A new report says that states that receive the largest federal aid will receive a majority of it from the federal government.
The report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies finds that each state’s total aid will total about $2.8 billion, and that a third of that total will come from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the federal program that helps low-income people pay for food and other necessities.
The other two-thirds of the money will come through Medicaid, which covers about a third the cost of food stamps and pays for many health care services.
The states receiving the most money from the SNAP program will receive the biggest share of the aid, and they will receive almost all of the federal money.
“The largest share of federal assistance will be received from the program that covers the largest share,” said Jonathan Drouin, an economist at the Joint Centre.
“That means states will receive more in SNAP aid than they would otherwise.
It’s a fair amount of money.”
In general, states that have received the most federal money tend to have lower poverty rates than those that have not received much.
In fact, the report finds that in 2014, 41 states had poverty rates that were at least 10 percentage points lower than those in 2014.
But the report also finds that states with the largest poverty rates tend to be more heavily concentrated in the South and in urban areas, where the poverty rate is higher.
In the South, the researchers say that poverty rates have been falling in the states with a large share of black residents.
But in the West, where most people live, poverty rates are rising and rising.
“It’s hard to say what’s going to happen in the Midwest,” Drouins said.
“If you look at the states where we think the poverty rates will be lowest, they’re all in the Northeast, where people are more concentrated and where there are a lot of people living in poverty.
In the South there’s a lot more people living on the margins.
There’s a very different pattern in the region.”
“A majority of the poverty in the Southeast will fall on poor families, not rich ones,” he added.
“We see a lot in the study that the poverty is not concentrated on people in the lowest income bracket.
In other words, the majority of people in poverty are not in the bottom fifth.”
One of the biggest changes that the report makes is that people living at the lower end of the income distribution will be disproportionately affected by SNAP aid.
In 2014, the number of people who were living at or below the federal poverty level was around 4.4 million.
That was about two-fifths of the number who were in poverty in 2014 but just barely over half the number in the 1960s.
“You could say the poverty that we’re seeing is going to continue to worsen in this period,” Dauber said.
“If you compare the poverty to the pre-recession levels, that would be a very large difference.
The income distribution is very different now,” he said.
There is some evidence that poverty will be reduced for some people.
Drouini said that in some states, particularly in the Deep South, where a majority and a quarter of the population live below the poverty line, the poverty reduction would be similar to what it is now.
But in others, such as in the mid-Atlantic states, there may not be a large reduction.
“There’s not a lot that is going on that is large enough to affect the poverty situation in the entire South,” Douin said.
“There are some regions in the United States where we might see a large change in the distribution of poverty,” he continued.
“In other regions, we might not see a big change.
But we do see a substantial change in some areas.
That’s the biggest difference.”
Some states will have a harder time keeping up with SNAP needs.
Deremphasizing SNAP in states that already have low SNAP rates may lead to states cutting back on services and reducing aid to low- and moderate-income families.
While Drouinos study found that states may have a better chance of keeping SNAP low than states that currently have a higher poverty rate, it also found that SNAP would likely decrease.
If states cut back on SNAP, they would also cut back in other ways, Drouinis said.
Some states would cut back by cutting back Medicaid payments.
Others might not be able to get the food stamps that are part of the SNAP benefits, because SNAP doesn’t pay for them.
The state may also reduce the amount of housing vouchers that people can receive, and people in those families might not get enough money to buy a home.
Another problem for states is that they don’t always know how much money they have left.
If a state cuts back on spending, that money will not go into a bank account,