2023 Roadmap 2022 Roadmap 2021 Roadmap 2020 Roadmap
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
PRINT

UNITED STATES ROADMAP

ROADMAP POLICIES AND STRATEGIES

EFFECTIVE POLICIES

EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES

Methods and Sources
FAQ
Additional Roadmap Resources
THE POLICY IMPACT CALCULATOR

REDUCED ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN FOR SNAP

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, 2024, the US Department of Agriculture reports that the maximum monthly SNAP benefit for a family of three is $768 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 most SNAP recipients are in households with children. In 2022 nearly one-quarter of all children under age 3 (23.1%) were living in households that reported receiving SNAP in the prior 12 months—totaling over 2.4 million children.4 SNAP lifted 3.7 million people in the US 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 also 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 Potential Impact of State Policies to Reduce Administrative Burden 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, which highlights the potential impact of state policies 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 renewals due to short certification periods require participants to take time away from work and arrange transportation or child care, which increases the time and cost of program participation. By contrast, longer certification periods, the option for online case management services, and 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 2011.15 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 Additionally, 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.

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.

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 policies 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.

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.

Although the evidence base does not provide clear guidance on the exact combination of policies, research 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.

We identified three key state policy levers that states can implement to reduce administrative burden for SNAP. The policy levers include:

  • Offer 12-month certification periods for all families with children,
  • Assign simplified reporting to all families with children, and
  • Provide online case management services.

As of October 1, 2024, 12 states have implemented all three key policy levers to reduce administrative burden for SNAP. Georgia became the 12th state to do so when it extended SNAP certification periods for all families with children to 12 months in November 2023.

Key Policy Lever: Offer 12-Month Certification Periods for 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, 2024, 18 states offer 12-month certifications to all families with children. This year, Georgia and Oregon became the 17th and 18th states to do so when Georgia extended certification periods from 6 months to 12 months for all families and Oregon removed a provision that allowed for families with unstable circumstances to receive abbreviated certification periods.

Another 15 states offer 12-month certifications to most families with children but make exceptions for families in less stable circumstances. Of the remaining 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 determined by benefit specialists at state agencies based on household circumstances.

State agencies typically offer one standard certification length to most eligible families, but some assign unique certification periods for certain populations. 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.

Key Policy Lever: Assign Simplified Reporting 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 are required to notify the state agency of changes in their circumstances throughout the certification period, but states can adopt simplified reporting requirements to lower the threshold for what new information must be reported.

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 at least $4,250. Most states refer to simplified reporting by name, but others have a state-specific term for the same reporting requirements.

Families who 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. These updates include changes in monthly earnings of more than $125, changes in sources of income, and changes in residence.

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, families in which the head of household is a seasonal or migrant farmworker, families residing on a reservation, or families who include elderly and disabled adults with no income.

As of October 1, 2024, 35 states assign simplified reporting to all families with children. An additional 15 states assign simplified reporting to most families. Delaware began assigning all families to simplified reporting this year after removing a requirement that families who receive cash assistance be assigned to change reporting. Mississippi is the only state that does not use simplified reporting requirements for any SNAP participants.

Key Policy Lever: Provide 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 two states make SNAP applications available online, 43 states offer case management services online, five of which—Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Washington—added additional online functions this year to qualify.

Alaska began offering online applications and reporting beginning this year, which leaves only Idaho and Wyoming without any online services for families. Notably, these two 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. Additionally, Iowa and Vermont allow families to apply to SNAP online but provide no other online services for SNAP applicants or recipients.

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, renew benefits, upload documents, and more. The specific case management services available through these portals differ between states, but some of the most common functions include checking eligibility for SNAP and other public assistance programs before applying, tracking a submitted application, scheduling interview appointments, and filing appeals.

Several states have added additional, unique services to their online platforms in addition to the tools noted above. For example, Michigan’s MI Bridges portal includes an internal platform that allows families to search for state and local resources by zip code and need, similar to FindHelp. It also includes a form for families to self-refer to the Food Bank of Michigan, which will connect families with enrollment assisters to help with applications.

In addition, the South Carolina Department of Social Services (DSS) portal includes 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. Separately, South Carolina has an online eligibility screener and integrated application that includes over 40 services called First Five South Carolina. In Colorado, families can connect with an agent to troubleshoot issues with their case using a live chatbot function.

In most states with an online portal, families can also use the portal to manage benefits for one or more additional state programs including Medicaid, child care subsidies, and cash assistance. This integrated system allows families to use only one login to access their case information across programs.

For more information on the state policy levers that can impact the administrative burden for SNAP see our State Policy Lever Checklists. 

Analyses of the most recent data available show that in 17 states most eligible families access 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 (or best) 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%.

Over the last year, states have taken action to reduce administrative burden for SNAP through a range of policy changes, including updating certification periods, streamlining application procedures, and increasing outreach. These efforts came as a vast majority of states were struggling to process SNAP applications and renewals in a timely manner following the expiration of all waivers related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In February 2024, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) sent letters to 45 states that exhibited sustained delays in application processing and high error rates. The letters urged states to take immediate action and consider all options available to alleviate backlogs and reduce delays, and specifically highlighted the option for states to assign the longest certification periods allowed for each household.

Georgia Extended Certification Periods for All Families to 12 Months

Prior to receiving a letter from the USDA, officials in the Georgia Department of Human Services worked with the federal government to address its backlog of cases. In November 2023, the Georgia Department of Human Services announced that the state would extend SNAP certification periods from 6 months to 12 months for all families. Although other state agencies may have considered extending certification periods as well, as of October 2024, no other state enacted a change administratively to extend their standard certification period. Oregon did, however, administratively remove a provision that allowed for some families with unstable circumstances to receive shorter than standard certification periods.

Although unsuccessful, Kentucky lawmakers introduced, but did not pass, legislation that would have required the state to adopt the longest eligibility period allowed under federal law for SNAP and other social service programs. The state already provides 12-month certifications to all families with children, but the change would have added the requirement to statute if it had passed.

States Streamlined Application Procedures and Improved Outreach

Several states considered or enacted legislation to make applications and renewals, and information about SNAP eligibility, more accessible to families. Legislators in Virginia enacted a bill which prohibits the Department of Social Services from requiring participants to appear in person when they are applying for or renewing SNAP or WIC benefits. In separate legislation, lawmakers also directed the Department to develop a multi-lingual outreach campaign to inform eligible immigrant families about their eligibility for SNAP and to dispel potential concerns about the impact of SNAP receipt on immigration cases.

New Jersey legislators also enacted legislation to meet families who are likely eligible for SNAP where they are to help them enroll. A provision included in the state budget created a SNAP and School Meals Dual Enrollment Pilot program that will allow school districts to receive funds to assist families who are enrolled in free and reduced-price lunch programs enroll in SNAP.

Similarly, legislators in Connecticut enacted a bill that requires several state agencies to collaborate on the development of a SNAP fact sheet, which must include eligibility and application information in five languages and must be made available for distribution by health care providers. The bill also requires the Departments of Agriculture, Health, and Social Services to develop a plan to streamline the enrollment of any child receiving Medicaid in SNAP and WIC. In doing so, the agencies must plan for the creation of a common application, improved data sharing, and increased automatic enrollment and referrals across programs.

Lawmakers in Iowa and Oklahoma introduced legislation this session to require the development of multi-program applications that include SNAP. Iowa legislators proposed an integrated application for SNAP and WIC, and Oklahoma legislators sought a universal electronic application for SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, and child care subsidies. Neither bill passed this session.

Finally, without a legislative requirement, the Alaska Division of Public Assistance introduced an online application for SNAP for the first time in December 2023. In early 2024, the state added the option to renew benefits online.

For more information on each state’s progress on reduced administrative burden for SNAP, find our individual state summaries under Additional Resources below (and here).

Click here to view the compiled 2024 Roadmap reduced administrative burden for SNAP progress summaries for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

  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. United States Department of Agriculture. (2024). SNAP FY 2025 Cost-of-Living Adjustments. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fy-2025-cola
  3. 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.
  4. Calculations were done by the Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center using the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS), Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS).
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Poverty rate as measured by the Supplemental Poverty Measure.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. United States Department of Agriculture. SNAP Participation Rates by State, All Eligible People (FY 2018). https://www.fns.usda.gov/usamap/2018
  14. 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.
  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. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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/
  21. 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
  22. 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
Vanderbilt University
Peabody College of Education & Human Development

Who We Are

What We Do

Newsletter Sign-up
© Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center 2023 | Site Policies

Follow us:

Twitter Facebook Linkedin Youtube
Newsletter Sign-up