What efficiencies or reforms have states used to reduce SNAP administrative costs without cutting benefits?
Executive summary
States have historically reduced SNAP administrative costs without cutting benefits by investing in technology, staff training and process improvements to lower payment error rates and improve efficiency; recent federal law changes (P.L. 119‑21/“One Big Beautiful Bill Act” of 2025) sharply shift more administrative and some benefit costs to states, increasing pressure on those efficiency strategies [1] [2] [3]. Under the new law, the federal administrative match falls from about 50% to 25% (states bear ~75% of admin costs) beginning FY2027 and states with elevated payment error rates face new benefit cost‑sharing obligations [2] [3] [4].
1. What states have done before: invest to save
Before 2025 federal changes, states seeking to contain administrative spending while preserving benefits focused on reducing errors and streamlining operations — hiring and training eligibility staff, upgrading IT and automated case workflows, and tightening quality‑control processes to lower payment error rates (sources describing states’ investments and the linkage between error rates and costs note that states “have been improving payment accuracy by investing in staff, training, and technology upgrades”) [1]. Those investments reduced erroneous payments — the single biggest driver of avoidable administrative and benefit costs — letting states keep benefits intact while trimming waste [1].
2. Why accuracy matters now: new penalty and cost‑share rules
The 2025 reconciliation law introduces explicit incentives and penalties tied to payment accuracy. It imposes state matches for benefit costs when payment error rates exceed a threshold (cost shares ranging from modest percentages up to capped amounts depending on the error rate) and removes some prior measurement tolerances that had let small errors be excluded from error‑rate calculations [4] [5]. Those changes make the prior “invest to save” calculus more urgent: improving accuracy now reduces direct state spending on benefits, not only administrative overhead [4] [5].
3. Federal administrative match slashed — states must adapt
Federal funding for program administration historically covered roughly half of state admin costs; the enacted law cuts that federal share to 25% beginning FY2027 (states absorb about 75% of admin costs), dramatically increasing the fiscal burden on state budgets [2] [3]. Analysts warn states that investments in staff and systems that reduced error rates could be threatened by the sudden funding gap — a contradiction: the same investments that limit state liability now require state funds to sustain [1].
4. Practical reforms states can deploy without trimming benefits
Based on the patterns in reporting, strategies states can and have used to lower admin costs without cutting benefit levels include: scaling up automation for intake and recertification; cross‑training staff to reduce processing delays; centralizing specialized functions (fraud investigations, QC) to gain economies of scale; and using targeted quality‑control analytics to prioritize high‑risk cases rather than blanket audits [1]. These approaches preserve benefit continuity while lowering per‑case administrative costs, but they often require upfront investment that recent federal shifts make harder to finance [1] [3].
5. Tradeoffs and political context
The OBBBA/P.L.119‑21 reforms are framed by proponents as fiscal discipline and stronger state accountability; critics argue they will force states either to cut services or to divert state dollars into SNAP administration and benefit matches, harming other programs [1] [3]. The Congressional Budget Office and advocacy groups flagged the administrative match change as an unfunded mandate on states with limited ability to shift funding, underscoring political and budgetary tensions that will shape whether states can pursue efficiency measures or face painful tradeoffs [1].
6. Limits of current reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources document the shift in federal‑state shares and the policy incentives tied to payment error rates, and they describe common efficiency measures states have used [2] [4] [1] [3]. Available sources do not mention detailed, state‑by‑state evaluations showing which specific reforms produced net savings after up‑front costs, nor do they provide comprehensive, empirical comparisons of automation versus staffing models under the new funding regime (not found in current reporting).
7. Bottom line for state policymakers
States can and historically have reduced SNAP admin costs without lowering benefit levels by investing in accuracy, automation and smarter case management — but the 2025 federal law raises the fiscal stakes by shifting far more administration and some benefit costs to states. That policy shift turns efficiency from a cost‑savings tactic into a budgetary necessity, while simultaneously constraining states’ ability to finance the very investments that produce those savings [1] [2] [3].