Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt. Learn More

2026 Roadmap 2025 Roadmap 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

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 generally to state public assistance and benefit programs.

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 On October 1, 2026, the US Department of Agriculture increased the maximum monthly SNAP benefit for a family of three from $785 to $808 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 2025, 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 poverty, 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 also improves birth outcomes,9 increases health care access among children,10 and improves long-term child health.11 A 2020 analysis found that access to SNAP between conception and age 5 led to 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.12

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

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.13 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.14

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

Federal Changes Will Impact State Administrative Capacity, Costs, and Program Participation

In July 2025, the federal government enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a law that made major changes to how states finance and administer SNAP and who can receive benefits. Beginning in October 2026 (Fiscal Year 2027), states will be required to cover 75% of SNAP administrative costs, up from the 50% they previously covered. Estimates of this additional administrative cost-share alone range from approximately $4.5 million annually in Wyoming to $590.4 million in California.19

Beginning in October 2027 (Fiscal Year 2028), states will also be required to pay a portion of SNAP benefit costs for the first time. The amount each state must contribute will be based on its SNAP payment error rate, which is the share of benefits identified during quality control reviews to have been overpaid or underpaid. For example, a 6% error rate means that the value of overpayments and underpayments combined equaled approximately $6 for every $100 in benefits the state issued. Payment errors can occur for many reasons, including household income changes, missing or outdated information, agency processing delays, caseworker mistakes, or households misunderstanding reporting requirements. Error rates often reflect unintentional administrative errors rather than intentional misuse of benefits.

Under OBBBA, states with error rates between 6% and 8% will be required to contribute 5% of benefit costs, states with error rates between 8% and 10% must contribute 10%, and states with error rates above 10% must contribute 15%. States with error rates below 6% will not be required to contribute to benefit costs. These new costs to states could be substantial. Based on Fiscal Year 2025 error rates, states could collectively owe approximately $9 billion in new SNAP benefit costs when the cost-share takes effect.20 These estimates are subject to change since Fiscal Year 2028 cost-share obligations may be based on either these rates or the to-be-determined Fiscal Year 2026 payment error rates.21

OBBBA also expanded work requirements within SNAP. Previously, adults aged 18 to 54, (excluding adults responsible for a child under the age of 18) had to complete 80 hours per month of work or other qualifying activities to remain eligible for SNAP. Now, more adults ages 55 through 64 and parents of children aged 14 or older are subject to the requirement. Though this change will not directly apply to most parents or caregivers of young children, other adults in the household may still be subject to the requirement, reducing the household’s total benefit if they lose eligibility.

Additionally, OBBBA narrowed SNAP eligibility for noncitizens – refugees, asylees, trafficking survivors, and several other categories of humanitarian immigrant groups are no longer eligible for SNAP unless they qualify through other statuses. In addition to directly reducing eligibility, these changes require states to conduct new eligibility reviews and may create confusion and procedural burdens for mixed-status families in which some, but not all, household members remain eligible.

Together, these changes mean that states are simultaneously expected to navigate an increasingly complex set of eligibility requirements while financing a larger share of SNAP than ever before. State leaders can respond by investing in staffing, training, and eligibility systems, however, the new costs may also encourage states to narrow access or require families to verify their eligibility more frequently.

These choices could increase administrative burden and cause eligible families to lose benefits if they miss notices, cannot complete additional paperwork, or encounter other problems during application or renewal. Early data suggest that SNAP participation has already declined since OBBBA’s enactment,22 though the extent to which these declines are attributable to the law’s implementation is still emerging.

State Eligibility Policies Can Affect Access to SNAP and Other Supports

State policy choices about income and asset limits also affect administrative burden and SNAP participation. Forty-three states have opted to use broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) to set income or asset limits above the federal baseline by connecting SNAP eligibility to a noncash benefit or service funded through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Strong causal research shows that adopting BBCE increased per capita SNAP participation by 15.3%.23

Eliminating BBCE is a recurring target of proposals to narrow SNAP eligibility – although OBBBA does not directly change BBCE, its new administrative and benefit cost-sharing requirements may increase pressure on states to reconsider policies that expand eligibility. Though ending or limiting BBCE may reduce enrollment, and therefore reduce future benefit costs, restoring these income and asset limits may increase administrative burden and create more opportunities for processing errors.

The effects of BBCE can extend beyond SNAP as well. Children receiving SNAP can be directly certified for free school meals without completing a separate application, so restrictions to BBCE could reduce the number of children automatically connected to free and reduced-price lunch (FRL). The number of children receiving FRL itself is a factor used to determine states’ federal Child Care and Development Block Grant allocations, which states use to help eligible families afford child care and support the availability of high-quality child care services. Broad reductions in SNAP participation could, therefore, have cascading effects across programs – creating additional application barriers for school meals and, over time, affecting the federal resources available for child care subsidies and other supports.

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, such as simplified reporting requirements, and the availability of online case management services. Other policies, such as broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) also show strong evidence of increasing participation.

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.24 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 2019.25 

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 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.26,27 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.

As OBBBA is implemented, research is needed to understand how states’ responses affect administrative burden and enrollment. Additional research examining impacts on businesses, food costs, and food security for families with children will also be important.

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.
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 federal requirements provide that a state may not allow those recertification periods to extend past 12 months for most families. Across states, certification periods range from 3 months to 12 months for families with children.

As of September 2026, 15 states offer 12-month certifications for all families with children—down from 18 states in September 2025 after Georgia, Illinois, and West Virginia all shortened their certification periods from 12 months to 6 months. 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 21 states, 17 offer 6-month certifications for most or all families and four (Hawaii, Mississippi, New York, and Wyoming) implement variable certification periods determined by benefit specialists at state agencies based on the household’s circumstances.

Though state agencies typically offer one standard certification length to most eligible families, some states use shorter certification periods for specific household types or circumstances. Households experiencing homelessness, with seasonal or migrant workers, with self-employed individuals, households determined likely to become ineligible soon, or households otherwise deemed to have “unstable circumstances” are among the 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 $4,500 or more.28 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 2026, 38 states assign simplified reporting to all families with children—up from 35 in the 2025 State Policy Roadmap due to changes in Illinois, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. An additional 14 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 seven (Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Vermont, and Wyoming) do not. All but two states (Idaho and Wyoming) make SNAP applications available online.

Idaho and Wyoming are the only states that do not offer any online services for families to manage or view their SNAP benefits, though Idaho has operated an online portal for Medicaid since early 2025. 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. Minnesota also connects families to SNAP outreach specialists who can answer eligibility questions and help complete applications.

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, includes public transit assistance, Nurse-Family Partnership, child care subsidies, and WIC. Nevada also updated its portal in 2025 to better sync residents’ other benefit assistance cases and expand online services to more programs, including state-funded mental health services, the Rural Clinics Program, and addiction services, among others. 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. 

The most recent comprehensive state-by-state estimates of SNAP participation among eligible people describe conditions in 2023, before the major federal policy changes enacted through OBBBA in 2025 took effect. In an average month in 2023, an estimated 57.5% of eligible people nationwide received SNAP. Participation varied substantially across states: in 12 states and the District of Columbia, at least 60% of eligible people were estimated to receive SNAP. By contrast, in 16 states, fewer than half of eligible people were estimated to participate.29

These estimates provide a useful benchmark for understanding how effectively states connected eligible people with SNAP, but they do not reflect the rapid changes that have occurred surrounding the program since 2023. Between July 2025 and April 2026, SNAP enrollment declined by more than 4.5 million people (11%) nationwide. Enrollment fell in nearly every state, including by at least 10% in 23 states. Among the 19 states with available data on children, more than 1 million fewer children were receiving SNAP in April 2026 than in July 2025.30

Accurate and timely participation estimates are especially important during this period of rapid policy change. However, recent monthly enrollment data cannot show how many people losing benefits remain eligible or how these declines are affecting families with young children, specifically. More research and comprehensive state-level data are needed to understand how many eligible families with young children are receiving SNAP – and how many are losing or missing out on assistance amid the program’s eligibility and administrative changes.

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 affecting SNAP administrative burden in several directions. Some bills were introduced to streamline applications, modernize online systems, or maintain access for families affected by federal policy changes. However, much of the 2026 legislative activity focused on tightening eligibility processes, shortening certification periods for certain households, and implementing new requirements under OBBBA. Together, these trends reflect a changing SNAP policy landscape – states are simultaneously making decisions about long-standing administrative burden levers and preparing for new federal fiscal and administrative pressures.

At Least a Dozen States Introduced Legislation to Modify Certification Periods

Because states generally have administrative authority to set SNAP certification periods within the federal minimum and maximum rules, agencies can also make changes directly through administrative manual updates. In late 2025 and early 2026, Illinois and West Virginia updated their administrative policies, trimming their standard recertification period from 12 months to 6 months for all families with children. This change marks a departure from the 12-month recertification policy both states had maintained at least since the publishing of the first State Policy Roadmap in 2020. The guidance released alongside the 6-month change in Illinois stated that the reduction was specifically intended to reduce the state’s SNAP payment error rate.31

In addition to these administrative changes, several states considered adopting shorter recertification periods through their legislative sessions this year. Hawaii was the only state to move in the opposite direction, successfully enacting a bill to extend the minimum recertification period for all SNAP households to 12 months beginning July 1, 2028.

In 11 states (Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming) legislators introduced bills that would have shortened recertification periods for certain households. These proposals generally focused on households with no income, able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs), a seasonal or migrant worker, “unstable circumstances,” or households expected to become ineligible soon.

Several bills containing these parameters changed over the course of a given state’s legislative session. In Idaho and Utah, language to shorten recertification periods to 4 months or less for some households was removed before the bills were enacted. A similar bill introduced in New Hampshire was modified to instead establish a commission to study SNAP regulation and administration. Wyoming, which generally applies certification periods of up to 6 months for most households, is the only state that enacted a bill to further shorten its recertification periods. The state already assigns certain households 4- or 5-month periods if they contain an ABAWD, but effective January 2027, the new bill also applies 4-month periods to households determined to be “unstable” and allows the state to assign 1- or 2-month certification periods to households expected to become ineligible soon.

Although most bills adopting shorter recertification options did not pass, the repeated introduction of similar language across states marks a notable shift in 2026 legislative activity. Together with Wyoming’s enactment, these proposals suggest that some states are viewing certification periods as a potential tool for tightening SNAP eligibility requirements amid new federal administrative and fiscal burdens.

3 States Adopted Simplified Reporting

Over the last year, several states sought to expand their use of simplified reporting through administrative changes. This emerging trend may reflect states’ efforts to reduce or anticipate administrative burden associated with OBBBA implementation, as simplified reporting can limit routine casework and allow agencies to focus resources on new federal requirements.

In late 2025, New Hampshire applied simplified reporting rules to all SNAP households for the first time. Illinois also began using simplified reporting in late 2025 amid broader changes to its SNAP recertification processes, though the state did not formalize its new simplified reporting procedures for all SNAP households until June 2026.

Legislators in Minnesota also introduced a bill to invest in administrative updates that would move the state toward simplified reporting. Although the simplified reporting provisions were ultimately removed from the legislation, the state proceeded with the change administratively in June 2026. Notably, by adopting simplified reporting, Minnesota also eliminated the 6-month certification periods previously assigned to some households subject to change reporting, allowing more families in the state to received 12-month certification periods – though shorter periods may still be assigned in limited circumstances.

Tennessee Expanded SNAP Eligibility but At Least 13 Other States Considered Broad Limits

Broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) is another tool states can use to streamline SNAP access for families, allowing a state to set income and asset limits more generous than the federal baseline. In practice, BBCE is a policy mechanism that connects households to a TANF-funded noncash service or benefit – such as information or referrals – and uses that connection to apply more generous SNAP income or asset limits. In doing so, BBCE can simplify eligibility rules, reduce the need for documentation during application and renewal, and allow some households with modest earnings and savings to remain eligible for SNAP. Proposals to limit or end the use of BBCE could increase administrative burden.

Currently, 43 states use BBCE. Tennessee became the newest state to expand SNAP eligibility through BBCE this year, after the legislature approved a rule-change from the Department of Human Services. However, at least 13 other states (Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia) introduced bills to limit, end, or prevent future use of BBCE. Three states enacted restrictions: Indiana and Idaho enacted laws to effectively end their use of BBCE, and Kansas, a non-BBCE state, enacted a bill prohibiting the state from pursuing BBCE in the future. Amid these state-level changes, the federal government is expected to propose a rule to limit BBCE nationwide in the fall of 2026, though the final scope of the rule remains uncertain.32

7 States Looked to Modernize SNAP Applications, Platforms, or Eligibility Systems

States took varied approaches to modernizing SNAP infrastructure this year. Colorado enacted a bill to align county program data and performance requirements and improve coordination across public benefit programs, and Minnesota appropriated over $90 million over the next 3 years to broadly improve the IT system used to administer SNAP and other programs. Wisconsin also enacted a bill to develop an electronic platform to manage and fund additional SNAP administration, quality control initiatives, and staff training.

A few states introduced, but did not pass, legislation to improve their platforms. In New Jersey, legislators introduced bills to create a universal public assistance application in MyNJHelps, the state’s administration system, to leverage state tax return data for SNAP enrollment, and improve the language-accessibility of SNAP application materials. Indiana introduced a bill to create benefit kiosks where families could apply for SNAP, check EBT balances, or request new cards. West Virginia introduced a bill to create a unified electronic system for SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid eligibility and work requirement compliance. Missouri introduced appropriations for SNAP implementation costs and eligibility system updates.

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

Many states also considered or enacted bills that could increase procedural requirements for families applying for or maintaining SNAP. Idaho and Kansas enacted bills requiring more frequent and comprehensive eligibility data checks, additional documentation, or limits on self-attestation, whereas Arizona and Florida considered similar proposals that did not pass. Though these changes are often framed as program integrity measures, these bills may increase administrative burden for families with young children by requiring more frequent responses to agency notices or additional steps to prove continued eligibility. They may also create more opportunities for administrative mistakes that could contribute to states’ SNAP payment error rates and, in turn, increase their future share of benefit costs.

Fraud prevention bills also grew more prominent, though their impact on families will depend heavily on implementation and enforcement. Some measures, such as replacing stolen benefits, issuing contactless or chip-enabled EBT cards, or requiring retailers to adopt anti-fraud protections, may reduce harm to families without adding new steps to the eligibility process. Four states (Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, and Ohio) introduced bills to replace stolen SNAP benefits, issue chip-enabled EBT cards, or implement other point-of-sale fraud prevention measures.

Other fraud prevention proposals could create more direct burdens if they trigger additional reviews, require new forms of identity verification, or increase the number of transactions families must verify. Mississippi legislators considered piloting EBT cards with photo identification and Oklahoma legislators introduced a bill that would have allowed the use of phone-based tracking tools to monitor transactions and flag potential fraud during enrollment or recertification. Because the details of implementation and enforcement remain uncertain, the burden on families would depend on how often these tools are used, what happens when a verification fails, and whether families have accessible ways to correct errors or resolve flagged cases. In practice, these policies could also increase the risk of administrative errors that affect states’ payment error rates.

States Pursued Varied Approaches to Nutrition

States also pursued contrasting approaches intended to influence the foods families purchase with SNAP. As of September 2026, 16 states had active, federally approved restrictions on the purchase of certain foods using SNAP benefits, most often targeting soda, candy, or broader categories of “ultra-processed” foods. Another seven states had approved waivers with implementation dates set in the future.

At least 18 states continued to pursue new or modified waiver requests during the 2026 legislative session.33 Alabama, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin ultimately enacted food purchase restriction legislation. The status of these waivers remains uncertain following a federal court decision that halted approved restrictions in five states (Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia) but did not directly affect other approved waivers.

Other states supported nutrition incentive programs, including Double Up Food Bucks, one of the most common models. These programs give SNAP participants extra money to purchase fruits and vegetables. Many of these programs operate through farmers markets, farm stands, and other local food outlets, as well as some grocery and convenience stores. Through these programs, a family may receive an additional dollar to spend on produce for each dollar of SNAP benefits used on eligible foods. In the last year, Double Up programs operated in more than 25 states.34

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).

The federal changes enacted through OBBBA are already shaping state SNAP legislation. In the year since enactment, states have begun introducing bills to prepare for new fiscal exposure, tighten eligibility and verification processes, implement work requirement changes, and, in some cases, preserve access for families at risk of losing benefits. Limited federal guidance on implementation rules and timelines has added further uncertainty, leaving states to make early policy decisions while the full scope of OBBBA’s administrative burden remains unclear.

Several States Targeted SNAP Payment Error Rates

In the last year, state attention to SNAP payment accuracy grew in response to the potential financial repercussions of OBBBA. However, the practical impact on families will depend on how states pursue error reductions. Investments in staffing, data systems, training, and timely case processing can improve accuracy without adding new barriers for families. By contrast, strategies that rely primarily on more frequent verification or additional paperwork may increase workload, procedural benefit losses, and the number of administrative steps at which mistakes can occur. Although these approaches may be intended to prevent overpayments or reduce total benefit spending, they can also make SNAP harder to apply for or maintain for families, increasing the risk that eligible families lose assistance for procedural reasons.

Against this backdrop, several states considered legislation to monitor or reduce payment error rates in response to OBBBA’s new cost-sharing requirements, requiring states to contribute to SNAP benefit costs beginning in Fiscal Year 2028 if their payment error rate exceeds 6%. Iowa enacted legislation requiring quarterly SNAP payment error rate reports to the legislature beginning in October 2026. Arizona advanced bills that would have required the state to reduce its SNAP payment error rate to 3% or below by 2030, though those bills were vetoed. Maine proposed an independent electronic SNAP error rate reduction system, and North Carolina proposed a grant program to fund projects aimed at reducing the state’s SNAP payment error rate.

Other proposals linked payment accuracy to staffing, reporting, or household verification systems. Oklahoma introduced a bill tying certain agency employee salary cuts and bonuses to SNAP payment error rate improvement and Mississippi introduced a bill requiring annual reporting on how the state’s reporting structure for SNAP affects enrollment and the error rate.

6 States Enacted Strict Enforcements Around Citizenship Eligibility

OBBBA narrowed SNAP access for many noncitizens by limiting eligibility primarily to lawful permanent residents, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and some other specified noncitizens. As a result, several groups that had previously qualified for SNAP – including refugees, asylees, trafficking survivors, certain parolees, and some other humanitarian immigrants – will lose eligibility. These restrictions alone mean that more families may lose access to SNAP or face confusion about which household members remain eligible; however, the impact of these rules could be even more concerning due to how several states have opted to implement and enforce them more strictly than the OBBBA requires.

Six states (Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Utah, and Wyoming) enacted bills requiring more extensive immigration status checks through federal systems and ordering the state to count the income and resources of ineligible household members in the benefit determinations for mixed-status families as a whole. The bills in Louisiana and Wyoming also require the state to notify federal immigration authorities when an applicant’s legal status cannot be confirmed. Kentucky, Mississippi, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and West Virginia all introduced similar bills related to the enforcement of OBBBA’s immigrant eligibility restrictions, but they did not pass this session.

A Few States Considered State-Funded Backup Benefits or Administrative Funding

Amid the work to begin implementing OBBBA and preparing for greater financial responsibility, some states focused on limiting benefit losses or supporting the agencies facing more administrative pressure. California, Connecticut, Illinois, and Minnesota introduced bills to create or expand state-funded nutrition assistance for people at risk of losing SNAP.

California’s proposal would have expanded the state-funded California Food Assistance Program to specific groups who lose SNAP access, and Illinois proposed temporary SNAP payments for households whose benefits are reduced or terminated because they cannot meet the program’s work requirements.

Other states introduced bills attempting to address fiscal or administrative capacity. Colorado enacted a bill allowing leftover school meal funding to cover new state SNAP costs. Maine legislators introduced a contingency fund to help continue benefits if federal SNAP funding is interrupted, and North Carolina introduced multiple bills to support state and county agencies facing higher SNAP administrative costs. Rhode Island proposed appropriations to support food banks and nutrition incentive programs amid expected benefit losses, and Washington introduced bills to create a tax financing pathway to offset anticipated SNAP administrative funding burdens. None of these bills passed this session.

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 2026 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. (2026). SNAP FY 2027 Cost-of-Living Adjustments. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/guidance-documents/fna.snap-cola2027.pdf
  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.  Aussenberg, R., & Falk, G. (2025, September 29). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on Eligibility and Benefits. Congressional Research Service. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R42505
  14. Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center. (2026). Prenatal-to-3 policy clearinghouse evidence review: Reduced Administrative Burden for SNAP. Peabody College of Education and Human Development, Vanderbilt University. https://pn3policy.org/policy-clearinghouse/reduced-administrative-burden-for-snap/
  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. Food Research & Action Center (2025). State Cost Share Impact 2025. https://frac.org/state-cost-share-impact-2025
  20. Bergh, K. & Llobrera, J. (2026). States’ first-ever bill for SNAP benefits could cost billions. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/blog/states-first-ever-bill-for-snap-benefits-could-cost-billions
  21. United States Department of Agriculture (2026). USDA Announces FY 2025 State Payment Error Rates in SNAP. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2026/06/24/usda-announces-fy-2025-state-payment-error-rates-snap
  22. Rosenbaum, D., Llobrera, J., Nchako, C., & Nunez, L. (2026). SNAP Tracker: People are losing food assistance as the Republican megabill is implemented. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-tracker-people-are-losing-food-assistance-as-the-republican-megabill
  23. Wang, X., Valizadeh, P., Nayga, R. M., Bryant, H. L., & Fischer, B. L. (2025). Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility Policy and SNAP Participation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 45, e70063. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.70063
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. United States Department of Agriculture (2026). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Payment Error Rates Fiscal Year 2025. https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-fy24QC-PER.pdf
  29. As of 2023. Urban Institute’s State of the Safety Net project. Calculations were done by the Prenatal-to-3 Policy Impact Center. Estimates were produced using the Urban Institute’s Analysis of Transfers, Taxes, and Income Security (ATTIS) microsimulation, which is based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. The Urban Institute calculates SNAP participation rates by dividing the number of eligible people receiving SNAP according to the SNAP Quality Control data by the number estimated to be eligible through a simulation of SNAP eligibility rules. For additional details on calculations, please see Methods and Sources.
  30. Rosenbaum, D., Llobrera, J., Nchako, C., & Nunez, L. (2026). SNAP Tracker: People are losing food assistance as the Republican megabill is implemented. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-tracker-people-are-losing-food-assistance-as-the-republican-megabill
  31. Illinois Department of Human Services (2026, June 12). MR #26.15 SNAP – Reinstatement of Six-Month Redetermination Process and EZ REDE. https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=174483
  32. United States Department of Agriculture (2026). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Reforming Categorical Eligibility. Spring 2025 Unified Agenda, RIN 0584-AF10. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?RIN=0584-AF10&pubId=202504.
  33. United States Department of Agriculture (2026). SNAP Food Restriction Waivers. https://www.fna.usda.gov/snap/waivers/foodrestriction.
  34. Fair Food Network (2026). Get Double the Fruits & Veggies. Double Up Food Bucks. https://doubleupamerica.org/

Follow us:

Twitter Facebook Linkedin Youtube
Newsletter Sign-up