Background 

“Churning” in the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP) is defined as when a 

household exits SNAP and then re-enters the 

program within 4 months. Churning is a policy 

concern due to the financial and administrative 

burden incurred by both SNAP households and State 

agencies that administer SNAP. Forgone benefits 

among households who were eligible while not 

participating in the program, participant time and 

expense involved in re-applying for the program, 

and the added Federal and State administrative costs 

associated with case closings and re-openings are 

among the larger policy concerns. 

This study explores the circumstances of churning in 

SNAP by determining the rates and patterns of 

churn, examining the causes of caseload churn, and 

calculating costs of churn to both participants and 

administering agencies in six States. 

Methods 

The study used both quantitative and qualitative data 

from six States—Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, 

Texas, and Virginia. (While these States were 

selected to reflect the varying geographic, 

technological, and policy environments in which 

SNAP operates, the combined findings may not be 

representative at the national level.) 

Data collected for the study include State 

administrative data for fiscal year (FY) 2011 and 

qualitative data from focus groups and interviews of 

several stakeholder groups including State program 

staff and administrators, community-based 

organizations (CBOs), and SNAP participants. 

Key Findings 

Rates and Patterns of Churn 

The estimated rate of churn for FY 2011 ranged 

from 17 to 28 percent across the six study States.

This was equivalent to churn among 23,000 to 

664,000 SNAP households in a State. 

State Rate of Churn Number of Cases 

Florida 27 664,000 

Idaho 17 23,000 

Illinois 28 306,000 

Maryland 21 92,000 

Texas 23 548,000 

Virginia 21 115,000 

About a third of households that churned were 

off the program for less than 1 month. It is 

estimated that more than half of churners were likely 

to have been eligible for SNAP during that period. 

The vast majority of cases that churned exited 

SNAP at the time of recertification or a required 

interim report. 

Churners tended to be younger, non-White, more 

likely to have children, and employed compared 

to non-churners. Additionally, households with 

either gross income above 100 percent of poverty or 

no income were most likely to churn. 

Causes of Churn 

Changes in household circumstances, such as 

moving residences, employment status, and 

household composition, were leading factors in 

churn. An estimated one out of every five churners 

who failed to successfully recertify had a change of 

addresses during the certification period. Households 

with changes in employment status were also twice 

as likely to churn, with some participants reporting 

loss of recently gained employment due to childcare 

or medical issues as reasons for reentering SNAP. 

73

90 90

66

86

74

0

100

FL ID IL MD TX VA

Percent of Churned Cases That Exited at 

Recertification 

UNDERSTANDING THE RATES, CAUSES, AND COSTS OF CHURNING IN THE 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SNAP)—SUMMARY

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support November 2014 
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Procedural issues in the recertification and 

notification process for SNAP may contribute to 

churn. While failure to respond to recertification 

notices was cited as the primary reason for churn, 

State program staff also pointed to understaffing of 

local offices, extenuating circumstances keeping 

some households from recertifying, and participants’ 

issues with mobility and transportation as factors 

leading to churn. Both SNAP program staff as well 

as participants indicated that there are language 

barriers and general confusion over the 

recertification process that contribute to participants’ 

failure to respond to notifications. 

Costs of Churn 

Churn imposes costs both to participants and to 

agencies administering the program. For agencies, 

churn increases costs by requiring agencies to 

process additional applications from households reentering the program. For participants, costs include 

the loss of benefits that they otherwise would have 

received, the administrative burdens of the 

reapplication process, and other burdens related to 

coping during the period without benefits. 

It is estimated that States spend approximately 

$80 to certify each household that churns. This 

accounts for between 1 and 4 percent of certification 

costs for SNAP annually and is estimated to be 

significant in States with large SNAP caseloads, 

such as Illinois, which is estimated to have spent $6 

million to certify churning households in FY 2011. 

The annual amount of SNAP benefits forgone due 

to churning is estimated to be between $2.2 

million in Idaho to $108.2 million in Florida. 

Additionally, households that churn incur other costs 

related to reapplying for SNAP, with some 

participants reporting material hardship due to an 

inability to meet other basic expenses as well as a 

general increase in anxiety and stress. 

Policy Implications 

The study identified the following possible changes 

in policy and procedures that might reduce SNAP 

caseload churn: 

 Policy improvement actions, such as longer 

certification periods and more time to report 

changes; higher thresholds for changes; and 

making a household’s monthly benefit less 

sensitive to changes in household composition, 

income, or other circumstances may reduce 

churning. 

 Process improvement actions, such as allowing 

electronic signatures, could reduce the burden to 

clients of establishing their eligibility in order to 

remain on the program. 

 Communication improvement actions, such as 

improved mailings and notification processes for 

recertification and improved customer service 

call centers, may help avoid delays and issues in 

the agency-client communication. 

While results of this study provide extensive 

evidence suggesting churning in SNAP has adverse 

consequences to agencies and participants, actions to 

reduce churn may have unintended consequences. 

Tradeoffs should be carefully considered to 

determine impacts to overall program objectives. 

For More Information 

Mills, Gregory, Tracy Vericker, Heather Koball, 

Laura Wheaton, Key Lippold, and Sam Elkin 

(2014). Understanding the Rates, Causes, and Costs 

of Churning in the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP). Prepared by the Urban 

Institute for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service: Alexandria, VA. 

Available online at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis.