Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the official fraud rate in the SNAP program according to USDA reports?
Executive Summary
The USDA does not publish a lone “official fraud rate” for SNAP; instead its public metrics report payment error rates—a combined measure of overpayments and underpayments—used by USDA and GAO to estimate improper payments. For fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year 2024 reporting windows, these payment error rates were reported in the range of about 10–11.7 percent, which USDA and GAO officials and oversight reports characterize as improper payment estimates rather than a direct measure of intentional fraud [1] [2] [3]. Multiple analyses and watchdog reports emphasize that most payment errors reflect eligibility or administrative mistakes and system issues, while separate estimates for confirmed trafficking or intentional benefit theft are substantially lower [4] [5].
1. Why the Number People Cite Isn’t Labeled “Fraud” and What It Actually Measures
USDA’s public reporting frames SNAP accuracy through the Quality Control (QC) payment error rate, which combines overpayments and underpayments to produce a national payment error percentage used in Treasury’s improper payments reporting. This payment error rate is not synonymous with fraud; it measures accuracy in determining eligibility and benefit amounts and captures unintentional mistakes, data-entry errors, and administrative problems as well as potential intentional wrongdoing. GAO and USDA documents for FY 2023 and FY 2024 report national payment error rates around 10–11.7 percent, translating into roughly $10–$10.5 billion classified as improper payments in those fiscal years; oversight reports explicitly warn that this dollar figure overstates the amount attributable to deliberate fraud because it includes honest errors and reconciliation timing issues [1] [5] [2] [3]. The distinction is central: policy discussions and media headlines that call the QC error rate the “fraud rate” conflate different phenomena, which affects how policymakers set enforcement and program integrity priorities [1].
2. What Recent Reports Actually Show About the Size and Trend of Errors
Independent assessments and USDA releases across 2023–2025 show a rising trend in QC-measured payment error rates, with FY 2023 figures cited near 11.68 percent in some summaries and USDA’s FY 2024 reporting showing around 10.93 percent; GAO’s work referenced an 11.7 percent estimate for FY 2023 improper payments amounting to roughly $10.5 billion of program outlays, excluding certain disaster-related allotments [1] [5] [6] [3]. Analysts point to multiple drivers: post-pandemic eligibility redeterminations, state-level processing backlogs, policy changes in emergency allotments, and data-quality challenges. While those numbers are high relative to historical lows—payment error rates were reported at about 3.2 percent in FY 2013—oversight reports caution that an uptick in detected errors can both reflect more underlying mistakes and improved detection or stricter review standards, complicating a simple “worse” narrative [6] [2].
3. How Much of the Error Estimate Is Likely Actual Fraud Versus Other Causes
USDA and watchdog sources separate trafficking and intentional misuse from broader QC errors when possible. Trafficking estimates—instances where benefits are exchanged for cash or illicit goods—have been reported at a much lower dollar magnitude, for example about $1.3 billion annually in some analyses cited by policy groups, compared with the multi-billion-dollar improper-payment totals [4]. QC overpayment counts include administrative mistakes, eligibility determination errors, and timing mismatches; GAO and USDA explicitly state that payment error rates are not fraud rates, and point to state practice variability and documentation limitations as reasons why the proportion of errors that are intentional remains uncertain [1] [3]. Researchers and advocates emphasize that conflating the two can lead to policy responses that penalize eligible recipients or underfund critical administrative capacity, while enforcement-focused actors may highlight trafficking figures to justify stricter controls [4].
4. Competing Narratives and Potential Agendas Behind the Numbers
Different actors interpret payment error and trafficking figures through distinct lenses. Program integrity advocates and some fiscal watchdogs emphasize the QC numbers to argue for stronger fraud detection, store compliance checks, and eligibility verification measures; they cite rising error percentages and trafficking upticks between late FY 2024 and early FY 2025 as evidence [7] [5]. Hunger-relief groups and many state administrators counter that many errors are administrative and stem from under-resourced state systems or pandemic-era policy changes, urging investments in modernized IT, staff capacity, and clearer guidance rather than punitive restrictions. The available sources indicate both claims have factual grounding: error rates rose and trafficking incidents increased in some reporting windows, but the bulk of the dollar value labeled “improper” is not established as intentional fraud in USDA/GAO methodology [7] [2].
5. Bottom line: What the “Official Fraud Rate” Question Should Really Ask
As of the latest USDA and GAO reporting through mid‑2025, there is no single USDA “official fraud rate” for SNAP; the program’s official published metric is the QC payment error rate, reported in the ~10–11.7 percent range for recent fiscal years and used to estimate improper payments of about $10 billion annually, while confirmed trafficking estimates are materially lower [1] [2] [4]. Accurate public debate and policymaking require distinguishing payment accuracy problems from intentional fraud, tracking both QC error trends and separately documented trafficking or prosecution data, and recognizing that reported increases may reflect administrative strain and measurement changes as much as deliberate misuse [3] [4].