PPIC research associate Tess Thorman testified before the Assembly Human Services Committee and Select Committee on CalFresh Enrollment and Nutrition on December 17, 2025. Here are their prepared remarks.

Good morning. My name is Tess Thorman. I am a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California. Thank you for inviting me to provide testimony.

Today I plan to discuss the prevalence of food insecurity in California—that is, when households lack the resources to ensure that all members have enough to eat to support active, healthy lives. I’ll also discuss the impact of nutrition safety net programs on food insecurity and poverty and some of the big picture challenges that make it harder for these programs to achieve their goals, based on PPIC research and my assessment of the broader research landscape.

Since 1995, one of the surveys from the US Census Bureau has annually included a set of 18 questions developed by experts to measure food insecurity, on behalf of the USDA. These questions have been the gold standard for understanding food insecurity in the US, and in this type of large, representative survey, which screens all respondents for food insecurity, they can capture substantial variation in experiences of food hardship. For example, food insecurity can involve stretches of time during which some or all household members skip or cut down the size of meals, shift to a lower-quality or more limited diet, or both; the frequency and duration of these insecure periods can and do vary. Research finds that food insecurity is harmful to health for people of all ages, and is particularly damaging to children’s health and development.

How prevalent is food insecurity in California?

In 2023, nearly a quarter of all households in California either experienced food insecurity or were only marginally secure—meaning they could afford enough food but not enough for balanced meals, or they worried that food would run out. Among the 13% of households (1.8 million) who were food insecure, nearly 40% had very low food security, meaning they not only made changes to their diets because of their financial resources, but they also cut back on meals. As I will discuss later, 2023 is the latest year for which data are currently available, since the release of 2024 data was delayed by the federal shutdown.

California’s rate of food insecurity is near the national rate of almost 14%. Across states, the share of households experiencing food insecurity over the past year ranges from about 7% to 19%; some other large states, including New York, Florida, and Illinois, have rates close to California’s.

The annual rate of food insecurity in California has varied over time; as of 2023 it remained below the Great Recession peak of more than 15%. The rate declined between 2011 and about 2017, when it reached a low of around 10% that held steady through the start of the pandemic. Food insecurity rates ticked up in 2022 and 2023, as inflation continued and pandemic-era safety net expansions expired.

Households with children are more likely than those without to experience food insecurity at some point during the year: about one in six (17%) households with children experience food hardship, compared to about one in ten (11%) of those without. Adults often shield children from the effects of food insecurity; nearly half of children in California households that experience food insecurity do not experience it themselves.

White and Asian households are more likely than Californians overall to be food secure (93%), while 18%—nearly one in five—of Latino, Black, and other households experience food insecurity. Available data allow us to examine food insecurity across these racial/ethnic categories, but they are broad and do not show variation that may exist across smaller racial and ethnic groups.

New challenges in measuring food insecurity

Going forward, California faces a challenge in measuring food insecurity: USDA has stopped collecting the comprehensive national data behind its long-running official estimates, which I have drawn from today. The release of data for 2024 remains delayed by the federal shutdown, and the survey questions on food insecurity will not be asked in 2025.

In the future, other surveys may help fill the void—but these surveys ask smaller groups of people, ask fewer or different questions, or ask questions in single rather than repeated surveys. These options provide valuable insight but do not fully replace the survey that is ending. Similarly, researchers may be able to estimate rates of food insecurity based on factors that often predict it, rather than using surveys that ask direct questions; this approach will be most accurate while there are still recent years of official estimates.

For California-only estimates, state policymakers can look to the California Health Interview Survey, a large, representative survey of California households that since 2011 has annually asked low-income respondents 6 of the 18 food insecurity questions from the national survey. These data have less detail on child food insecurity and on the full context of household economic circumstances, and they omit experiences of food insecurity among slightly higher-income households. However, one advantage of using data from this survey is the ability to look at food insecurity across smaller subgroups and geographies within California. For example, the survey finds that in recent years, the San Joaquin Valley has on average had the state’s highest rates of adult food hardship.

Snapshots from other representative surveys can also shed light on food hardship experienced in California, even if they do not capture the exact scope of food insecurity. For example, according to PPIC’s November 2025 Statewide Survey, 30% of California adults report that they or someone in their household reduced meals or cut back on food to save money in the last 12 months—up from 21% in 2021.

To what extent does California’s nutrition safety net reduce food insecurity and poverty?

More than 15 public programs in California aim to help individuals and families afford nutritious food. Research on the three largest—CalFresh (known federally as SNAP), school meals, and WIC—indicates that they all reduce food insecurity, although estimates of exactly how much they do so are often not comparable across programs. On the high end, SNAP may reduce food insecurity among participants nationwide by as much as 30%.

Beyond impacting food insecurity, the state’s nutrition safety net also reduces poverty by making it easier to meet basic needs. According to the PPIC/Stanford California Poverty Measure, about 6.4 million Californians (16.9% of the population) lived in poverty in 2023. Absent CalFresh, school meals, and WIC, that group would have increased by 1.2 million. Without CalFresh alone, 857,000 more people would have been in poverty. Absent school meals, the number would have increased by about 262,000, and without WIC food benefits, it would be 45,000 higher.

Notably, the mismatch between California’s high cost of living and incomes on one hand and nationwide eligibility thresholds and benefit amounts on the other can mean that food-insecure Californians are either ineligible for assistance or receive benefits that do not last. Means-tested programs have a larger impact in the parts of California with relatively low costs: absent CalFresh, school meals, and WIC, poverty would be at least 26% higher in the San Joaquin Valley, the Sierras, the Inland Empire, and the state’s northern region, compared to 19% higher statewide.

What are some challenges to reducing poverty and food insecurity with the nutrition safety net?

Since California primarily implements national nutrition programs, many decisions about support and eligibility happen at the federal level. The state typically can maximize program impacts by making the most of federal funding and ensuring eligible Californians get enrolled; it can also supplement and/or seek modifications to programs. As panelists today will discuss, recent federal legislation has added new complexity to this work.

Program reach is foundational. While California has improved CalFresh participation over the past decade, enrollment among likely eligible Californians remains lower than the national SNAP participation rate (81% compared to 88%). By contrast, WIC participation is higher in California than nationally (72% compared to 56%). Participation is affected by many factors, including program awareness and understanding, the experience of applying for and keeping benefits, and potential stigma. One example of the state’s work to address some of these factors is its effort to ease the CalFresh application experience by getting federal permission to test simpler applications for elderly and disabled Californians.

Some residents have limited resources but are ineligible for federal SNAP benefits. About 23% of Californians experiencing poverty, and 33% of children in poverty, live in households that include undocumented residents, who are ineligible for CalFresh based on federal restrictions. US citizens in these households can still enroll if they are eligible, and California plans to fund comparable benefits for undocumented older adults through the California Food Assistance Program, starting in 2027. Meanwhile, recent federal legislation will, once implemented, make some lawfully-present immigrants ineligible for federal SNAP benefits.

As others will discuss today, the recent changes in federal rules around SNAP pose new challenges to California’s ability to reduce poverty and food insecurity with CalFresh benefits. One major change effectively introduces work-related time limits on assistance for many adults in California. Historically, the state’s higher unemployment rates have made it eligible for waivers of these time limits; following the new legislation, most counties are now ineligible for waivers.

We estimate that as many as 620,000 people need to document enough work, education or training, volunteering, or an exemption in order to keep CalFresh benefits, but are currently unable to do so. For more than half (56%) of this group, in any given month, CalFresh is their only recorded source of income. To ensure that participants receive benefits for as long as they are eligible, counties will need to thoroughly and accurately screen participants for exemptions, and document and track activities that impact their benefit status.

Others will also discuss the broader challenges introduced by how recent federal legislation has changed funding for CalFresh. For now, I will note that federal funding is a cornerstone of California’s nutrition safety net. As the federal government reduces the share of administrative and— for the first time— benefit costs that it will cover, the legislature has set aside funding to implement changes and investigate new approaches. California may need to make additional investments to maintain CalFresh’s role in reducing poverty and food insecurity.