SNAP in Massachusetts

Massachusetts's SNAP is out-of-control, and has been for years.

Massachusetts's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is out-of-control, and has been for years. Even by New England standards, Massachusetts's SNAP is exceptionally bloated, having the highest caseload and expenditures per capita in the region.¹ In fact, despite comprising less than half of the New England population, Massachusetts accounts for nearly 60 percent of its SNAP spending.²

SNAP in Massachusetts has long been plagued by instances of rampant waste, mounting fraud cases, abuse by gaming the current system, and other payment errors. As a result of the failure of state policymakers to address these program integrity shortfalls, Massachusetts taxpayers now face a potential SNAP cost-sharing liability of as much as $300 million annually.³ That equates to roughly $90 per tax-paying Massachusetts household each year.⁴ This is the result of commonsense program integrity reforms included in the 2025 federal reconciliation law, which tie states' modest SNAP cost sharing requirements to their error rates.⁵ Previously, SNAP benefits were entirely federally funded, meaning there was reliance solely on individual states' own integrity policies to assure fiscally prudent spending of federal taxpayer dollars. With the highest SNAP error rate in New England, Massachusetts taxpayers are on track to pay dearly for the lack of much needed policy reform.

This is not a problem that can be simply solved with additional staffing as previously attempted. Rather, it is the direct result of bad policy decisions that have created an on-ramp to payment errors. Thus far, the Healey administration has chosen to deny the crisis exists, deflect blame onto federal policymakers, and frantically hire more caseworkers. But only through meaningful policy reforms can real progress be achieved.

SNAP Enrollment and Expenditures Have Exploded

From 2015 to 2025, SNAP enrollment increased by nearly 40 percent in Massachusetts, while expenditures rose by nearly 120 percent over the same period.⁶ In FY2025, 1,087,752 individuals were dependent on the program—up from just 785,000 ten years earlier.⁷

This astonishing reality reflects an unsustainable trend that is out-of-step with the country and even Massachusetts's New England neighbors. In terms of both per capita enrollment and expenditures, Massachusetts's SNAP program remains more than 20 percent higher than the New England average.⁸

As the Fiscal Alliance Foundation has previously noted, this is the result of poor policy decisions by the Healey administration.⁹ For example:

These and other policy decisions have left Massachusetts's SNAP program bloated beyond belief—setting the stage for a welfare crisis of epic proportions.

Error Rates for SNAP Could Lead to a $300 Million Liability for Massachusetts Taxpayers

For Massachusetts taxpayers who have paid any attention to the headlines, SNAP waste, fraud, abuse, and errors should come as no surprise. These include but are certainly not limited to:

It is of no shock that Massachusetts has the highest SNAP error rate in New England, and among the highest in the nation. At 12.49 percent, more than $1 in every $10 dollars spent on SNAP in Massachusetts is considered improper.¹⁷

If anything, this is a dramatic understatement of the true number of errors because of the way the SNAP error rate is calculated. Auditors are instructed to ignore certain cases of blatant fraud, such as retailer trafficking, when calculating error rates.¹⁸ Furthermore, SNAP errors below $57 per month ($684 per year) are excluded from the error rate calculation due to statutory restrictions.¹⁹ The federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that roughly 38 percent of SNAP payment error cases fall below this threshold, and thus are not captured in the official error rate metrics.²⁰ Therefore, the true sum of all errors and fraud combined in Massachusetts is substantially higher than the reported error rate metric.

Nevertheless, even based on this metric, it means that in just the last four fiscal years alone, Massachusetts has issued nearly $1.4 billion improperly in SNAP benefits, most of which occurred during Gov. Healey's tenure in office.²¹

Furthermore, as a result of the current 12.49 percent error rate, Massachusetts is on track to face an annual cost sharing penalty of nearly $300 million.²² Under the new provisions of the 2025 reconciliation law, states with high error rates will be required to cost-share in benefits, up to 15 percent of their total benefit costs.²³ The hope is to provide state incentive to increase program integrity by giving them skin in the game. Massachusetts's error rate is high enough to trigger this 15 percent cost sharing requirement, starting in FY2028. Massachusetts could reduce its error rate in FY2026 and thus lower its cost sharing liability, but recent trends indicate that this is highly unlikely to occur. (Alternatively, if the state's error rate skyrockets to an exceptionally high level, it may face a delay in the implementation of cost sharing requirements).

Overwhelmingly, these payments made in error are caused by enrollees failing to report accurate information.²⁴

For example, more than half the state's SNAP errors alone are attributable to information not being reported by the enrollee, or incorrect information being reported by the enrollee.²⁵ The inability of the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) to sufficiently flag this incorrect or altogether missing information before distributing benefits is extremely concerning, since they act as the first line of defense in assuring the spending integrity of taxpayer dollars.

Additionally, most case errors are due to inaccuracies with income, such as enrollees failing to report accurate earnings or the state failing to verify earnings.²⁶

For example, roughly 30 percent of case errors were either due to 1) an unreported source of income or 2) an unreported change in employment status.²⁷

A significant portion of the problem is Massachusetts's use of "simplified reporting" for most enrollees, which eases the alleged paperwork burden on applicants at the expense of less rigorous requirements. In contrast, "change reporting" requires applicants to report potential changes in circumstances that could impact their eligibility within ten days.²⁸

This problem is further compounded by lengthy certification periods. Certification periods reflect how long a SNAP household is certified for the program before the state fully reevaluates their eligibility. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, SNAP certification periods in Massachusetts are, at a minimum, 12 months, and reach as long as 36 months for certain households.²⁹

Lastly, the commonwealth's use of Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) is a major contributing factor to its high SNAP errors for two reasons. First, eliminating the SNAP asset limit and raising income limits through BBCE bloats program enrollment.³⁰ Second, once BBCE is adopted, states can use the "BBCE pathway" to confer eligibility for non-BBCE classes of enrollees, such as non-traditional categorical eligibility groups.³¹ This effectively bypasses the existing SNAP architecture that would otherwise catch SNAP errors. Unsurprisingly, more than 70 percent of error cases in Massachusetts reflect households enrolled via the BBCE pathway.³² States with BBCE also have higher administrative SNAP costs.³³

"More than 70 percent of error cases in Massachusetts reflect households enrolled via the BBCE pathway."

The Healey Administration Has Buried Its Head in the Sand

The Healey administration's response to the SNAP crisis has been threefold: 1) deny it exists, 2) blame it on the federal government, and 3) hire more staff to manage a broken system.

"That's like trying to mop up the floor while the faucet is still running, and then blaming the plumber."

This was perhaps perfectly demonstrated by DTA's response to the Fiscal Alliance Foundation report from April of this year. In an attempted rebuttal from DTA obtained by the Fiscal Alliance Foundation, the agency claimed the report reflected a "fundamental misunderstanding of how the Department of Transitional Assistance's programs work." In reality, it is DTA that seemingly misunderstands their own policies, processes, and procedures.

Below is a line-by-line rebuttal to several of the fatuous claims made by DTA in a failed attempt to defend their poor track record.

DTA made several other inaccurate claims in its response; but due to the sheer quantity of misleading information produced by the Department, any rebuttal must be somewhat summary. Nevertheless, DTA's own apparent misunderstanding of the SNAP program is itself a serious cause for concern and potentially an explanation for the state's mismanagement of the program.

Major Reforms Are Needed to Set SNAP on the Right Path in Massachusetts

In order to address the root causes of SNAP program integrity failures, Massachusetts policymakers should consider the following reforms:

Critically, these reforms would either 1) cost minimal resources to implement, 2) reduce bloated SNAP caseloads and therefore more than cover any increased administrative costs, or 3) more than pay for themselves through the avoidance of waste, fraud, abuse, and other payments made in error.

Conclusion

Massachusetts's SNAP program is on a collision course with reality. The commonwealth cannot continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. At this point, taxpayers are being penalized for poor policy decisions while Massachusetts has cemented its reputation as among the worst states in the nation for how it spends SNAP money. The Bay State is no longer seen as a state that cares about how taxpayer money is being spent. And unless real change happens—and soon—the state's trajectory will threaten taxpayers' pocketbooks with potentially severe new cost sharing requirements.

Now more than ever, Governor Healey needs to face reality and implement reforms instead of just more spending and caseworkers. Massachusetts taxpayers are not an endless ATM machine that can fund systemic failure. The failed policies of the past must be abandoned, and commonsense SNAP program integrity reforms must be embraced.

"Massachusetts taxpayers are not an endless ATM machine that can fund systemic failure."