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 are eligible for and 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 Effective October 1, 2023, the US Department of Agriculture reports that the maximum monthly SNAP benefit for a family of 3 is $766 for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia, with substantially higher benefits in Alaska and Hawaii.2 The program is available to households with low incomes3 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 2021 nearly one-quarter of all children under age 3 (23.8%) were living in households that reported receiving SNAP in the prior 12 months – totaling almost 2.6 million children.4 SNAP lifted 3.7 million people in the United States out of poverty in 2022 and decreased the poverty rate for children by 2 percentage points, on average, in 2018.5,6,7
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%.8 Receipt of SNAP is associated with improved birth outcomes,9 increased health care access among children,10 and improved long-term child health.11 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 82% in fiscal year 2018, but this rate varies considerably by state – highlighting the effect that state policies have on the proportion of eligible households that are served.13,14
Burdensome State Policies Decrease SNAP Participation, but Accommodative Policies Boost Participation and Could Save Costs
Onerous application requirements such as in-person interviews and 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 certification periods, simplified income reporting, and online case management services 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 2011.15 The caseload rose 68.7% over that period.16 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 accommodative policy.17 A USDA report published in 2019 found that states with streamlined administrative policies decreased their per-case costs.18
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. Rigorous research shows that the most effective policies to increase participation in SNAP are longer certification periods and a combination of policies that reduce the administrative burden related to enrollment and recertification for the program.
Although the evidence base does not provide clear guidance on the exact combination of policies, the evidence is clear that implementing one policy alone is not as effective as implementing a set of policies that work together. Across the strong causal studies reviewed, longer certification 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 case management services – were 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 SNAP families with children, 8.9% of Black families and 10.8% of White families do not receive the benefit, and over one-quarter (27.0%) of Hispanic families go without.19 There is also a gap in SNAP take-up between low-income citizen children with at least one non-citizen parent (mixed-status families) and low-income citizen children with US-born parents, a gap that widened from 2015 to 2019.22
Despite these substantial disparities in SNAP participation among those who are eligible, none of the strong causal studies have examined the differential impact of reduced administrative burden across racial or ethnic groups. However, evidence from two studies that examined 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 communities with low incomes, and that reducing the administrative burden can have a positive impact on their enrollment rates in programs that support health and nutrition.20,21
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 ARE THE KEY POLICY LEVERS TO REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN FOR SNAP?
In contrast to the evidence for the four state-level policies that are included in this Roadmap, the current evidence base does not identify a specific policy lever that states should adopt and fully implement to effectively reduce administrative burden for SNAP applicants and participants. Instead, there is evidence that a combination of low-burden policies working together is an effective approach to increase participation of eligible families in SNAP.
We identified three key policy levers that states can implement to increase participation of eligible families. The policy levers include:
- Offer 12-month certification periods for all families,
- Assign simplified reporting to all families, and
- Provide online case management services.
Each policy lever and the variation in state implementation is discussed in greater detail below.
Key Policy Lever: 12-Month Certification Periods are Assigned to All Families with Children
Families enrolled in SNAP benefits are periodically required to recertify their eligibility for the program. States determine the intervals at which families must recertify to continue receiving benefits, but federal guidelines restrict certification periods to a maximum of 12 months for most families. Certification lengths across states range from 3 months to 12 months for families with children.
As of October 1, 2023, 16 states offer 12-month certifications to all families with children. Another 17 states offer 12-month certifications to most families with children but make exceptions for families in less stable circumstances. Of the remaining 18 states with shorter certification periods, 13 states opt for 6-month certification periods. The other five states (Hawaii, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, and Wyoming) implement variable certification periods.
State agencies typically offer one standard certification length to most eligible families, but some also assign unique certification periods for special populations. In 17 states with standard 12-month certifications, not all families with children are certified for the full 12-month period; these states have exceptions based on household and earning circumstances. Families experiencing homelessness, with seasonal or migrant workers, with self-employed individuals, or who are deemed to have “unstable circumstances” are groups most often assigned shorter than standard certification periods by SNAP agencies.
Several states with standard certification periods of 6 months also require shorter certifications for these special populations. The five states with variable certification periods do not have mandated certification periods and exceptions. Instead, benefits specialists at the state agency determine certification length based on household circumstances.
Key Policy Lever: Simplified Reporting is Assigned to All Families with Children
In addition to extending certification periods, states can minimize reporting requirements to reduce administrative burden for families receiving SNAP. Families receiving SNAP are required to notify the state agency of changes in their circumstances throughout the certification period, but states can adopt simplified reporting requirements. Under simplified reporting, families are only required to report to the state if the household’s total gross income is more than the limit for their household size or if a household member has lottery or gambling gross winnings of $4250. Families not assigned to simplified reporting are considered change reporters.
Most states refer to simplified reporting by name, but others have a state-specific term for the same reporting requirements. Families that are not simplified reporters are typically assigned to change reporting, under which families need to report all changes to their income or situation that could affect their SNAP eligibility.
As with certification lengths, states can choose which SNAP recipients are change reporters and which are simplified reporters. Populations that are often excluded from simplified reporting and assigned to change reporting include families experiencing homelessness, where the head of household is a seasonal or migrant farmworker, residing on a reservation, or that include elderly and disabled adults with no income.
As of September 2023, 32 states assign simplified reporting to all families with children. An additional 17 states assign simplified reporting to most families. Minnesota and Mississippi assign simplified reporting to few and no families, respectively. Minnesota excludes families receiving Minnesota Family Investment Program benefits in addition to migrant or seasonal workers, families experiencing homelessness, and those living on a reservation. Mississippi does not use simplified reporting requirements for any SNAP participants.
Key Policy Lever: Online Case Management Services
States vary in the online case management services offered to SNAP participants that can make applications, reporting, and case information more accessible to families. Although all but three states make SNAP applications available online, 38 states offer case management services online.
States with case management services online have a portal where SNAP participants can log in to access their case information, apply for benefits, report changes, upload documents, and more. The specific case management services available through these portals differ between states and continue to grow. Only Alaska, Idaho, and Wyoming do not have any online services available to families. Notably, these three states are among the lowest in the country in population density. Online services could help rural families with limited access to SNAP offices connect to SNAP benefits.
As of 2023, Kentucky has one of the most robust case management platforms (kynect). Kentucky residents can submit requests for hearings or appeals, schedule or manage appointments with a case manager, and track outstanding items for their case. Kynect also allows families to access their case information for child care benefits, Medicaid, and other state benefit programs all in one place.
Like kynect, Michigan’s MI Bridges portal connects families with all their public benefit information in one place. Additional features include an internal platform, similar to FindHelp, which allows families to search for state and local resources by zip code and need, and a form to send their information to the Food Bank Council of Michigan, who will connect families with enrollment assisters over the phone.
South Carolina’s Department of Social Services (DSS) portal, launched in January 2023, is one of the newer online case management platforms and allows families to manage benefits for cash, food, child care, and employment assistance in one place. Nearly all state portals require SNAP recipients to create an account and remember their username and password to access any case management tools. South Carolina’s portal, however, has a unique tool for families to check the date and amount of their next EBT deposit using only their date of birth and case number. Previously, families had to call or visit their local DSS office to access this information.
Several states have online screening tools to allow families to check their eligibility for SNAP, Medicaid, cash assistance, child care subsidies, and additional public assistance programs all at once. Many states including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Texas have mobile-friendly online portals and apps that can be downloaded on the app store.
For more information on the state policy levers that can impact the administrative burden for SNAP see our State Policy Lever Checklists.
HOW DO STATES VARY IN PROVIDING SNAP BENEFITS TO ELIGIBLE FAMILIES?
States administer SNAP within federal guidelines but have significant leeway in how they implement the program including the choices described above on certification periods, reporting requirements, and online services. These policy decisions can reduce or increase administrative burden for eligible families seeking benefits, and therefore, the proportion of eligible families with children who do not receive SNAP benefits. Given that the benefit for a family of 3 is $766 per month, eligible families who are not accessing their benefits are forgoing a substantial resource.
Analyses of the most recent data available show that 17 states do a relatively strong job in connecting eligible families with SNAP benefits; in these states, only 10% or fewer of families with children do not receive the benefits for which they are eligible. Oklahoma has the lowest percentage, at 5.5%, of eligible families who do not receive SNAP.
By contrast, in eight states, the percentage of eligible families with children who do not receive SNAP is greater than 20%. New Jersey has the highest percentage, at 31.5% of eligible families not receiving benefits. These eight states also include Texas (24.3%) and California (29.8%), 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 17.1%.
WHAT PROGRESS HAVE STATES MADE IN THE LAST YEAR TO REDUCE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN FOR SNAP?
Over the last year, states have taken action to reduce administrative burden for SNAP through a range of policy changes, including updating certification periods, expanding populations that qualify for simplified reporting, simplifying application procedures, and increasing outreach efforts.
Three states took action to extend, or to shorten, certification periods for SNAP benefits over the past year. Alaska’s Department of Health announced in June 2023 that certification periods for most families would be extended from 6 months to 12 months and families would be expected to file an interim report at the 6-month mark. This change was made administratively without requiring legislation.
Arkansas made a change in the opposite direction and began implementing reduced certification periods of 6 months for all recipients, as required by legislation passed in 2021. Texas legislators filed four bills to extend certification periods to 12 months from 6 months. None of the bills were heard in committee in the Texas Legislature, however. No other states introduced legislation to address certification periods or enacted a change administratively.
Only one state filed legislation to expand access to simplified reporting for SNAP. In Minnesota, lawmakers filed legislation to include families receiving benefits through the Minnesota Family Investment Program in simplified reporting. Minnesota is one of two states that does not assign nearly all families to simplified reporting. The bill did not pass.
States also considered or enacted legislation to make applications and renewals, and information about applications, more accessible to families. Missouri enacted legislation which, among other things, requires the Department of Social Services (DSS) to revise the state’s application and eligibility review forms for SNAP and other public assistance programs to ensure that the applications are no longer than one-page (if approved by relevant federal agencies). Although Missouri already offers an online application, the state statute now requires applications to be housed on the DSS website. Finally, participants who complete eligibility reviews will be able to submit the forms as an attachment to their state tax returns if the review is due before or at the time of tax filing.
Virginia enacted a law that requires school districts share an information sheet developed by the Department of Social Services about SNAP and the application process with all families at the start of the school year or soon after a new student enrolls.
Iowa took regressive action with respect to administrative burden. Newly enacted Iowa legislation requires applicants to complete a computerized identity authentication questionnaire that includes personal and financial information. The state agency implementing SNAP will also be required to use additional state and federal data sources to verify applicants’ assets.
Notes and Sources
- 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/
- United States Department of Agriculture. (2023). SNAP FY 2024 Cost-of-Living Adjustments. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fy-2024-cola
- 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.
- Calculations were done by the Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center using the 2021 American Community Survey (ACS), Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS).
- 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
- Creamer, J., Shrider. (2023). Poverty in the United States: 2022: Current Population Reports. U.S. Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-280.pdf
- Poverty rate as measured by the Supplemental Poverty Measure.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- United States Department of Agriculture. SNAP Participation Rates by State, All Eligible People (FY 2018). https://www.fns.usda.gov/usamap/2018
- Vigil, A. (2019). Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2017 (p. 126). https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/trends-participation-rates-fy-2010#:~:text=Overall%2C%20the%20program%20served%2084,rate%20has%20been%20fairly%20stable.
- 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]
- 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]
- 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]
- 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
- As of 2017-2019 (CPS-ASEC 2018-2020). Urban Institute’s TRIM3 project. Calculations were done by the Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center. This figure is calculated for SNAP units, but we use families in place of units throughout this page. For additional details on calculations, please see Methods and Sources.
- 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/
- 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
- Nguyen, K. H., Giron, N. C., & Trivedi, A. N. (2023). Parental Immigration Status, Medicaid Expansion, And Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation. Health Affairs, 42(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00288
