How many SNAP benefit recipients were prosecuted for fraud in 2022?

1. No single national prosecution tally — why the data are fragmented

There is no central public dataset in the provided sources that sums every criminal prosecution of SNAP recipients for 2022 across federal, state, and local jurisdictions; the Congressional Research Service and USDA materials emphasize that SNAP is jointly administered by states and the federal Food and Nutrition Service, and that prosecutions are typically handled by state or USDA OIG investigators, producing fragmented records ^[1]. The National Payment Error Rate (NPER) and retailer trafficking rates measure different phenomena (improper payments and retailer trafficking) and do not equal a count of recipient criminal prosecutions ^[1].

2. State-level counts are available but partial — Texas example

At the state level, agencies sometimes report prosecution referrals and turned-over cases: Texas’ Benefits Program Integrity unit reported completing 410 investigations and turning over 23 cases to county district attorneys for prosecution in the first three quarters of fiscal year 2022; it also referred 387 cases for administrative disqualification hearings ^[2]. That demonstrates how state reports can give useful snapshots, but a single state’s number cannot be extrapolated to a national total without more data ^[2].

3. Federal context: fraud is described as uncommon, but improper payments are sizable

The Congressional Research Service states that “SNAP fraud is rare, according to available data and reports,” while also noting there is no one metric capturing all forms of fraud ^[1]. At the same time, USDA and GAO work show substantial improper payment estimates for SNAP (improper payments include errors and some forms of fraud); for example, GAO reported USDA estimated about 11.7% (roughly $10.5 billion) of SNAP benefits were improper for FY2023 — a related but distinct measure from criminal prosecutions of beneficiaries ^[3].

4. Different enforcement paths: administrative disqualification vs. criminal prosecution

States use multiple enforcement tools. Many recipient cases result in administrative disqualification (loss of benefits) rather than criminal charges; Texas’ report shows far more administrative referrals ^[4] than criminal prosecutions (23 turned over to prosecutors) in its partial FY2022 reporting window, illustrating that administrative action is a common outcome ^[2]. The USDA’s fraud guidance also emphasizes disqualification, fines, and potential prosecution as separate penalties ^[5].

5. Advocacy and research highlight prosecutorial practices and concerns

Advocacy and research groups argue that anti-fraud efforts sometimes criminalize poverty and rely on algorithmic detection systems that flag beneficiaries for investigation, increasing administrative and criminal pressure on recipients ^[6]. These sources warn that threats of criminal prosecution can shape how cases are handled and can limit legal representation for affected households ^[6].

6. Retailer trafficking and organized theft add complexity to counts

A meaningful share of fraud enforcement focuses on retailers and organized theft (trafficking), not individual recipients. Retailer trafficking is measured on a different schedule and can result in disqualification and fines; it’s not counted in recipient IPV metrics or NPER figures, again complicating efforts to derive a single prosecution count for recipients in 2022 ^{[1] [5]}. State reporting cited by the National Governors Association points to rising theft and organized schemes between 2022–2024, but that covers different phenomena and timeframes ^[7].

7. What the available sources do and do not answer

Available sources do not provide a national total of SNAP recipients criminally prosecuted in calendar year 2022; they instead offer state snapshots (e.g., Texas’ 23 cases referred to prosecutors in the first three quarters of FY2022), program-level context that prosecutions are initiated by OIG or state authorities ^{[2] [1]}, and analyses criticizing enforcement practices ^[6]. National measures that exist (NPER, retailer trafficking rate) are not counts of criminal prosecutions and should not be conflated with them ^[1].

8. How to get a fuller answer

To produce a defensible national count you'd need aggregated data from multiple sources: USDA OIG prosecution/referral logs, state human services agencies’ enforcement reports, and county or state prosecutor records for 2022. The materials provided here do not include that consolidated dataset; Congress, USDA, or a coordinated FOIA-based compilation of state reports would be the logical next steps — but those steps and their outcomes are not described in the current sources ^{[1] [2] [3]}.