What are common types of SNAP benefits fraud and how are they detected?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
SNAP fraud takes several distinct forms: recipient fraud such as trafficking and false reporting, retailer fraud including unauthorized redemption and trafficking, and electronic theft like card skimming and account takeovers; stolen or fraudulent SNAP claims reached more than $102 million in one quarter of FY2025 according to USDA data cited by media [1]. Federal efforts now emphasize data analytics, a SNAP Fraud Framework, and grants to states, while independent studies report fraud volumes and costs rising as digital channels expand [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Types of recipient fraud — deliberate misreporting and trafficking
Recipient-side fraud most commonly appears as intentional misreporting of income, household composition, or resources that affect eligibility and benefit amounts, and the most serious form is trafficking — exchanging SNAP benefits or EBT access for cash or ineligible items [6] [2]. Legal summaries and USDA materials treat trafficking as a primary category, and guidance frames these actions as criminal or administrative violations that lead to disqualification, repayment requirements, or prosecution [6] [2].
2. Retailer and processor fraud — selling access and bending rules
Retailer fraud occurs when authorized vendors facilitate ineligible redemptions, accept SNAP benefits for non-food items, or run conversion schemes that turn benefits into cash; the USDA and FNS explicitly warn that retailers who “exchange SNAP benefits for cash” or sell ineligible items are committing fraud and face enforcement [2]. Lawmakers have proposed policy changes such as mandatory photo IDs on EBT cards to restrict improper redemptions — an approach promoted by some members of Congress but contested as a policy choice [7].
3. Electronic and organized schemes — skimming, cloning, and account takeovers
Criminals increasingly target the EBT system itself: card skimming, cloning, and account takeovers are cited by the USDA and reporting as growing threats, particularly as SNAP moves into more digital channels [2] [5]. Industry studies document a sharp rise in digital-era schemes and say the volume of fraudulent cases doubled since 2024, with attendant increases in detection and administrative costs [5].
4. Measurement and scale — what the data show and don’t show
Published figures cited in media note 226,000 fraudulent SNAP claims and over $102 million in stolen or fraudulent benefits in a recent quarter of FY2025, evidence used by officials and members of Congress to argue for tougher integrity measures [1] [7]. Independent audits and watchdog reporting caution that programwide fraud rates remain comparatively low overall, and that headline counts depend on how agencies classify “fraudulent” versus improper or duplicate payments — specifics vary by reporting source and by state [8] [1].
5. How fraud is detected — data analytics, crosschecks, and tips
Federal and state agencies now pair traditional casework with data analytics and multi-system crosschecks to detect anomalies in applications and post-issuance use; the USDA’s SNAP Fraud Framework explicitly promotes analytics, industry best practices, and ongoing monitoring as central detection tools [2] [3] [4]. Grants and implementation guidance encourage states to invest in analytics, training, and recipient integrity education to catch fraud earlier and reduce false positives [4] [3].
6. Preventive technical measures — card security and system upgrades
Physical and technical defenses against EBT theft are being pursued: GAO reporting notes that most SNAP cards lack microchips but that California had modernized its EBT cards with chips as of May 2025, and FNS has been working on proposed rules for card security measures [9]. USDA statements and reports stress that fraud evolves and that security upgrades — e.g., chip-enabled cards, transaction blocking options, and processor protections — are part of a broader strategy [3] [9].
7. Costs, trade-offs, and the political context
Private-sector studies say the total cost of addressing fraud often exceeds direct benefits lost — one report found agencies incur $4.14 in total costs for every $1 of benefits lost — a metric used to justify investment in technology and controls [5]. Meanwhile, political actors use fraud statistics to press for policy changes such as broader data sharing, reapplication mandates, or withholding funds from non-cooperating states; critics counter that aggressive enforcement risks harming eligible recipients and that SNAP historically has a low fraud rate overall [1] [10] [8].
Limitations: available sources do not provide a complete, reconciled national fraud rate or the full methodological detail behind every headline figure; details on state-by-state detection effectiveness and the exact breakdown between criminal enterprise theft and recipient error are not uniformly reported [1] [8] [5].