systemic gaps in outreach and assistance delivery mechanisms tailored for rural populations.
This revelation is particularly significant in the context of the evolving food landscape in the United States. Urban areas often benefit from concentrated social services, including local nonprofits and government agencies that actively promote SNAP enrollment. Conversely, rural counties may lack such dense institutional networks, placing greater onus on individuals to navigate the application process independently. Furthermore, transportation barriers influence the ability of rural residents to access physical service centers, leading to reliance on online platforms—a method hindered by the persistent digital divide.
The digital divide’s impact on SNAP participation emerges as a critical element of the study. While urban internet penetration rates have surged, rural broadband access remains patchy, limiting seamless online application submissions and communications. This technological handicap exacerbates existing socioeconomic disadvantages and can lead to delayed or forgone aid. The authors argue that expanding broadband infrastructure could be a game changer for rural SNAP participation, emphasizing the need for integrated policy frameworks that combine technological advancement with social service outreach.
Another layer of complexity is the perception and stigmatization of government assistance programs in rural communities. Cultural attitudes toward self-reliance and skepticism of public aid can discourage eligible individuals from enrolling in SNAP. The study employed qualitative data gathered through surveys and interviews, uncovering that social stigma often stagnates outreach efforts. Participants expressed worries about judgment from neighbors and extended family, which are amplified in close-knit rural settings where privacy is limited.
Alcantara, Kolesar, and Jozefowicz’s analysis also touches upon transportation infrastructure as a determinant of SNAP enrollment disparities. Rural residents frequently need to travel substantial distances to reach Department of Human Services offices or partner organizations that facilitate benefits enrollment. Inadequate public transit further compounds this difficulty, heightening the opportunity cost of applying for and maintaining SNAP benefits. Contrastingly, urban dwellers generally have multiple enrollment locations within accessible ranges, minimizing logistical hurdles.
Policy implications drawn from the study advocate for a tailored approach to SNAP outreach in rural areas. The conventional “one size fits all” model fails to account for geographic particularities that shape access and participation. Decentralized service delivery, mobile enrollment units, and community-led awareness campaigns are among the strategic innovations recommended to boost rural enrollment rates. Importantly, the study underscores fostering partnerships with trusted local institutions such as churches, schools, and agricultural cooperatives to break down stigma and build credibility.
The research also recognizes the role of Medicaid expansion and other social programs in modulating SNAP participation. Counties with higher rates of Medicaid enrollment often demonstrate elevated SNAP utilization due to streamlined eligibility determination and coordinated outreach efforts. Urban counties in Pennsylvania tend to leverage integrated service models more effectively than rural counterparts, reinforcing the need for cross-sector collaboration to enhance program penetration uniformly.
Economic fluctuations and employment patterns further influence SNAP participation patterns. The research identifies seasonal agricultural work prevalent in rural Pennsylvania as generating income volatility, which complicates consistent eligibility verification and benefits retention. In contrast, urban employment, while also subject to instability, typically involves a broader service-sector economy with different temporal income dynamics. Understanding these labor market differences is critical for designing responsive SNAP policies that accommodate diverse income cycles.
Critically, the study situates these findings within the broader context of food insecurity trends. Rural areas, despite lower SNAP participation, often face higher food insecurity rates due to isolation, poverty, and fewer retail food options. Urban locales, while benefiting from higher program enrollment, contend with different challenges such as food deserts and affordability issues in economically marginalized neighborhoods. The nuanced understanding offered by this research helps policymakers prioritize interventions aligned with local realities rather than aggregated statewide data.
From a methodological perspective, the research combines robust quantitative analysis with qualitative insights to yield a comprehensive portrait of SNAP dynamics. Utilizing county-level administrative data, the authors correlated SNAP caseloads with census economic indicators and conducted semi-structured interviews to probe attitudinal factors. This mixed methods approach provides a richer, more layered understanding than purely statistical trend analyses would permit, offering actionable insights for academics and practitioners alike.
The implications of this research extend beyond Pennsylvania, reflecting broader national patterns where geographic and infrastructural disparities inhibit equitable access to social safety nets. Rural-urban splits in SNAP participation highlight a critical dimension of inequality that calls for targeted solutions embedded in place-sensitive policy design. Furthermore, the study amplifies calls to address the digital divide and cultural factors that mediate public program engagement in America’s hinterlands.
In conclusion, Alcantara, Kolesar, and Jozefowicz’s contribution presents a compelling case for reimagining SNAP outreach and implementation strategies to bridge the rural-urban divide. Their findings advocate for multimodal interventions that integrate transportation support, expand broadband access, combat stigma, and harness local partnerships. Doing so not only promises to improve SNAP participation rates but also advances the broader goal of mitigating food insecurity and enhancing social equity in Pennsylvania and across the United States.
As social assistance programs face ongoing scrutiny and evolving demands, this research stands out for its rigorous examination of place-based disparities and practical recommendations. It urges policymakers, social workers, and technologists to collaborate in crafting inclusive and accessible safety nets that transcend geographic boundaries. Only by recognizing and addressing the unique constraints faced by rural communities can the vision of equitable food security be realized on a national scale.
Subject of Research: Rural and urban disparities in SNAP participation within Pennsylvania counties.
Article Title: Rural–Urban Differences in SNAP Participation in Pennsylvania Counties.
Article References:
Alcantara, A., Kolesar, K. & Jozefowicz, J.J. Rural–Urban Differences in SNAP Participation in Pennsylvania Counties. Atl Econ J (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-025-09822-6
Image Credits: AI Generated
