How do SNAP administrative costs per participant compare to Medicaid and TANF?
Executive summary
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119‑21) shifts SNAP administrative cost sharing from an approximate 50/50 federal‑state split to a 25% federal / 75% state split beginning in FY2027, meaning states will pick up roughly three‑quarters of SNAP administrative costs [1] [2]. Available sources do not provide a single, directly comparable per‑participant administrative cost figure for SNAP vs. Medicaid vs. TANF; reporting instead emphasizes share changes, state budget impacts, and program differences (not found in current reporting).
1. What the SNAP change actually does: a clear cost‑shift
Congress’s 2025 reconciliation law reduces the federal share of SNAP administrative costs from about 50% to 25%, making states responsible for the remaining 75% of administration starting in fiscal year 2027 [1] [2]. Multiple analyses and state briefings describe this as a significant transfer of recurring administrative burden to states and estimate large fiscal hits [3] [4].
2. Why per‑participant comparisons aren’t given in current reporting
None of the supplied sources publish a direct “administrative cost per participant” number for SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF in a single table or head‑to‑head comparison; reporting focuses on percentage‑share rules, aggregate state impacts, and programmatic changes (not found in current reporting). Where dollar figures exist, they are typically state budget projections (e.g., Maryland’s estimate of >$300 million new SNAP costs) rather than national per‑participant metrics [3].
3. How SNAP administration has been funded — context for the shift
Historically SNAP benefits were federally paid and administrative costs were cost‑shared roughly 50/50 between the federal government and states; the new law reverses much of that sharing by reducing the federal administrative match to 25% and increasing the state match to 75% [2] [5]. Analysts warn this reduces federal support for routine tasks — eligibility, case management, error correction — that states must now fund [6] [4].
4. Why Medicaid and TANF aren’t easily compared to SNAP here
The supplied sources treat Medicaid and TANF as structurally different programs: Medicaid is a federal‑state health insurance program with very different financing rules and recent reforms (work requirements, more frequent redeterminations), while TANF is a federal block grant with state maintenance‑of‑effort rules and longstanding variability in state spending priorities [7] [4]. Those structural differences mean an “administrative cost per participant” comparison requires harmonized definitions and data that the current reporting does not provide (not found in current reporting).
5. What journalists and analysts say about likely effects on per‑participant costs
While no single source gives per‑participant administrative dollar figures across programs, analysts conclude the SNAP shift will raise states’ per‑participant administrative burden: higher state shares of fixed and variable administrative outlays imply larger state budgets and likely higher per‑participant state spending unless states cut services or staffing [2] [6]. States facing new benefit cost exposure tied to error rates could see still larger fiscal impacts that push administrative spending decisions [2] [4].
6. State evidence and anecdotes — concrete but not national per‑capita math
State materials and local reporting show real‑world budget hits: Maryland reported being “required to pay for 75% of SNAP administrative costs and up to 15% of benefit costs,” and projected more than $300 million in new SNAP‑related costs — a local illustration of how the structural share change translates to cash flow pressure [3] [5]. Such state examples illuminate fiscal pressure but do not constitute a national per‑participant administrative comparison [3].
7. Two competing frames in the sources
Supporters frame the change as fiscal discipline and error‑rate accountability; critics and public‑health analysts frame it as an unprecedented cut that will strain state administrations, reduce program integrity improvements, and potentially lead to job loss in human services [6] [4]. The sources clearly present both perspectives: legal text and federal notices document the share change [1], while think tanks and health‑policy groups emphasize likely negative consequences [6] [2].
8. Bottom line and what would be needed for a strict per‑participant comparison
Bottom line: the law makes states pay roughly 75% of SNAP administrative costs beginning FY2027 [1] [2]. Available sources do not supply comparable per‑participant administrative cost figures for SNAP, Medicaid, and TANF; producing that comparison would require harmonized national data on administrative outlays and participant counts for each program — data not present in the provided reporting (not found in current reporting).