Published April 24, 2026

The budget reconciliation law, H.R. 1, imposes the most severe cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in its history. Its impact is already measurable: More than 2.5 million people have lost access to benefits. These losses are yet the beginning as the law dramatically expands administrative burdens on state agencies. Beyond the policy changes it makes to the program, it introduces two major cost shifts. First, it reduces the federal share of administrative funding from 50 percent to 25 percent, forcing states to absorb 75 percent of costs. States are already responding by freezing hiring or laying off staff, precisely when agencies must implement complex new requirements. Second, the law ties state financial penalties to payment error rates, pushing states to prioritize error reduction under constrained capacity, directly affecting SNAP access.  

These changes compound an already strained system. Across the country, SNAP agencies are being asked to do more with fewer resources, even as program complexity increases. When agencies cannot process applications and reported changes on time, eligible families lose access to food, states forgo significant federal dollars, and error rates rise. Timeliness, participation, and accuracy are not separate problems; they are tightly connected outcomes driven by state and federal policy choices. 

If the Farm Bill fails to address these cost shifts, the current losses will accelerate. The Farm Bill is the primary legislative vehicle to correct these harmful policies; without action, states will face deepening fiscal strain, and access to SNAP will continue to erode. 

Challenges States Face After H.R. 1 

  • Federal cost-shifts amplify state tradeoffs. H.R. 1 requires states to assume more administrative and benefit costs; balanced-budget requirements will force painful choices among essential priorities. 
  • Declining SNAP participation signals access barriers, not reduced need. When agencies cannot answer calls, process documents, or complete interviews, eligible households fall off the program even as food insecurity persists. 
  • Timeliness and payment accuracy move together. Backlogs and delayed case actions increase the likelihood that benefits are issued using outdated information, raising a state’s payment error rate (PER). 
  • State budget choices can create administrative burdens. Underinvestment in eligibility staff and systems pushes agencies toward practices like over-verification that increase “case touches,” delay processing, and frustrate clients. 
  • Capacity is the binding constraint. The fastest, most reliable measure to reduce backlogs and lower error rates is adequate staffing, paired with simplified rules that reduce unnecessary work. 

Federal Action: The Farm Bill Must Address SNAP Cost Shifts and Administration 

States can take important operational steps, but federal policy sets the playing field. If Congress advances a Farm Bill that fails to address SNAP cuts, it will intensify the tradeoffs state legislatures already face under balanced-budget rules. 

State legislators and state budget officers should communicate clearly with their congressional delegations: A Farm Bill must protect SNAP’s administrative functionality, not undermine it. Federal lawmakers may be in Washington, but the consequences of administrative breakdown show up at home — in district offices, schools, clinics, and food pantries. Relief from harmful cost-shift provisions, and adequate support for program administration, are essential to keep SNAP accessible and accurate. 

Why Timeliness Improvements Also Reduce Payment Error Rates 

Improving application and recertification timeliness is not separate from improving payment accuracy.  SNAP’s quality control (QC) process randomly selects a small sample of active SNAP cases each month and reviews the case to determine if the randomly selected month’s SNAP benefit equates to what it would be if the household applied in the sample month.  When an agency processes verifications late, delays acting on reported changes, or cannot update income information within required timeframes, cases become more likely to be both untimely and inaccurate. 

For that reason, initiatives that reduce processing delays — such as increasing staffing capacity, limiting unnecessary verification, and streamlining workflows, also directly reduce agency-caused errors and can help lower PER. USDA has repeatedly emphasized this operational reality: When agencies can act on information on time, accuracy improves. 

How Budget Choices and Cost Shifts Create Access Barriers Impacting Low-Wage American Families 

State legislators face a difficult reality: Every priority is essential. Child care, health care, higher education, housing stability, workforce supports, and food assistance are interconnected, and balanced-budget requirements will force tradeoffs — especially as federal policy shifts costs and risk onto states. H.R. 1, now requires states to plan for higher health care and SNAP expenses, and for the first time, incorporate SNAP benefit costs into state budgets. Even though SNAP continues to draw significant federal dollars, increased state cost exposure discourages investment in the staffing and systems needed to keep the program timely and accurate. 

But the impact is not limited to state budgets or agency operations; it directly shapes access for households. Research shows that administrative strain translates into real barriers: 51 percent of low-wage respondents who interacted with SNAP reported at least one administrative burden. Critically, higher agency workloads exacerbate these challenges; a 10 percent increase in state agency workflows corresponds to an 8 percentage point increase in the likelihood of experiencing administrative burden, controlling for key factors. The result is clear: As agencies strain, access deteriorates, and eligible households lose benefits — not because need has declined, but because the system cannot keep up. 

State Examples: Underinvestment, Backlogs, and Lost Federal Dollars 

Arizona 

Arizona illustrates how broader fiscal choices can translate into SNAP access problems. In 2021, the Arizona legislature and then-Governor Doug Ducey enacted a flat 2.5 percent individual income tax, reducing state revenues and requiring more than $1 billion in spending cuts and fund shifts in subsequent years to balance the budget. In summer 2025, the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) laid off roughly 500 employees as federal grants expired and in anticipation of additional federal funding reductions. About 160 eligibility specialists were terminated — representing a 40 percent reduction in that workforce since July 2024. 

In December 2025, Gov. Katie Hobbs allocated $7.5 million to DES to hire more than 100 workers and authorize increased overtime to address SNAP backlogs. The investment helped stabilize operations, but DES remains about 60 eligibility workers short of pre-layoff staffing levels — even as cases grow more administratively complex and timeliness expectations remain strict. Overtime can help in the short-term, but it is not a sustainable substitute for adequate staffing; prolonged overtime contributes to burnout, turnover, and processing errors. 

This underinvestment has caused Arizona to experience the biggest decrease in access among eligible families for SNAP nationwide.  

Massachusetts 

Massachusetts shows how understaffing can drive a measurable drop in participation even when need remains high. SNAP caseworkers are reportedly handling roughly 1,300 cases per worker, up from about 850 cases per worker before the COVID-19 pandemic. With workloads at that level, service access breaks down: In 2025, the state SNAP agency was unable to successfully connect on 68 percent of calls from residents trying to reach a caseworker, and documents reportedly took weeks to process, leaving families in limbo. 

The consequences are severe. Over the last 18 months, 50,000 children in Massachusetts reportedly lost SNAP benefits (a 14 percent decline), even as food insecurity remains elevated. At the same time, an estimated 400,000 MassHealth recipients may be eligible for SNAP but are not receiving it. This pattern is consistent with an access problem, not a sudden improvement in economic outcomes. When eligible households cannot get through by phone, cannot complete required steps, or wait too long for documents to be processed, they lose benefits — and the Commonwealth forgoes substantial federal SNAP dollars (estimated at up to $500 million) that would otherwise support families and circulate through local economies. 

When Eligible Families Lose SNAP, Costs Shift Elsewhere 

This is not unique to one state. When legislatures do not invest in eligibility worker capacity or modernized processes, participation declines even as need persists, and states effectively leave federal funding on the table. However, H.R.1’s new costs make it harder for states to do so. Those losses do not disappear; they reemerge, along with higher demand on food pantries, local nonprofits, and other public systems. 

When eligible households lose SNAP because the administrative system is inaccessible, the burden does not disappear, it shifts. Food insecurity increases, health outcomes worsen, and workers may miss hours or days due to preventable illness. Children’s nutrition suffers, undermining learning and long-term mobility. Housing instability can rise as families struggle to cover both food and rent, and state and local systems often absorb the downstream costs through emergency food networks, schools, and health services. 

Protect Access Now, and Reduce Need Over Time 

If state or federal leaders want SNAP participation to decline, they should reduce the underlying need by lowering poverty and raising wages, rather than making the program harder to access. High workloads are largely driven by elevated poverty rates and program complexity, not simply by workforce shortages in isolation. In the meantime, SNAP must remain protected and operationally functional. Underinvestment in staffing and over-verification create administrative burdens that push eligible families off the program, increase food insecurity, and raise downstream costs for states and municipalities. Protecting timeliness and accuracy is not optional; it is how a federally guaranteed benefit actually reaches the people it is designed to serve. 

Take Action 

Call your Member of Congress and let them know that this Farm Bill will hurt families and must not be allowed to move forward unless SNAP cuts are restored. Use our FAN to reach out.