The Potential for State Policies to Improve Child Food Insecurity

The Issue:

Food insecurity among households with children remains a challenge in the United States. In 2023, approximately 18% of households with children were food insecure with higher rates among those living in poverty. Experiencing food insecurity as a child negatively impacts both physical and mental health. Existing policies and programs that address food insecurity, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, are very important for helping families afford food and reduce the prevalence of food insecurity — but they do not eliminate it. Other labor and economic policies that are not specifically targeted towards food support could play a role. Policies that increase the returns to working, such as the minimum wage and the earned income tax credit, can increase household economic security among the working poor, potentially reducing child food insecurity. New research is finding evidence that links these policies to reduced food insecurity among households with children and provides additional policy options at the state level for reducing childhood food insecurity.

States that implemented more generous refundable EITCs saw a 10.4% drop in food insecurity among low-education households with kids.

The Facts:

• Children living in food insecure households have a higher likelihood for poor health outcomes. Food insecure households are those that experienced times during the year during which they were uncertain of having — or unable to acquire — enough food to meet the needs of all their members. Household food insecurity has been linked to a wide range of poor outcomes for children, including developmental delays, behavioral challenges, and more frequent hospitalizations. In addition, these childhood experiences can create long-term effects that can impact health in adulthood. For example, early childhood food insecurity has been associated with higher body mass index and worse cardiovascular health in early adulthood.
• The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the nation’s largest anti-hunger program, however, it does not eliminate the experience of food insecurity. Enrollment procedures and requirements (e.g., administrative burdens, lack of technical support), which vary by state, can make it difficult to become and stay enrolled in SNAP, possibly limiting the reach of the program. In addition, the program’s monthly benefit distribution schedule can lead to a “benefit cycle” where food access becomes increasingly challenging towards the end of the month. These limitations may leave gaps in resources for households with children leading policy makers, advocates, and researchers to explore how other economic and labor policies might strengthen food security. 
• Two labor and economic policies that have the potential to address childhood food insecurity are the minimum wage and the earned income tax credit (EITC). Food insecurity declines as family income increases. The minimum wage sets the lowest hourly pay workers can legally receive and increases in the minimum wage have been found to boost earnings for low-income workers with spillover effects for those making above the minimum wage. Higher wages that are paid weekly or bi-weekly, may offer families a more consistent and steady income that can help build economic security over time, opening up resources needed to purchase food. The EITC is a tax credit designed to supplement the incomes of low-wage workers — in particular those with children — and to reduce their tax burden, while encouraging recipients to work. Recipients earn a tax credit that varies with the level of earned income and with family structure. The federal EITC has been heralded as one of the most important poverty alleviation programs. Although the credit is received only once per year, families often use the lump-sum refund for larger purchases that increase long-term stability, such as buying or repairing a vehicle, securing housing, or paying off debt. These investments can improve a household’s ability to maintain food security over time.
• Wide variation in both policies exists across states leading low-income working families to experience different labor and economic supports depending on where they live. While minimum wage is established at the federal level, individual state legislatures have the authority to upwardly adjust their minimum wage. Individual states also have the ability to add benefits above the federal EITC, which they often express as a percentage of the federal tax credit (e.g., 10% of the federal credit). They also choose whether the state credit will either be “refundable”—where families receive a refund check for the credit amount beyond their tax liability — or “non-refundable” — which only reduces a household's tax bill to zero without a refund check. Over the past 25 years, states have increasingly implemented both policies resulting in growing variation in generosity across states. For example, only 10 states and the District of Columbia had a refundable state EITC in 2000 compared to 23 states and the District of Columbia in 2021 (see map). Similarly, state minimum wages ranged from $2.65-$7.15 in 2005 compared to $7.25-$14.49 in 2022.
• Studies on state minimum wage and refundable state EITCs find that they can reduce food insecurity among economically at-risk households with children. In research we conducted using data from the Food Security Supplement of the Current Population Survey, we found reductions in food insecurity for households with limited education and children who resided in states with more generous policies. We found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage translated into a 3.4% reduction in current experiences of low or very low food security. Similarly, we found that states that moved to the most generous EITC (a credit >25% of the federal EITC) saw a 10.4% drop in food insecurity among households with lower levels of education compared to states who did not institute a refundable EITC. 
• Policies have diverse effects across economically at-risk households with children who are disproportionately impacted by food insecurity. Single-headed, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Black households with children have rates of food insecurity that are more than twice as high as married and non-Hispanic White households. While food insecurity reductions were seen for all groups with more generous state EITCs, we also found that there were larger reductions for single parent versus partnered households and among non-Hispanic Black versus non-Hispanic White households. This aligns with other research on state and federal EITCs that found more beneficial outcomes for employment and income among single mother households. Conversely, for state minimum wage, we found stronger benefits among partnered households and non-Hispanic White households, as well as for larger families.
• The 2025 pause in collection of food security data for the Current Population Survey and other national datasets will inhibit future evaluations that can examine impacts from state policies. In September 2025, USDA announced that they were ceasing data collection on food security, which has been assessed every December since 1995 as part of the Current Population Survey. Further, the future of food security data in other national datasets capable of producing estimates at the state level, such as the National Health Interview Survey, also appear in jeopardy. Data losses like these will prevent future evaluations of state legislature policy choices, such as the state minimum wage and state EITC policies highlighted here as well as the numerous changes made to SNAP in 2025 that will affect states differently.