What are the main causes of improper SNAP payments according to government reports?

1. Why most improper dollars trace back to paperwork and process failures

Government and watchdog summaries converge on the point that administrative errors—state agency missteps in verifying eligibility and calculating benefits—are the largest source of improper SNAP payments. Analyses describe a two-tiered quality control process that still finds systemic weaknesses in verifying citizenship, household composition, income, identity and residency, producing both overpayments and underpayments; the GAO and USDA frameworks register these as dominant factors in the national error rate ^{[4] [5]}. Reports quantify the fiscal impact: recent work cites over $10 billion in improper SNAP payments in a year and places roughly 84% of improper payments as overpayments, indicating calculation and verification failures rather than routine under-allocation ^[2]. The emphasis on corrective action plans for dozens of states underscores that fixing administrative processes at the state level is central to reducing improper payments ^[6].

2. What the reports say about intentional fraud and trafficking vs. mistakes

The assembled analyses make a clear distinction: intentional program violations and retailer trafficking exist but represent a small fraction of total improper spending. Fact-check and program summaries place trafficking and explicit fraud at a low single-digit share of total SNAP dollars—one analysis cites roughly 1.6% attributed to verified trafficking or deliberate fraud, while broader summaries place trafficking as a measurable but minor component compared with administrative errors ^{[1] [7]}. Congress-facing summaries and USDA measures maintain separate metrics for the National Payment Error Rate and the Retailer Trafficking Rate, reflecting conscious methodological separation of inadvertent errors from illicit activity ^[3]. This split matters because policy responses differ: tighter retailer enforcement targets trafficking, while administrative reforms and verification address the larger pool of overpayments.

3. Divergent emphases across government, watchdogs, and analysts

Different reports emphasize different causes depending on mission and methodology. GAO and USDA outputs focus on measurement, quality-control methodology, and state-level corrective actions, highlighting how improper-payment estimates are generated and why overpayment percentages have risen ^{[8] [5]}. Fact-check and academic or policy groups including the Mercatus-style analysis stress the policy implications of rising overpayment rates and the small but politically salient problem of trafficking, noting recent climbs in overpayment rates to over 10 percent in some assessments ^{[1] [7]}. Congressional summaries list trafficking and retailer application fraud alongside household and state errors to capture the full spectrum; this breadth reflects legislative priorities to address both program integrity and benefit access ^[3]. The takeaway: measurement choices drive which causes appear largest and shape remedy proposals.

4. Numbers that matter: error rates, dollar totals, and attribution debates

Published summaries provide headline figures that frame the debate: annual improper SNAP dollars have been reported above $10 billion, and total improper-payment estimates across programs since 2003 have been tallied in the trillions in some GAO-wide aggregates, while SNAP-specific national overpayment rates have been reported above 10 percent in recent years ^{[2] [7] [5]}. Analysts underscore that improper-payment estimates do not capture the entirety of payment issues and depend on sampling, quality-control steps, and categorization choices; as a result, percentages attributed to trafficking versus administrative error vary by report. These methodological differences create space for both integrity-focused advocates and benefit-access advocates to emphasize different figures to support their policy aims ^{[8] [6]}.

5. Where recommendations and corrective actions align—and where they diverge

Across the analyses, the common programmatic prescriptions target improving state verification processes, strengthening oversight and quality-control, and bolstering retailer enforcement where trafficking is evident. GAO and USDA-linked assessments push for enhanced state corrective-action plans and better compliance with the Payment Integrity Information Act, while Congressional materials recommend parallel attention to retailer application fraud and household-level verification to close multiple leakage points ^{[8] [3]}. Policy research highlighting rising overpayment shares calls for investment in data systems and targeted audits, but also signals the political tradeoffs: stronger verification can reduce improper payments but may increase administrative burden on eligible households ^[7].

6. The big-picture contrast: majority mistakes, minority malfeasance—policy stakes ahead

Synthesis of government reporting and independent analyses yields a clear pattern: the bulk of SNAP improper payments arises from eligibility and calculation errors at the administrative level, while intentional fraud and retailer trafficking represent a far smaller portion of dollars lost. That distribution shapes policy debates: technical fixes and state capacity-building address the largest share, whereas law-enforcement resources and retailer sanctions target the smaller trafficking problem cited by Congress ^{[4] [3]}. The varied emphases and measurement approaches across GAO, USDA, Congressional analyses, and fact-checking pieces create competing narratives that stakeholders use to prioritize solutions, but the underlying evidence consistently points to administrative verification failures as the main driver of improper SNAP payments ^{[1] [2]}.