2024 Roadmap 2023 Roadmap 2022 Roadmap 2021 Roadmap 2020 Roadmap
Twitter
Facebook
LinkedIn
Email
PRINT

UNITED STATES ROADMAP

ROADMAP POLICIES AND STRATEGIES

EFFECTIVE POLICIES

EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES

EMERGING STRATEGIES

NEWLY INTERACTIVE
THE POLICY IMPACT CALCULATOR
Methods and Sources
FAQ
Additional Roadmap Resources

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 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 state public assistance and benefit program.

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, 2025, the US Department of Agriculture will raise the maximum monthly SNAP benefit for a family of three from $768 to $785 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, in 2024, served over 42 million people per month.

Though SNAP is not targeted toward a particular subpopulation, 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 3.6 million people in the US out of poverty in 2024, including 1.4 million children, representing 1.1 and 1.9 percentage point decreases in the poverty rate, respectively.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 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

Pending Federal Changes to Impact State Administrative Capacity, Costs, and Program Participation

In July 2025, the federal government enacted H.R. 1, a reconciliation bill with several parameters that will significantly shift the cost and capacity of states in administering their SNAP programs. Though the bill does not directly alter case management, reporting, or certification practices, its requirement that states take over 75% of administrative program costs in fiscal year 2027 will likely influence how states navigate those burdens and their potential SNAP participation impacts in the coming years.19

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 SNAP-eligible 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.20 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 2019.21 

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.22,23

These findings would likely be applicable to SNAP participation as well, but more research specific to the disparate impact of SNAP administrative burden is 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.

Although the evidence base does not provide clear guidance on the exact combination of policies that states should adopt and implement to effectively reduce administrative burden for SNAP, 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 reporting requirements, and the availability of online case management services were commonly included in effective low-burden policy combinations.

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

  • 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 September 2025, 12 states have implemented all three key policy levers to reduce administrative burden for SNAP.

Key Policy Lever: Offer 12-Month Certification Periods for All Families With Children

Families enrolled in SNAP are periodically required to recertify their eligibility for the program. States determine the intervals at which families must renew their benefit eligibility but must comply with federal guidelines that limit certification periods to a maximum of 12 months for most families. Across states, certification periods range from 3 months to 12 months for families with children. 

As of September 2025, 18 states offer 12-month certifications to all families with children. Another 15 states offer 12-month certifications to most families with children but set shorter certifications for families deemed to have less stable circumstances.

Of the remaining 18 states, 13 offer 6-month certifications for most or all families and five (Hawaii, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, and Wyoming) implement variable certification periods determined by benefit specialists at state agencies based on the household’s 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.

See the table below for additional details on this and other levers.

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 families must report between recertifications or mid-term reports.

Under the federal option for simplified reporting, families are only required to report changes to the state if the household’s total gross income exceeds the limit for their household size or if a household member has lottery or gambling gross winnings of $4,250 or more. 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 September 2025, 35 states assign simplified reporting to all families with children. An additional 15 states assign simplified reporting to most families. Mississippi is the only state that does not employ 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. Forty-four states offer some form of online case management services, and all but two states (Idaho and Wyoming) make SNAP applications available online. This year, Alaska became the 44th state to launch an online case management portal for SNAP and other benefits.

Idaho and Wyoming are the only states that do not offer any online services for families to manage or view their SNAP benefits. Idaho recently launched an online portal for Medicaid, however. Given that these two states are among the lowest in the country in population density, online services could help families in rural areas with limited access to SNAP offices connect to SNAP benefits.

States with online case management services have a password-protected portal where SNAP participants can access their case information, apply for benefits, report changes, renew benefits, upload documents, and more. The specific case management services available through these portals vary among states, but some of the most common functions include checking eligibility 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 offers a tool for families to search for other non-government resources in their area and to connect with application assisters from the local foodbank.

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 assistance, and cash assistance. Colorado’s PEAK portal, for instance, expanded over the last year to include public transit assistance, Nurse-Family Partnership, child care subsidies, and WIC. These types of integrated systems allow families to use only one login to access their case information across programs.

To learn more about specific state portals, view your state Roadmap or see the compiled progress narratives.

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 11 states, only 10% or fewer of families with children do not receive the SNAP benefits for which they are eligible. New Mexico has the lowest (or best) percentage, at only 6.1%, of eligible families who do not receive SNAP benefits.

By contrast, in 13 states, the percentage of eligible families with children who do not receive SNAP is greater than 20%. Wyoming has the highest percentage, at 45.4% of eligible families not receiving benefits. These 13 states also include Texas (28.5%) and California (33.8%), 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 19.6%.

View our Policy Impact Calculator, which illustrates how policies, such as state minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, out-of-pocket child care expenses, taxes and tax credits, as well as federal nutrition benefits, interact to impact overall household resources.

Over the last year, states considered or enacted legislation to reduce administrative burden for SNAP through a range of policy proposals, including updating certification periods, streamlining applications and making them more accessible, and increasing agency capacity. Conversely, many states considered or enacted bills that create additional burden on families, limit agency capacity, and restrict choices for families receiving SNAP benefits.

3 States Introduced Legislation to Extend SNAP Certification Periods to 12 Months

Legislators in Hawaii, North Carolina, and Texas introduced legislation this year to extend SNAP certification periods to 12 months for most or all families receiving benefits. Texas and North Carolina currently offer 6-month certifications to most families, and Hawaii assigns certification periods between 3 and 12 months based on families’ circumstances.

In addition to lengthening certification periods, Hawaii’s bill would have also required the development of a report on how this change would affect administrative costs and participation rates, and North Carolina’s proposal would have lifted the ban on individuals with a drug-related felony from participating in SNAP. Ultimately, none of these bills passed this session.

At least 7 States Sought to Make SNAP Applications and Case Management Services More Accessible

In the past year, Alaska built on its progress from 2023 and launched an online client portal where SNAP recipients can manage their benefits for the first time. Through Alaska Connect, which was launched in summer of 2024 and has added additional functions since, families can not only apply for benefits but can also renew benefits, report changes, check the status of applications, and upload documents.

Oklahoma enacted a bill to expand its existing online common application by establishing a unified and streamlined eligibility and enrollment system at the Department of Human Services. The bill requires the agency to develop an integrated access system for SNAP, TANF, LIHEAP (energy assistance), Medicaid, and WIC, where families can apply for and manage benefits. The platform, which is required to be developed over the next year, must be mobile friendly, available in several languages, and accessible for individuals with disabilities.

Legislators in New Jersey and New York also introduced bills to make their applications more universal. New Jersey proposed updates to the NJHelp portal to ensure that all state administered public assistance programs were included and could be applied to through a single application, and New York proposed the creation of a universal benefits form for all public assistance programs. These integrated applications could help families who are applying for other state benefits more seamlessly apply for SNAP benefits. As of September 2025, neither bill had passed.  

Illinois eased the application requirements for active duty servicemembers and veterans by enacting legislation to make households that include a veteran or active duty servicemember and have incomes less than 200% of the federal poverty level (FPL) categorically eligible for SNAP. The change will take effect pending federal approval. Rhode Island took a different approach by introducing a bill to automatically enroll families who are approved for TANF benefits in SNAP, without requiring those families to apply for SNAP.

Indiana legislators introduced a bill to create a pilot program to deploy kiosks around the state where SNAP recipients would be able to apply for benefits, check the balance on their EBT card, or request a new EBT card. The bill did not pass.

Hawaii Appropriated Funds to Build Agency Capacity to Support SNAP

Legislators in Hawaii appropriated $1.1 million in general revenue funds over the next 2 fiscal years to strengthen access to SNAP. The legislature authorized the Department of Human Services to use the funds to solidify agency capacity by providing pay increases for staff and hiring additional staff. The funds can also be spent on program incentives that may improve SNAP participation rates.

States Proposed Bills That Could Create Additional Burden for Families Receiving SNAP

Regressive action in states has taken many forms over the past year, including legislation to limit agency authority, prohibit the use of simplified reporting and categorical eligibility, codify work requirements, and restrict what foods families could purchase using SNAP benefits.

For example, Kansas enacted a bill to restrict state agencies’ ability to amend the state’s SNAP, Medicaid, TANF, or child care programs without legislative approval. The bill took effect on July 1, 2025, after the legislature overrode Governor Kelly’s veto. The state agency now has more limited authority to update certification periods, simplified reporting, work requirements, and other policies that could reduce administrative burden for families.

In Alabama and Oklahoma, legislation was introduced to prohibit the use of categorical eligibility in SNAP, which is a state option to make TANF-eligible households eligible for SNAP without requiring asset tests. In effect, categorical eligibility streamlines the application process for TANF-eligible families. Oklahoma’s bill also included provisions to require the state to assign all families to change reporting. Currently all families in Oklahoma are simplified reporters. Neither of these bills passed.

Additionally, bills to codify work requirements, expand work requirements, or restrict state agencies’ ability to waive work requirements were introduced by multiple states, including Arizona, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, and West Virginia. Legislators in Arizona, Connecticut, Mississippi, and West Virginia sought to codify existing federal work requirements in statute. Legislators in Arizona and Nebraska attempted to prevent state agencies from seeking waivers for work requirements. Arizona’s proposals passed the legislature, and both bills were vetoed by Governor Hobbs. Iowa’s proposal, which sought to expand work requirements to populations beyond those required by federal law, was enacted. Pending federal approval, SNAP recipients in Iowa with children over age 6, people experiencing homelessness, and adults between the ages of 55 and 64, will be subject to work requirements.

Many state legislators also proposed restrictions on which items families can purchase using SNAP benefits. At least 20 states (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming) introduced legislation to prohibit the purchase of certain foods. Soft drinks and candy were the most commonly excluded items, but several states included bans on chips and desserts, or “unhealthy” food more broadly in their proposals.

Idaho, Texas, and Utah enacted legislation to ban soft drinks and/or candy, and Arizona and Kansas passed bills that were vetoed by their respective governors. These restrictions require a waiver from the US Department of Agriculture before they can be implemented. Nebraska was the first state to receive federal approval for its waiver to ban soda and energy drinks, which it submitted without legislative direction.

State Action Took Place Against the Backdrop of Looming Federal Threats to SNAP

As many states were in legislative session, the federal government debated and enacted H.R. 1, a reconciliation bill that will significantly impact states’ ability to implement their SNAP programs. The bill, which was enacted in July 2025, increases the state share of the costs to administer the SNAP program. Beginning in fiscal year 2027, states will be required to cover 75% of administrative costs, as opposed to the 50-50 split between the states and federal government that was previously required.  

Additionally, for the first time, the bill will require states to pay a portion of SNAP benefit costs starting in fiscal year 2028. The percentage of the benefit costs states will assume is based on the state’s payment error rate, a measure of the accuracy of the state’s eligibility and benefit determinations. States with error rates between 6% and 8% will be required to contribute 5% of the costs of benefits, those with error rates between 8% and 10% will contribute 10% of costs, and states with error rates above 10% will contribute 15% of costs. States with error rates below 6% would not have to contribute to benefit costs. However, in fiscal year 2024, only eight states had error rates below 6%.24  

These changes are likely to strain state budgets, and the error penalty would do so in an unpredictable way. To continue to balance their budgets, states would likely need to cut programs or find ways to limit their SNAP caseload. Because states have limited options for adjusting benefit eligibility rules, reassessing administrative processes to narrow program access, and ultimately costs, may be one option they employ.

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 2025 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. Sherman, A., Lukens, G., & Lloberra, J. (2025, September 5). To understand next week’s 2024 Census data, keep the bigger story about government’s impact on poverty, health coverage in mind. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/to-understand-next-weeks-2024-census-data-keep-the-bigger-story 
  6. Kollar, M. & Scherer, Z. (2025, September 9). Income in the United States: 2024 (Report No. P60-286). US Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-286.htm 
  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. Cunnyngham, K. (2023, August). Empirical Bayes Shrinkage Estimates of State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates: Fiscal Year 2018 to Fiscal Year 2020. Prepared by Mathematica for the US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-participation-2020-tech-report.pdf
  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.us/sites/default/files/media/file/SNAP-State-Variation-Admin-Costs-FullReport.pdf
  19. Congressional Budget Office (2025). Estimated effects of Public Law 119-21 on participation and benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-08/61367-SNAP.pdf 
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. United States Department of Agriculture (2025). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Error Rates Fiscal Year 2024. https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-fy24QC-PER.pdf

Follow us:

Twitter Facebook Linkedin Youtube
Newsletter Sign-up