REDUCED ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN FOR SNAP

WHAT IS ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?

Administrative burden refers to the barriers that increase the costs—time, money, and psychological distress—of applying for and maintaining enrollment in any public assistance program. Reducing the administrative burden can help more caregivers and children access the assistance and benefits they need to keep their families healthy. The research presented here focuses on administrative burden for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), but policies to reduce administrative burden apply to any public assistance and benefit program that states implement.

SNAP Serves Millions of Children Yearly and Reduces Child Poverty

Known as the Food Stamp program until 2008, SNAP is the largest nutrition program in the United States.1 The program is available to low-income households2 and serves millions of families each year. SNAP is not targeted toward a particular subpopulation, but the majority of SNAP recipients are in households with children. In 2019, nearly one-quarter of all children under age 3 (22.2%) were living in households that reported receiving SNAP in the prior 12 months—totaling almost 2.5 million children.3 SNAP lifted 2.5 million people in the United States out of poverty in 2019 and decreased the poverty rate for children by 2 percentage points, on average, in 2018.4,5,6

SNAP Receipt Is Associated With Short- and Long-Term Benefits

Access to SNAP has been shown to reduce childhood food insecurity by up to 36%.7 Receipt of SNAP is associated with improved birth outcomes,8 increased health care access among children,9 and improved long-term child health.10 A 2020 analysis found that access to SNAP between conception and age 5 was associated with later-in-life increases in human capital, economic self-sufficiency, life expectancy, and neighborhood quality, as well as a decrease in the likelihood of incarceration.11

Variation in SNAP Take-Up Rates Across States Demonstrate the Impact Administrative Burden has on Program Participation

SNAP benefit levels and general eligibility criteria are set at the federal level, but states have flexibility to implement their SNAP programs within those criteria, including the administrative burden associated with program participation. Participation in SNAP among those eligible has risen in recent years from 53% in 2001 to 84% in 2017, but this percentage still varies considerably by state—highlighting the effect that state policies have on the proportion of eligible households that are served.12,13

Burdensome State Policies Decrease SNAP Participation, but Accommodative Policies Boost Participation and Could Save Costs

Onerous application requirements like in-person interviews or frequent recertifications require participants to take time away from work and arrange transportation or child care, increasing the time and cost of program participation. In contrast, longer recertification intervals, online application materials, or simplified income reporting can reduce administrative burden and thus increase participation.

According to a large national study, changes in administrative policies taken as a whole explained 28.5% of the increase in SNAP participation between 2007 and 2011.14 The caseload rose 68.7% over that period.15 Similarly, implementing a combination of multiple state SNAP policies increased SNAP enrollment by 20.4% from 1996 to 2015, nearly twice the effect size on participation compared to that of any individual policy.16 A USDA report published in 2019 found that states with streamlined administrative policies decreased their per-case costs.17

Search the Prenatal-to-3 Policy Clearinghouse for an ongoing inventory of rigorous evidence reviews, including more information on reduced administrative burden for SNAP.

WHAT IMPACT DOES REDUCING ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN FOR SNAP HAVE?

Policies that reduce administrative burden for SNAP increase participation rates among eligible households. Authorization of longer recertification intervals is the most effective individual policy for increasing participation. However, implementing one policy alone is not as effective as implementing a set of policies that work together to reduce administrative burden related to SNAP enrollment and recertification. Across the strong causal studies reviewed, three of these policies—longer recertification periods, simplified income reporting (whereby participants only report their income if it increases above the eligibility threshold, as an alternative to monthly reporting), and the availability of online services—were most commonly included in effective low-burden policy combinations.

More Research Is Needed to Determine the Potential of Reduced Administrative Burden for SNAP to Decrease Disparities

Among eligible families with children, 4.2% of Black families and 8.1% of White families do not receive the benefit, whereas 19.1% of Hispanic families go without.18 Despite these substantial disparities in SNAP participation among those who are eligible, none of the strong causal studies reviewed examined the differential impact of reduced administrative burden across racial or ethnic groups. However, evidence from two studies examining effects on participation in other public assistance programs (Medicaid and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC) suggests that the administrative burden of public safety net programs falls disproportionately on communities of color and low-income communities, and that reducing the administrative burden can have a positive impact on their enrollment rates in programs that support health and nutrition.19,20 These findings would likely be applicable to SNAP participation as well, but more research specific to the disparate impact of SNAP administrative burden would be necessary to understand the true effect of such policies.

For more information on what we know and what we still need to learn about reduced administrative burden, see the evidence review on reduced administrative burden for SNAP.

WHAT PROGRESS HAVE STATES MADE IN THE LAST YEAR TO REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN FOR SNAP?

An Updated Methodology for Assessing State Progress Establishes 2021 as the New Baseline Year for Assessing State Progress

In the 2020 State Policy Roadmap, we assessed states’ progress toward adopting and implementing reduced administrative burden for SNAP based on whether states allowed and implemented a recertification interval of at least 12 months for SNAP-eligible households with children. To be consistent with the growing evidence base for SNAP, which shows that a combination of low-burden policies for SNAP is more effective at increasing SNAP participation than any single policy, we have developed a ranking methodology that gives states credit for implementing multiple evidence-based policies to reduce administrative burden for SNAP for families with children:

  1. A 12-month recertification period;
  2. Simplified income reporting; and
  3. The availability of online services, including the initial application, change reporting, and renewal.

Based on this new methodology, 26 states have policies in place that reduce the administrative burden to accessing SNAP that eligible families may experience.

Tracking State Policy Progress

Policy adoption does not typically happen quickly. States may introduce legislation several times before adopting a policy and take even more time to fully implement it. Every year we track states’ efforts toward adopting and fully implementing each of the five effective policies in this State Policy Roadmap. We also describe how states vary in their policies to reduce administrative burden for SNAP.

To Date, 26 States Have Reduced Administrative Burden for SNAP

Policies to reduce administrative burden for SNAP vary considerably across states. 18 states offer a 12-month recertification interval, simplified income reporting, and all three online services, including the application, change reporting, and renewal to all households with children. An additional eight states provide a 12-month recertification interval, simplified income reporting, and at least some of the online services that facilitate access among those who are eligible.

Nine states provide a combination of 12-month recertification intervals and simplified income reporting to some, but not all eligible families with children, and these states offer a range of online services. More eligible families could benefit if these policies were extended to all families.

In 16 states, no eligible families with children have a 12-month recertification interval, although some families may have simplified reporting and some of the online services.

2 States Considered Legislation Regarding Recertification Intervals, but There Was Little Policy Activity Beyond That

In 2021 there was not a lot of legislative activity regarding reducing administrative burden for SNAP. Only two states considered legislation regarding recertification intervals. Minnesota passed legislation that codifies the state’s existing 12-month recertification interval into state statute, and Texas introduced, but did not pass, legislation to extend the state’s 6-month recertification interval to 12 months.

How Does Vermont Compare to Other States in Making Progress Toward Reducing Administrative Burden for SNAP?

The figures below show how states compare to one another in making progress toward reducing administrative burden for SNAP.

HOW DO STATES VARY IN ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN FOR SNAP?

States Implement a Variety of Policies to Reduce Administrative Burden

The table below illustrates the variation across states in policies to reduce administrative burden for eligible families to access SNAP benefits. The recertification intervals range from 3 to 12 months, with 30 states having a recertification interval of 12 months. All but seven states have simplified income reporting for all eligible families with children, and all states except Idaho and Wyoming have an online application process. States vary more with regard to their provision of online services for change reporting and renewal.

The Percentage of Eligible Families with Children Who Do Not Receive SNAP Varies Considerably by State

States vary considerably in the percentage of eligible families with children who do not receive SNAP benefits. Ten states do a relatively strong job in connecting eligible families with SNAP benefits; in these states, 5% or fewer of families with children do not receive the benefits for which they are eligible. Tennessee has the lowest percentage, at 2%, of eligible families who do not receive SNAP.

By contrast, in five states, the percentage of eligible families with children who do not receive SNAP is greater than 15%. These five states include Texas (19.8%) and California (26.7%), which are the two most populous states, thus the US average of eligible families with children who do not receive SNAP is quite high at 11.8%.

Explore more of the Vermont Roadmap

  1. United States Department of Agriculture. (2019). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Overview. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/
  2. Federal requirements set eligibility criteria as (a) gross income at or below 130% of the federal poverty level, (b) net income less than or equal to the poverty level, and (c) assets below $2,250 for households without an elderly individual or person with a disability.
  3. Calculations were done by the Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center using the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS), Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS).
  4. Wilson, D., & Fox, L. (2019). Supplemental Poverty Measure Shows State-Level Impact of Food Stamps. The United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/supplemental-poverty-measure-shows-state-level-impact-of-food-stamps.html
  5. Fox, L. (2020). The Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2019 (Current Population Reports, p. 32). Census. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-272.pdf
  6. Poverty rate as measured by the Supplemental Poverty Measure.
  7. Mabli, J., & Worthington, J. (2014). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participation and child food security. Pediatrics, 133(4), 610–619. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2823
  8. Almond, D., Hoynes, H. W., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2011). Inside the war on poverty: The impact of food stamps on birth outcomes. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00089
  9. Bronchetti, E., Christensen, G., & Hoynes, H. (2018). Local food prices, SNAP purchasing power, and child health (Working paper No. w24762). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24762
  10. Hoynes, H., Schanzenbach, D. W., & Almond, D. (2016). Long-run impacts of childhood access to the safety net. American Economic Review, 106(4), 903–934. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20130375
  11. Bailey, M., Hoynes, H., Rossin-Slater, M., & Walker, R. (2020). Is the social safety net a long-term investment? Large-scale evidence from the Food Stamps Program (No. w26942; p. w26942). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26942
  12. Schanzenbach, D. W. (2019). Exploring Options to Improve the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 686(1), 204–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716219882677
  13. Vigil, A. (2019). Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2017 (p. 126). https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/resource-files/Trends2010-2017.pdf
  14. Ziliak, J. P. (2016). Why are so many Americans on food stamps? The role of the economy, policy, and demographics. In Ziliak, J. P., Bartfeld, J., Gundersen, C., Smeeding, T. (Eds.), SNAP matters: How food stamps affect health and well-being (pp. 18–48). Stanford University Press. [Administrative Burden for SNAP Evidence Review Study H]
  15. Ziliak, J. P. (2016). Why are so many Americans on food stamps? The role of the economy, policy, and demographics. In Ziliak, J. P., Bartfeld, J., Gundersen, C., Smeeding, T. (Eds.), SNAP matters: How food stamps affect health and well-being (pp. 18–48). Stanford University Press. [Administrative Burden for SNAP Evidence Review Study H]
  16. Ganong, P., & Liebman, J. B. (2018). The decline, rebound, and further rise in SNAP enrollment: disentangling business cycle fluctuations and policy changes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 10(4), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20140016 [Administrative Burden for SNAP Evidence Review Study B]
  17. Geller, D., Isaacs, J., Braga, B., & Zic, B. (2019). Exploring the causes of state variation in SNAP administrative costs. Prepared by Manhattan Strategy Group and the Urban Institute for the US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/media/file/SNAP-State-Variation-Admin-Costs-FullReport.pdf
  18. As of 2015-2017 (CPS-ASEC 2016-2018). Urban Institute’s TRIM3 project. Calculations were done by the Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center.
  19. Stuber, J. P., Maloy, K. A., Rosenbaum, S., & Jones, K.C. (2000). Beyond stigma: What barriers actually affect the decisions of low-income families to enroll in Medicaid? The George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. https://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/sphhs_policy_briefs/53/
  20. Brien, M., & Swann, C. (1999). Prenatal WIC participation and infant health: Selection and maternal fixed effects. Deloitte Financial Advisory Services, LLP, and University of North Carolina, Greensboro. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Brien/publication/241815776_Prenatal_WIC_Participation_and_Infant_Health_Selection_and_Maternal_Fixed_Effects/links/555b32b108ae6fd2d829a9cd.pdf