State officials across the country are looking to crack down on fraud and mistakes in the nation’s largest food assistance program, spurred by looming federal rules that will force states with high error rates to pay more.

But the Republican proposals mostly focus on more frequently verifying the eligibility of individual households that participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), rather than on broader administrative shortcomings that allow most of the waste and fraud to occur.

Policies such as verifying recipients’ eligibility each month — which can involve cross-checking multiple databases or collecting extra documentation — might increase state agencies’ workloads without lowering error rates. This is especially likely if states don’t boost funding to handle the extra paperwork, investigate fraud or resolve recipient and agency errors.

Eliza Kinsey, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine who focuses on hunger, said staffing shortages, outdated technology and changes to eligibility rules that require oversight are making it harder for state agencies to avoid overpaying or underpaying recipients — the errors that will cost states money under the new federal rules.

“The fact that we’re seeing error rates that are higher really makes sense, given the context of what’s going on in SNAP right now,” Kinsey said.

SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, is a federal-state program that provides recipients with a debit card that can be used to purchase food at grocery stores and other retailers. SNAP errors and fraud often get conflated, but they’re largely separate issues: Errors are unintentional mistakes by SNAP agencies or recipients, while fraud is intentional theft.

SNAP errors occur when the state overpays or underpays SNAP recipients. They’re caused either by unintentional recipient mistakes — forgetting to report a change in how many people live in the household, for example — or by an agency processing error, such as incorrectly calculating a household’s expenses.

States have encountered instances of individual recipient fraud, though they can go uninvestigated when resources are scarce. Large sums, in the millions, have been stolen by sophisticated crime rings that electronically “skim” money from the debit cards that SNAP recipients use to purchase food.

State SNAP error rates include recipient fraud, recipient errors, and state agency errors.

Alabama earned local and national media attention last year when initial U.S. Department of Agriculture data from early 2025 showed it leading the nation in stolen SNAP benefit claims, ahead of much more populous California and New York.

“There’s a lot of talk about SNAP fraud, and a lot of it is misrepresented,” Nancy Buckner, commissioner of the Alabama Department of Human Resources, which administers Alabama’s SNAP program, told state lawmakers at a January budget hearing. “The biggest SNAP fraud in this country are those people that are doing it electronically.”

In recent years, her department noticed SNAP purchases being made in states nowhere near Alabama, she said, including New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Maine.

“It was obvious to us we don’t have that many Alabama clients shopping in those other states,” she said. This month, Alabama became the second state, behind California, to issue SNAP debit cards to recipients with the kind of microchips that are standard on commercial debit cards. Chipped cards are harder to steal from than those with magnetic strips only.

In the middle of it all, states are staring down massive cuts in federal funding. President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act puts states on the hook for more administrative costs and forces states to pay a higher share of benefits, in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars, if they have higher error rates.

“The federal government is telling states, you have to pay more in administrative costs, and you have to bring your error rates down simultaneously,” said Kinsey. “It feels like those two changes are in opposition with each other.”

Error prone

Last month, Alabama state lawmakers grilled Buckner, demanding to know her plan for lowering the state’s error rate.

Under Trump’s new law, Alabama’s SNAP administrative costs will rise by $39 million. Meanwhile, the state’s error rate, which Buckner expects to be about 9%, is below the national average, but high enough to allow the feds to force the state to cover 10% of its SNAP benefits starting in fiscal 2028.

All told, Alabama could be on the hook for an additional $200 million or more per year by 2028.

“Is there anything that can be done to prevent running into that $200 million wall?” Alabama state Sen. Greg Albritton, a Republican, asked Buckner during a budget hearing in January. “Right now I think that the train’s got the light on, heading straight for us.”

Buckner said she hoped for some extra wiggle room from the feds, but provided few details on how the department could lower Alabama’s error rate enough to avoid financial penalties.

Currently, the federal government pays for SNAP benefits and splits administration costs 50/50 with states. But starting in October, under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, all states will be on the hook for 75% of their own administrative costs. And the new law allows the feds to penalize states for their SNAP errors, requiring them to pay from 5%-15% of their SNAP benefit costs if their error rates are over 6%.

The only states under the 6% threshold, per the most recent data available from USDA, which oversees the program, were Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Republicans say these new rules will reduce the federal government’s investment in SNAP while giving states some “skin in the game” when it comes to being responsible with federal money.

“One of the problems is the federal programs don’t mandate the prevention, detection and prosecution of fraud,” said Dawn Royal, with the United Council on Welfare Fraud, a national membership group focused on fraud in public assistance programs. “And so states are unwilling to spend state money in order to protect federal money.”

In Alabama, the USDA replaced nearly $16 million in stolen benefits from fiscal 2023 to fiscal 2025, according to federal data.

The Alabama Senate is currently considering a bill that would require state agencies to conduct monthly checks of other state databases to make sure SNAP enrollees remain eligible.

Buckner told state lawmakers that increasing eligibility checks for SNAP benefits would “shoot that error rate up, way up.” The state’s Legislative Fiscal Office estimated the additional work for both Medicaid and SNAP under the pending bill could cost $16.7 million per year.

“Monthly reporting is not the answer to that, at all,” she said.

But other states are looking at similar measures.

Lawmakers in states including Idaho, Kansas and Wyoming have introduced bills to require their state SNAP administrators to check eligibility of SNAP recipients more frequently. Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah bills would require verification of citizenship or legal immigration status before approving applicants for SNAP benefits. A Wisconsin bill would require the state’s Democratic governor to bow to a White House demand to turn over state data on SNAP recipients.

And in Arizona, GOP lawmakers wanted to go even further than the new federal requirements. Last week Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a package of Republican bills that would have required the state agency administering SNAP to get its error rate below 3% by 2030 or face financial penalties, and cut an additional 10% from its budget if the state failed to take corrective action.

States target fraud

SNAP fraud has made state and national headlines in recent years, but there’s not a broad consensus on the scale of the problem nor how to address it.

Some SNAP fraud is perpetrated by recipients who lie in order to get SNAP benefits for which they’re not eligible. But there’s also organized electronic SNAP theft, which involves thieves taking control of EBT accounts through electronic methods such as card skimming or cloning, bot attacks and phishing scams. Skimming is a form of theft where devices are illegally installed inside sales terminals at a store and capture card data. That data is then used to make unauthorized purchases or steal from the victim’s account.

In December, a longtime USDA employee was sentenced to two years in prison for her role in what the U.S. Department of Justice called a “sprawling fraud and bribery scheme” that generated more than $66 million in unauthorized SNAP transactions. The same month, two Romanian nationals were indicted for their role in allegedly stealing more than $160,000 in benefits in Oregon and elsewhere. In 2025, California reported more than $100 million in stolen funds from California SNAP recipients’ EBT cards.

States reported replacing more than $360 million in stolen benefits from fiscal 2023-2025, according to federal data. Experts and state officials differ on whether recipients or organized crime rings are the biggest threats to SNAP. But since the federal government stopped reimbursing stolen SNAP benefits at the end of 2024, more states are looking at ways to address fraud.

States including Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Virginia are joining Alabama and California in rolling out chip cards to make it harder for skimmers to steal SNAP benefits.

“SNAP fraud is rampant,” said Royal, of the United Council on Welfare Fraud. “If anybody tells you that there’s not SNAP fraud out there, they’re trying to pull the wool over your eyes. It exists in all 50 states. It is definitely a plague on the taxpayers.”

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

Advocates are urging state lawmakers to help Wisconsin absorb new administrative costs as a result of federal changes to the nation’s primary food assistance program.

Changes made to Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program (SNAP) benefits in the mega bill signed by President Donald Trump last year will add $69.2 million to the cost of Wisconsin’s FoodShare program in the current two-year budget, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. The agency administers the FoodShare program.

The federal mega bill, which Trump signed on July 4, cut taxes along with spending on some federal programs, including SNAP.

A letter from 165 participating groups asks legislators “to take immediate action to provide funding for these changes. Additional delays in providing this funding will put Wisconsin taxpayers at risk of paying for increased costs and will negatively impact communities, businesses, and SNAP recipients across Wisconsin.”

The coalition of social service, food industry and advocacy organizations held a press conference Wednesday to call for the added state support.

“At an average of $6 per person per day, SNAP supports nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, and also supports local economies with each dollar in SNAP benefits, generating between $1.50 and $1.80 in economic activity,” said Jackie Anderson, executive director of Feeding Wisconsin.

The press conference coincided with a lobbying day for the Wisconsin Cheesemakers Association, one of the coalition members

“FoodShare brings more than a billion dollars of spending power into our state every year, and a large share of that is returned to Wisconsin producers, and in particular, dairy producers, that flows not only through grocery stores, but back through cheese plants and into dairy farms like the one my family owns,” said Andy Hatch, the owner of Uplands Cheese in Dodgeville and the cheesemakers’ association’s policy chair.

“This is a bipartisan issue” — one that the association’s members, Republicans and Democrats alike, “have all agreed on,” Hatch added. “Our core mission is to feed people and to support our communities, rural and urban, and is why we’ve come together with people across the state to ask our lawmakers to fund the requested $69 million and make sure that there is not a disruption to FoodShare.”

The request includes funding to add administrative staff to avoid errors in the state’s operation of the program. Among the changes to SNAP is a penalty that would require states to pick up some of the benefit costs if their errors exceed 6%. State officials have said that could cost Wisconsin up to $205 million.

The $69 million that the state has estimated it will require to implement those changes was not included in the 2025-27 state budget. Gov. Tony Evers’s office said he had told lawmakers about the need last August, and Evers highlighted the coalition’s call in a statement Thursday.

“Because of President Trump’s so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill,’ Wisconsin taxpayers will already be on the hook for over a quarter of a billion dollars in new costs in future budgets,” Evers said.

“And if we don’t get the resources we’ve been asking for in order to keep our FoodShare error rate low, Wisconsinites could have to pay hundreds of millions even more in penalty fees each year,” he added. “That just cannot happen—it will cripple future state budgets. This funding is critical, and the Legislature must get this done.” 

The request includes $16.1 million to add staff in order to ensure that FoodShare is administered accurately. The new federal law requires states with SNAP error rates exceeding 6% to cover from 5% to 15% of the benefit costs starting in October 2027.

Wisconsin’s error rate in 2024 was 4.47%, the state health department said in a news release in August. The error rate flags instances when recipients get too much or too little SNAP aid or the state makes other mistakes in the program.

“However, rates naturally fluctuate, and even more so when the federal government changes program policies and standards with virtually no notice and is inconsistent with its definition of an error,” the health department release stated.

If the error rate rises and requires Wisconsin to start paying some of the benefit costs, that could cost the state up to $205 million a year, according to the Wisconsin DHS.

To hold down the state’s “historically low error rate while implementing the other provisions” in the federal law and to maintain quality control in administering FoodShare, the state and Wisconsin counties combined will need to add 56 employees, according to the health department.

The new federal law also increases the state’s share of administrative costs for SNAP from 50% to 75%, starting Oct. 1, 2026. That will cost the state an additional $32.4 million.

In addition, the law expanded work requirements for people who receive SNAP, which the Wisconsin DHS estimates would affect about 43,700 Wisconsin FoodShare recipients.

The new requirements affect anyone ages 18 to 64 without a child under 14 at home, including parents with children ages 14 to 17, who were previously exempt from work requirements. Previously work requirements applied to adults age 54 or younger without any children under 18 at home.

The state has estimated it would need an additional $20.7 million to increase participation in the FoodShare employment and training program for recipients who have work requirements and aren’t working already.

Reno Wright, public policy and advocacy director at the Hunger Task Force in Milwaukee, said more than 40% of FoodShare recipients are children, with about one in four Wisconsin children living in a household that uses FoodShare sometime during the year.

“Research shows that SNAP reduces child poverty by nearly 30% and is linked to long-term health and educational outcomes, but those outcomes depend on a system that functions efficiently,” Wright said. The funding sought for the program “ensures that the department has the staffing and the infrastructure needed to prevent delays and disruptions as new federal requirements take effect.”

There is not a stand-alone bill in the Legislature currently for the additional funding, but advocates hope an amendment could be added to another piece of  legislation that would fund SNAP.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A bill in the Assembly seeks to order the Evers administration to follow a White House demand and turn over data on all Wisconsin food aid recipients since 2020 — despite a lawsuit that has put the federal demand on hold.

AB 1027 would give the administration six months to compile and share with the U.S. Department of Agriculture “all data” that USDA demanded in a letter to the states this past summer on applicants and recipients of benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program (SNAP).

SNAP funds the state’s FoodShare program.  The letter threatened to cut off SNAP benefits to states that didn’t comply with USDA’s data demand.

Wisconsin is one of 21 states along with the District of Columbia that have sued to block the demand, and a federal judge in California granted the request for a temporary restraining order in their favor. The case remains in litigation.

On Wednesday, the nine Assembly health committee Republicans who were present voted to advance the bill after holding a public hearing with just two witnesses. All five Democrats voted against the measure.

In the hearing, Rep. Nate Gustafson (R-Omro), the bill’s author, said it doesn’t change who is eligible for FoodShare.

“It is focused solely on compliance with the existing federal requirements, so that funding continues without disruption, and Wisconsin citizens can keep receiving the benefits that they have been promised,” Gustafson said.

Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) asked Gustafson exactly what information was being demanded from the state.

“I’m trying to figure out the motivation for wanting this data, and without a clear picture of what this includes, it certainly concerns me,” Subeck said. “Given what’s happening in the federal government right now, this raises a number of red flags.”

Gustafson said he had not spoken with the Department of Health Services, which administers the FoodShare program, but that in his view, “what this bill is trying to say is, why, we don’t have anything to hide, so let’s just comply.”

Subeck rejected the claim that the bill would help uncover fraud in the FoodShare program.

“I believe that we should absolutely root out any fraud that is in any of our programs,” she said. “I do not believe this bill does anything to address fraud.”

The only other hearing testimony was from Mike Semmann, president and CEO of the Wisconsin Grocers Association, which opposed the legislation. Wisconsin grocers have many customers who use FoodShare in order to meet their needs, Semmann told the committee.

“Many times Wisconsin’s retailers are on the front line, and they’re going to be the ones who are going to be asked the questions about the program and about the concept of what’s going on with their information,” Semmann said. “And we just think that due to everything that is going on with both the potential pending litigation, but other additional questions, that right now to pass a piece of legislation at this time is just a little bit premature.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Farm Foundation’s Meet Your Farmer podcast featured A.G. Kawamura in season 1, episode 4.

A.G. is a third-generation farmer in Southern California and operates Orange County Produce with his brother. He served as California Secretary of Agriculture from 2003 to 2010. He is founding chair of Solutions for Urban Agriculture, which grows produce for area food banks. He is involved in many other organizations, including as founding co-chair of Solutions from the Land, and with Farm Foundation as a Roundtable Fellow since 2011, and currently serving on the Farm Foundation Board of Directors. He also serves on the board of Western Growers.

In this episode, A.G. discusses what it means to be a landless farmer, his work to solve food insecurity, and some of the dynamics of the fresh produce industry that are not widely known.

Listen to the episode.

Music: “Country Roads” by Sergii Pavkin from Pixabay

Reach us at communication@farmfoundation.org.

The post Farm Foundation’s Meet Your Farmer Podcast with A.G. Kawamura appeared first on Farm Foundation.

The Farm Foundation Book Club is open to Farm Foundation Round Table Fellows and meets virtually once-per-quarter to discuss works related to agriculture, industry, and our world. This blog post was submitted by Round Table Fellow Jonah Kolb, president of Moore & Warner Ag Group, LLC. Round Table Fellow John Power, president of LSC International Inc., introduced the author and guest. Round Table Fellow Bonnie Brayton, venture associate at Fulcrum Global Capital, moderated a lively and engaging discussion.

---

The Farm Foundation Book Club held its third-quarter event on October 3^rd to discuss The New Breadline by Jean-Martin Bauer, which centers on hunger and food security. The wide-ranging conversation between the author and Roundtable Fellows centered around three themes: the weaponization of hunger and geopolitics of food, food insecurity, and the production and distribution system of the future.

Theme 1: The weaponization of hunger and geopolitics of food

The main cause of acute hunger is war and civil conflict.  Currently about 300 million people worldwide are experiencing conflict-driven hunger.

The international community was slow to develop laws formally forbidding the use of famine and starvation as a weapon.  While these laws now exist, a successful first prosecution is still likely years away.  The potential exists for these laws to be applied both in wars between states and in internal conflicts within states.

The price spike that occurred in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine had major impact on wheat markets especially, but a deeper crisis was averted by multilateral negotiations allowing exports to continue from Ukrainian ports.  While this resolution was an example of success in problem-solving amid conflict, it highlights the challenge to the international community when dealing with crisis:  each crisis is unique and requires an individual response.

Theme 2: Food insecurity

An estimated 1 billion people globally are food insecure, including about 40 million in the U.S.   The lack of food and nutrition is a long-term problem for each community and a wide range of strategies are being used across the world. 

Bauer was the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) director in Haiti when WFP warehouses were attacked and looted.  Social media was a major driver of this event, and in response Bauer increased transparency and communication through social media channels to better communicate the activities of WFP in Haiti. 

In addition to the war and civil conflict driving food insecurity, climate change, lack of support for local farmers, and rapid population growth contribute to hunger in many countries. Much of the projected global population growth through 2050 will take place in Africa, and Niger is a case study in the challenges of climate and growing population.  When Bauer worked in Niger 20 years ago, the population of 11 million could largely be fed by local food production which took advantage of the 90-day rain season.  Today, a population of 24 million—on its way to a projected 50 million by 2050—is experiencing more irregular rain patterns which negatively impacts that local food production.  There is likely to be a significant movement of population to regions where food is available since there is no other viable option. 

Theme 3: Production and distribution system of the future

Bauer’s family and professional background in Haiti was interwoven through much of The New Breadline and the author highlighted the challenges of opening the Haitian market for rice imports.  Haiti went from a country that provided 80% of its rice consumption domestically to a country importing 80% of its rice.

This interplay between free markets, government subsidies, and food aid and local production is a significant focus of Bauer’s writing.  Local production and distribution are keys to addressing hunger. Food aid and trade policy displacing these local systems can have long-term negative impacts on hunger.

In his book and in the Farm Foundation book club, Bauer covered the use of direct cash provided to food-insecure individuals in lieu of food distribution.  A pre-requisite of such aid is the ability of local production and distribution systems to meet food demand. In such cases, $1 of direct aid has been shown to have a 1.3 to 1.4 multiplier effect in the local economy, without contributing to inflationary food prices.

World Central Kitchen, which has been active both in the domestic U.S. and countries around the world, sources much of its ingredients to produce prepared meals from local producers, which reinforces local food production capabilities, all the more important in times of duress.

Conflict, undercapitalized small farmers, and climate change will continue to contribute to global hunger. Bauer encourages a push-back against “selective empathy,” the idea that there are good disaster and bad disasters.  There are, more simply, just humans in need.  Fully addressing hunger requires more elastic thinking on building resilient independent food systems on a global scale, operated at a local level. 

The post Farm Foundation Book Club Discusses “The New Breadline” appeared first on Farm Foundation.