Benefits under pressure: Changes to SNAP for D.C. government, retailers, and residents

Introduction

In recent months, the federal government has introduced sweeping changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). As changes go into effect:

• SNAP recipients may face greater barriers to accessing benefits
• D.C. government may be more heavily burdened by the cost of the program
• Qualifying retailers may be pushed out of eligibility

The program, formerly known as food stamps, supports food access for low-income households. Individuals and households may qualify for the program if their gross monthly household income is less than or equal to 130 percent of the federal poverty level.¹ Funds are deposited monthly to an Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) card, which recipients use to pay for approved items.

Federal changes affect all facets of the program including funding burdens, recipient eligibility, retailer qualifications, and food access. In Washington, D.C., the effects of these changes may be especially pronounced. As of 2022, 20 percent of D.C. residents receive SNAP benefits. Of those, 54 percent are in households with children.² As of October 2025, D.C. SNAP recipient households received an average of $314 per month.³

This article explores the implications of changes to retailer qualifications, workforce requirements, and program funding.

Changes to retailer qualifications

A qualifying SNAP retailer is a grocery store, farmers market, or other food retailer that has been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to accept SNAP benefits.

In May 2026, USDA released a finalized rule updating requirements for approved SNAP retailers. The rule increases stocking requirements for retailers qualified under Eligibility Category A.

Retailer qualification criterion

SNAP retailers can qualify under two categories:

Eligibility Category A focuses on a retailer’s stock. Under the old rule, a retailer could qualify under this category if they stocked at least three units each of three varieties in each of the staple food categories (protein, grains, vegetables or fruit, and dairy).^4,5 At least one variety in at least two categories would need to be perishable. In total, a retailer would need to carry at least 36 units across 12 varieties of products.

Under Eligibility Category B, a retailer can qualify as a SNAP retailer if staple foods, as defined by the USDA, make up more than 50% of their gross sales. Specialty retailers such as butcher shops and farm stands typically qualify under this category.⁶

While not an official category, a retailer can also qualify if they serve an area with low food access, even if they do meet the criteria for either eligibility category.⁷

Effects of rule change

The updated rule applies primarily to Eligibility Category A. It requires that a retailer stock seven varieties of items in each of the four staple food categories.⁸ In addition, a retailer must carry at least one perishable variety in at least three categories. In total, a retailer is required to carry at least 84 units across at least 28 varieties of product.

The rule also changes certain product categorizations. For example, butter and meat jerky are now considered “accessory products,” meaning they qualify for SNAP purchases, but they do not count towards a retailer’s qualifying stock.

What this means for retailers and SNAP recipients

Existing SNAP retailers qualifying under Eligibility Category A have six months to comply with the updated rule or qualify via Eligibility Category B or an exception. Failure to comply will disqualify a retailer as SNAP eligible. In the public comment period, stakeholders voiced concerns over the impact on small retailers, including convenience stores, which may lack the resources or space to meet new stocking requirements. The USDA acknowledged these concerns, validating the distinct possibility of a drop in the total number of SNAP-eligible retailers. Nonetheless, the USDA emphasized that the program’s priority is to provide an abundance of healthful food options:

While one of the primary goals of the increased stocking standards is to make a greater variety of nutritious foods available to SNAP households, another related goal is to ensure all authorized retailers further the purpose of the program to raise the levels of nutrition among low-income households in order to better protect the overall integrity of the program.

For SNAP recipients, the rule change and potential decrease in the number of eligible retailers may reduce food access.

How food access could change in D.C.

Food retailer access changes significantly when small and specialty retailers are omitted. One way to explore food access in the District is to identify the nearest SNAP eligible stores to each census block group (CBG).⁹ Including all SNAP retailers eligible before the rule change,¹⁰ 29 CBGs (5 percent) in D.C. are considered low access. Of these, 6 are also considered low income. Including only qualifying grocery stores, supermarkets, and super stores, 123 CBGs (21.5 percent) are considered low access and, of those, 43 are also designated as low income.

It is difficult, however, to place these results in context relative to other states or national averages. D.C. is a densely populated, urban center. Every other state has a mix of urban, rural, and suburban regions, meaning D.C. may be more appropriately compared to a major city than to a state. 

Distance to the third nearest retailer shows food options may be limited in some areas.  While the first nearest retailer gives insight to food access, the third nearest retailer acts as a proxy for food options. Realistically, the retailer closest to a household may not best serve the household’s needs. Dietary restrictions and food preferences may require an individual to shop at a store that is further away. The third nearest retailer metric provides a sense of how far an individual would need to travel to access additional options, and therefore, their access to an abundance of options which meet their specific needs.

When small and specialty retailers are excluded from the sample, the third nearest retailer jumps from an average of 0.36 miles away to an average of 0.66 miles away. Further, the spread widens. The graph below shows each CBG in the District plotted by distance to the first and third nearest retailers. Gray dots indicate these values inclusive of all SNAP retailers. Red dots indicate distances including only grocery stores, supermarkets, and super stores. CBGs in the lower left quadrant have sufficient access (the first nearest retailer is less than 0.5 miles away) and sufficient options (the third nearest retailer is less than 1.32 miles away, the national median for urban areas). CBGs in the upper right quadrant are considered low access and have limited options. CBGs in the upper left quadrant have sufficient access but limited options, and those in the lower right quadrant have limited access but sufficient options.

Including all retailers, CBGs are densely clustered in the lower left, with few outliers extending into low access and even fewer into limited options. When small retailers are eliminated, clustering weakens. More CBGs move into the low access and limited options regions.

Changes to workforce requirements

Alongside narrowing retailer eligibility, federal legislation has heightened the threshold for SNAP recipient eligibility. Specifically, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) established new workforce requirements for SNAP recipients, which went into effect on June 1, 2026. 

Workforce requirements for SNAP recipients

There are two types of work requirements for SNAP recipients:¹¹

Subject to qualified exemptions, General Work Requirements (GWR) dictate that SNAP recipients aged 16 to 59 must register for work with the Department of Human Services (or their state equivalent), accept any job offer unless there is an acceptable reason to decline, and not voluntarily resign or work less than 30 hours per week.

The Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents (ABAWD) Requirements apply to SNAP recipients aged 18 to 64 without a qualifying exemption. Under this requirement, ABAWDs must work a minimum of 20 hours per week, participate in an approved work activity (volunteering, unpaid work, etc.) for at least 20 hours per week, or participate in a SNAP Employment and Training program or other approved workforce development program for a prescribed number of hours per week. Failure to meet the ABAWD requirements limits a SNAP recipient to 3 months of benefits over a 3-year period.

Prior to the passage of OBBBA, the ABAWD distinction applied to those aged 18 to 54 without dependents under 18 or another qualifying exemption. The new legislation raises the upper age threshold to 64. Additionally, special populations, such as homeless individuals, veterans, and individuals under 24 who were in foster care as of their 18^th birthday, are no longer exempted from requirements. The 3-month limit on benefits for ABAWDs who do not meet work requirements is not new; however, D.C. previously qualified for a waiver on the limit. The waiver is no longer available.

What this means for D.C. SNAP recipients

The updated workforce requirements potentially complicate SNAP benefits for recipients, especially for those who were receiving benefits prior to the changes. Individuals aged 55 to 64 or those with children at home aged 14 to 17 are most likely to see a change in their eligibility based on these requirements. Further, the lack of a waiver means the 3-month limit on benefits becomes a reality for D.C. residents and families.

In context, 21,000 (15 percent) D.C. SNAP recipients need to meet the new requirements or identify alternative qualifying exemptions within three months. After the three-month period, they will have reached the 3-year limit on benefits.

To counteract the new requirements and protect residents from suddenly or unexpectedly losing benefits, the District of Columbia has implemented a workforce volunteer program. DHS pairs SNAP recipients with local host sites for volunteer hours. These hours can qualify as an approved work activity under the ABAWD requirements. Further, the volunteer hours do not place recipients in a position in which they may face benefit cliffs, or otherwise make just enough income to exceed qualifying benefit incomes, but not enough to meet basic needs.

What this means for D.C. finances

While new SNAP workforce requirements create challenges for individuals and households, they also create new dynamics for public finance.

Education funding

Currently, a portion of D.C. public and public charter school funding is determined via the Universal Per Student Funding Formula (UPSFF). The formula considers a number of variables, including student grade level, special education eligibility, and at-risk status to determine the budgeted amount given to each school per student. The formula ensures that schools serving a greater number of students designated as at-risk or facing more complex needs will receive higher funding to offset costs of additional, necessary resources.¹²

Because at-risk status can be established by a student’s participation in SNAP, changes in SNAP eligibility may change a student’s at-risk status, regardless of any substantive changes to family income. At scale, this means schools will receive lower funding without an equalized change in student or resource needs. In school year 2025-26, 163 schools had student populations with greater than 40 percent of students designated as at-risk, the threshold for a higher weight to the at-risk UPSFF variable. Of these, 17 had student populations with between 40 and 50 percent of students designated as at-risk.¹³ Given their proximity to the threshold, these 17 schools are at the greatest risk for losing the most funding. If a student falls out of the at-risk designation due to SNAP ineligibility, then the school will lose additional funding for that student. If enough students lose at-risk designation due to SNAP eligibility, they school could fall below the threshold for a higher at-risk weight. This could come as a double hit to funding for D.C.‘s schools.

DHS and SNAP eligibility offices

The new workforce requirements create new complications, heavier workloads, and increased opportunities for error without a counterbalanced increase in resources. In prior years, D.C. had an ABAWD requirements limit waiver, meaning individuals could maintain benefits beyond 3 months even if they failed to meet workforce requirements. The stronger connection between a person’s work and their eligibility creates more opportunities for individuals to fall in and out of SNAP eligibility. In turn, DHS faces potential for greater payment errors and a subsequent likelihood of high cost-sharing with the federal government.

Changes to D.C.’s share of SNAP funding

In the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), Congress introduced changes to the SNAP funding formula, shifting more of the cost-burden to states. The first shift occurs with administrative funding. Currently, states pay 50 percent of costs related to SNAP administration, and the federal government pays the other 50 percent. Per the legislation, states will pay 75 percent of SNAP administrative costs starting in fiscal year 2027. Second, the bill changes a state’s responsibility for SNAP program funding. Currently, SNAP program benefits are paid entirely through federal appropriations. However, the bill creates a cost-sharing schema by which a state is required to pay a share of SNAP benefits based on the state’s SNAP payment error rates. The breakdown is as follows:

To protect states with particularly high error rates, legislators included a clause delaying the funding shift. If a state’s error rate for fiscal year 2025 is above 13.3 percent, then the cost-sharing will go into effect in fiscal year 2029. If the state’s error rate for fiscal year 2026 is above 13.3 percent, the cost sharing will go into effect in fiscal year 2030. In all other scenarios, the cost sharing will go into effect in fiscal year 2028. This gives states the opportunity to reduce error rates to fiscally reasonable levels.

States may use error rates from either 2025 or 2026 to determine their cost burden in fiscal year 2028. The 2025 error rates have not yet been published, and the 2026 rates will not be available until 2027. As a result, the District faces significant uncertainty but also opportunity to achieve an optimal error rate for cost-sharing.

How are SNAP error rates calculated?

A state’s SNAP payment error rate is based on the combined amount of over- or under-payment of SNAP benefits beyond a certain threshold as determined by the USDA. The error rate is not a measurement of fraud. Rather, the error rate captures administrative errors, miscalculations, or application inaccuracies.¹⁴ Once an error is identified, the state or the recipient is responsible for correcting the mistaken payment. State errors are periodically reviewed by federal auditors, ensuring compliance with review and reporting standards.

Complications of error rates

While the concept of payment error rates is straightforward, the implementation is complex and fluid. OBBBA targets states with error rates above 6 percent. In context, the national average error rate has not been below 6 percent since 2014, and it has not been below 10 percent since 2019. As of 2024, only five states reported an error rate below 6 percent.¹⁵ Changes to error rate measurement may explain some of the variation more so than increases in actual over- or under-payments. Beginning in 2022, for example, paperwork errors, such as incomplete forms, were counted as overpayment errors, even if the recipient otherwise would have qualified at the rate for which they were approved. Conversely, wrongfully marking an applicant as wholly ineligible, rather than underpaying their benefits, was not counted as an underpayment error.¹⁶ The intricacies of the payment error calculations and the frequent changes in methodology may indicate that error rates are a poor representation of program quality over time. Moreover, the current methodology may wrongfully incentivize states to ”optimize” their error rates, either by increasing errors to reach the 13.3 percent threshold or artificially lowering errors by rejecting applicants entirely instead of risking under-payment of benefits.

In addition to methodological challenges, error rates can be sensitive to population demographics. An area with higher workforce turnover and a more transient population may exhibit high error rates. These factors can make determining eligibility and benefit levels more challenging. Conversely, areas serving higher rates of elderly benefit recipients may exhibit lower error rates. These individuals often have predictable or fixed income levels and stable residency.¹⁷ This could translate to distinct differences in urban, suburban, and rural areas, based on likely population characteristics. For D.C., unique in its non-state status, this may mean there is a narrower margin for mistakes, as its error rate cannot be tempered by geographic and demographic range.

Public finance implications for the District

Beginning in fiscal year 2027, and independent of error rates, D.C. will be required to pay 75 percent of SNAP administrative costs.¹⁸ This is estimated to cost an additional $39.3 million more than the prior year.¹⁹

D.C.’s SNAP error rate for fiscal year 2024, the most recent available, is 17.38 percent.²⁰ Between 2017 and 2024 (not including 2020 and 2021, for which there is no data), D.C.’s average SNAP error rate was 16.6 percent.²¹ Assuming these levels remain stable in fiscal years 2025 and 2026, D.C. will be responsible for 15 percent of its SNAP funding beginning in fiscal year 2030. That is equal to $48 million at current program participation and spending levels.²²

In context, this is an additional $36 million for fiscal years 2027, 2028, and 2029, and an additional $84 million beginning in fiscal year 2030, assuming zero changes in participation, costs, and error rates. These costs cannot be filled by a one-time rearrangement of funds or single-year revenue increases; they are recurring expenses needed to maintain an existing program on which thousands of D.C. residents rely.

Recommendations for policymakers

Related to retailer stocking changes

1. Support small food retailers and expand eligibility for tax incentives and business licensing fee waivers. Small food retailers, such as convenience stores, may need to drastically change or increase their stock in order to comply with amended SNAP stocking standards. This may require additional space, increased deliveries, and smaller margins, especially in the short term.
2. Maintain farmers’ market presence and frequency. Specialty stores and farm stands are not subject to the new stocking requirements. However, farmers’ markets are not a reliable source of food access as they often occur infrequently, for limited hours, during specific seasons. Continuing existing partnerships and maintaining grant access can support these as increasingly necessary and accessible food access points for D.C. SNAP recipients.
3. Consider supplementary funding for grocery delivery. SNAP benefits can be used for grocery delivery and pick-up orders, but they cannot be used to pay fees or delivery costs. Filling in that gap may provide SNAP recipients with greater access to an abundance of food options.

Related to workforce requirements

• Tie SNAP workforce requirements to long-term opportunities for participants. While the District has implemented a volunteer program to ensure D.C. residents don’t suddenly lose benefits, volunteer and workforce development opportunities can provide significant economic opportunities to D.C. residents. In the long term, the best way to protect D.C. residents and households from threats to SNAP benefits is to give individuals and households every opportunity for economic mobility and financial growth.
• Maintain student at-risk status based on current SNAP eligibility. Changes in workforce requirements are not equivalent to a change in income status or resource access. Households, including those with school-aged children, may drop out of eligibility without experiencing a change in need. In turn, schools will lose funding, again without a change in need. By aligning a student’s at-risk status with recent household SNAP eligibility (for example, within the past 12 months), schools can maintain appropriate and predictable levels of funding.

Related to SNAP error rates

• Consider SNAP costs in the out-years. Starting in 2030, the District will likely be responsible for a significant portion of SNAP funding. To mitigate this risk, D.C. leaders need to reduce the city’s SNAP error rate. Further, these costs need to be included in the District’s financial plan to ensure that residents will have access to necessary benefits even if error rates remain elevated.
• Advocate for an alternative error rate calculation for D.C. Unlike the states to which it is being compared, the District is geographically and demographically limited. There is precedent for D.C. to have a unique funding agreement with the federal government. The Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, which determines the federal contribution to a state’s Medicaid costs, is adjusted for the District to reflect D.C.’s irregularities and limitations.²³
• Minimize other SNAP-related costs through improved technology. As of late 2024, the federal government no longer reimburses SNAP participants who are victims of benefits theft. As such, states are left to either fill the gap of stolen benefits or households are forced to go without until the next disbursement. In 2024, D.C. DHS reimbursed $1.9 million in stolen funds to D.C. SNAP participants. EBT cards are common targets of card-cloning and “skimming” crimes because they lack security features of most credit and debit cards. The District can implement stronger security technology to protect SNAP recipients and reduce costs related to reimbursements.

Appendix

Data and methodology

This analysis pulls from Understanding Low-Income and Low-Access Census Tracts Across the Nation Subnational and Subpopulation Estimates of Access to Healthy Food, a product of the Economic Research Service and the USDA. The report uses a k-nearest neighbor approach to identify the first nearest and the third nearest food retailer to each census tract in the U.S. In this way, the researchers identify both access (through the distance to the first nearest retailer) and choice (through distance to the third nearest food retailer). A tract is categorized as “low access” if it is more than 10 miles from the nearest retailer in a rural area or more than 1 mile from the nearest retailer in an urban area. A tract is considered low income if the poverty rate is greater than or equal to 20 percent or has a median family income (MFI) at or below 80 percent of the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or state.

Applied to D.C. and the area, we measured distance to the nearest SNAP retailer at the census block group (CBG) level. This allows for a more granular view of food access within the city and the region and limits the pool to retailers to those which accept SNAP and WIC. Notably, this analysis looks specifically at CBGs in the District of Columbia, but it includes SNAP retailers in the entire metropolitan area as the nearest retailer for some CBGs may be out of state. For the purposes of this report, a CBG is considered low access if the nearest retailer is 0.5 miles or further away from the CBG’s centroid, which aligns with other large cities’ definitions of the metric.²⁴ We then limit the retailer pool to grocery stores, supermarkets, and super stores, as defined by the USDA. This allows for a clearer understanding of access to large retailers that (1) are unlikely to be disqualified by updated SNAP stocking requirements, (2) offer a range of food options, and (3) are open year-round for regular hours. For this report, a low-income CBG in one for which greater than 50 percent of households are considered low income (up to 50 percent of area median income (AMI)) or moderate income (greater than 50 percent AMI and up to 80 percent AMI).²⁵

Endnotes

1. Qualification for SNAP benefits in D.C. is dependent on household size and income relative to the federal poverty level. The table below, from the D.C. Department of Human Services, shows household income limits through September 30, 2026. More information can be found here: District of Columbia Department of Human Services. (n.d.). SNAP work requirements: ABAWD fact sheet. https://dhs.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhs/page_content/attachments/SNAP%20Work%20Requirements%20ABAWD%20Fact%20Sheet_ENGLISH.pdf

2. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2024, June 21). SNAP includes extensive payment accuracy system: Performance measures should also emphasize access, customer service. https://www.cbpp.org/research/a-closer-look-at-who-benefits-from-snap-state-by-state-fact-sheets#District_of_Columbia

3. Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia. (2025, October 30). Mayor Bowser announces the District to ensure Washingtonians receive November SNAP and WIC benefits. https://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-announces-district-ensure-washingtonians-receive-november-snap-and-wic-benefits

4. The staple food categories include protein, grains, vegetables or fruit, and dairy. A “variety” is a food that is distinct from all other food products in a given product category. A product “unit” refers to an item as it is sold to a consumer, for example, a box of cereal or a pound of meat.

Under the old food stocking rules, a SNAP retailer could satisfy stocking standard by stocking three units each of three varieties in each of the staple food categories. For example, three boxes of the same cereal would count as three units of one variety in the grains category. In total, a retailer would need to stock 36 units total across varieties and categories.

Learn more about stocking standards: Food and Nutrition Administration. (2026, October 8). SNAP Stocking Standards Calculator. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.fna.usda.gov/snap/retailer/stocking-standards-rule/calculator.

5. Colas, V., & Buff, R. (2026, May 18). USDA issues final rule amending SNAP retailer stocking standards. Hogan Lovells. https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/usda-issues-final-rule-amending-snap-retailer-stocking-standards

6. Food and Nutrition Administration. (2026, October 5). Store Eligibility Requirements. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailer/eligible

7. For more information on stores that qualify under “Need for Access,” see Food and Nutrition Administration. (2025, January 24). SNAP Store type definitions. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.fna.usda.gov/snap/retailer-eligibility-criterion

8. Food and Nutrition Administration. (2026, May 8). Final Rule: Updated Staple Food Stocking Standards for Retailers in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fr-050826

9. See Appendix for complete methodology.

10. Retailers include convenience stores, combination grocery stores, direct marketing farmers, delivery routes, farmers’ markets, internet retailers, grocery stores, military commissaries, coops, specialty food stores, supermarkets, and super stores. More information on store definitions can be found here: https://www.fna.usda.gov/snap/store-definitions

11. DC Department of Human Services. (2026, July 20). SNAP Work Requirements. https://dhs.dc.gov/page/snap-work-requirements

12. In fiscal year 2025 the foundational per-student funding level was equal to $14,668. This was the minimum funding budgeted per student, regardless of student variables. Each variable is weighted such that funding increases at a certain rate. For example, a student in grade seven would be allocated $15,841 based on the 1.08 for students in grades 6 through 8. If that student was also designated as at-risk, they would be allocated an additional $4,400, for a total of $20,241, based on the at-risk weight of 0.30. The at-risk weight is higher for students in schools with high concentrations of at-risk students.

13. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education. (n.d.) School Enrollment by Special Populations – At Risk. EdScape. https://edscape.dc.gov/page/schools-special-populations-risk

14. Food and Nutrition Administration. (2026, October 2). SNAP Quality Control. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.fna.usda.gov/snap/qc

15. Bauer, L., Cole, T., Patt, A., & Powell, E. (2026, June 25). SNAP payment error rates by state, FY 2003–25. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/snap-payment-error-rates-by-state-fy-2003-24/

16. Rosenbaum, D., & Bergh, K. (2024, June 21). SNAP Includes Extensive Payment Accuracy System: Performance Measures Should Also Emphasize Access, Customer Service. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-includes-extensive-payment-accuracy-system

17. Plata-Nino, G. (2026, April 1). A Backgrounder on SNAP Quality Control, Payment Error Rates and Tolerance Threshold, and Cost-Sharing. Food Research & Action Center. https://frac.org/blog/a-backgrounder-on-snap-quality-control-payment-error-rates-and-cost-sharing

18. Administrative costs include the funding for staffing and program delivery. It does not include actual benefit payments.

19. Lamonika, J. (2026, September 29). Changes to SNAP Put New Pressures on Families in D.C. and Maryland. Food Research & Action Center. https://frac.org/blog/changes-to-snap-put-new-pressures-on-families-in-d-c-and-maryland

20. Food and Nutrition Administration. (2025, June 30). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Payment Error Rates, Fiscal Year 2024. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://fna-bwbufwdzbabpezgc.z01.azurefd.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-fy24QC-PER.pdf

21. Bauer et al. (2026) provide state-level SNAP payment error rates for fiscal years 2003–2025.

22. Bergh, K. (2025, June 30). Senate Republican Leaders’ Proposal Risks Deep Cuts to Food Assistance, Some States Ending SNAP Entirely. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/senate-
republican-leaders-proposal-risks-deep-cuts-to-food-assistance-some/

23. Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia. (2025, May 2). Mayor Bowser Urges Congress to Preserve DC Medicaid. https://mayor.dc.gov/release/mayor-bowser-urges-congress-preserve-dc-medicaid

24. The City of Chicago defines an area as “low-food access” if the nearest food retailer is greater than 0.5 miles away: Chicago Health Atlas. (n.d.). Low food access. https://chicagohealthatlas.org/indicators/LFA

25. Calculations pull from HUD GIS Helpdesk. (2026, April 7). Low to Moderate Income Population by Block Group. Department of Housing and Urban Development https://hudgis-hud.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/HUD::low-to-moderate-income-population-by-block-group/about