Page 1 

Summary 

One of the more widely adopted State options allowed by the 2002 Farm Bill is simplified reporting – 

taken by more than 40 States. Simplified reporting was expected to improve program access and reduce 

error rates by limiting the number of interim changes in circumstances reported by clients and acted on by 

States. Using Food Stamp Quality Control data from fiscal year 2000, this analysis suggests that the 

simplified reporting policies adopted by States in 2004 could have lowered error rates by 1.2 to 1.5 

percentage points. If all States had adopted policies to maximize the impact of simplified reporting, the 

payment error rate might have been lowered another 0.7 percentage points. Implementation choices and 

differences in the distribution of errors result in wide variation in the impacts on error rates among States. 

Background 

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 

2002 – more commonly known as the Farm Bill 

– gave States substantial new flexibility to 

simplify some of the Food Stamp Program’s 

complicated rules, making it easier to administer 

and more accessible to those eligible for its 

benefits. One option – simplified reporting – 

has been widely adopted by many States (42 as 

of September 2004). Under simplified 

reporting, food stamp households are required to 

report interim changes in their income only 

when it rises to a level that would make them 

ineligible for benefits. This option eliminates 

substantial paperwork requirements for 

participants and State workers – improving 

program access and reducing administrative 

costs – while reducing States’ exposure to 

payment errors. 

Several case studies suggest that many States 

adopted simplified reporting with these goals in 

mind (GAO 2004, 2005) and believe the policy 

had the desired effect (Trippe et al 2004). This 

analysis draws on Food Stamp Quality Control 

data to estimate the size of the effect of 

simplified reporting on food stamp error rates. 

Method 

There is no direct way to assess the effect of this 

policy change, since the best measure of 

payment accuracy – the Food Stamp Quality 

THE EFFECT OF SIMPLIFIED REPORTING ON

FOOD STAMP PAYMENT ACCURACY

Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation October 2005 

Simplified Reporting: A Brief Description 

Simplified reporting allows States to reduce the 

information that food stamp recipients provide to the 

food stamp office to maintain eligibility and benefits 

during their certification period. The 2002 Farm Bill 

allowed States to assign most households to 

simplified reporting (expanding previous rules that 

allowed simplified reporting only for households 

with earnings). States generally may not include 

households that are exempt from periodic reporting 

(including pure elderly or disabled households 

without earnings, homeless individuals, or migrants 

and seasonal farm workers). States may assign 

certification periods of 4 months or longer, though 

most typically choose either a 12-month certification 

with a required semiannual report or a 6-month 

certification. 

Simplified reporting households are required to 

report interim changes only if they result in income 

that exceeds the food stamp eligibility limit (130 

percent of the Federal poverty guidelines). 

Households may report other changes, including 

those that would result in an increase in food stamp 

benefits, but they are not required to report until the 

next recertification or semiannual report. 

States must act on all reported changes that result in 

income that exceeds the food stamp eligibility limit. 

States must act on other reported changes only if it 

would result in an increase in food stamp benefits, a 

household requests case closure, action is also taken 

on a TANF or GA grant, or the change is considered 

verified upon receipt. Many States have applied for 

and received a waiver to act on all reported changes, 

not just those that result in a larger benefit.
Page 2 

Control system – no longer includes errors 

eliminated by simplified reporting. To 

overcome this challenge, this analysis looks 

back to fiscal year 2000, a time before 

widespread implementation of simplified 

reporting. We identified and removed errors 

that would likely be excluded under simplified 

reporting. These include, for example, 

overpayments to eligible households that occur 

between certification actions and are caused by a 

client’s failure to report a change in income, or a 

State’s failure to act on a reported change in 

areas without a waiver to act on all changes.1

 

We then recalculated the 2000 payment error 

rate, comparing the adjusted rate to the 

unadjusted rate to estimate the effect of 

simplified reporting.2

Findings 

• The simplified reporting policies and 

practices in place in September 2004 

reduced the food stamp payment error 

rate by 1.2 to 1.5 percentage points. After 

excluding errors that were counted in 2000 

but likely would not be counted with 

simplified reporting in place, the combined 

payment error rate (the sum of over- and 

underpayments) falls from 8.5 percent to 

between 7.0 and 7.3 percent (Table 1).3

• If all States adopted policies to maximize 

the impact of simplified reporting, the 

reduction could have been larger, 

dropping by as much as 2.2 percentage 

points. As of September 2004, 11 States 

had not implemented simplified reporting, 7 

covered only households with earnings, and 

22 had a waiver to act on all reported 

 

1

 See Trippe (2005) for details of the decision rules 

used to identify and eliminate errors affected by 

simplified reporting. 

2

 Note that the error rates used throughout this 

analysis are State-reported and so will differ from the 

official measure of payment errors that includes the 

results of a Federal review of State-reported results. 

3

 The lower end of this range reflects a slightly 

broader definition of interim errors. See Trippe 

(2005) for details. 

changes during the certification period. If 

all States adopted simplified reporting, 

applied it to all households (except those 

explicitly excluded by law), and acted only 

on changes that would increase a 

household’s benefit, the combined payment 

error rate could have fallen from 8.5 percent 

to 6.3 percent in fiscal year 2000. 

• The effect of simplified reporting varies 

widely across States, ranging from less 

than 0.5 percentage points to over 4 

percentage points. Although no single 

factor appears to explain the variation in 

State effects, much of it is likely due to 

differences in the percentage of households 

covered by simplified reporting and in the 

types of errors that occur within the State. 

In general, the effects are larger in States 

with simplified reporting policies that cover 

a large percentage of the caseload, with a 

larger percentage of interim errors 

(particularly those caused by a client’s 

failure to report), and without the waiver to 

act on all reported changes. (See box for 

more information.) 

Caveats 

Although this approach offers a reasonable way 

to assess the effects of simplified reporting on 

payment error rates, it is useful to keep certain 

limitations in mind. 

• The quality control data provide rich 

information on the source and timing of 

errors, but do not always offer sufficient 

information to identify precisely all errors 

that would be excluded under simplified 

reporting. The decision rules used in this 

analysis provide our best approximation 

based on the available data. 

• The analysis assumes that simplified 

reporting applies to all households (except 

those excluded by law from periodic 

reporting requirements) in States that have 

expanded the policy beyond households 

with earnings. Some States may have 

additional categorical exclusions, or allow 
Page 3 

caseworkers to make a case-by-case 

determination, not reflected in the data on 

which this analysis is based. 

• The analysis measures the impact of 

simplified reporting given the errors that 

existed in fiscal year 2000. Other policy 

changes since then, or other responses to 

simplified reporting policies, could alter 

estimated effects. 

• The number of sample cases with potentially 

excluded errors is small in all States, and 

very small in some (ranging from 1 in 

Wyoming to 81 in Michigan). The 

confidence intervals around the State 

estimates are relatively large as a result. 

Acknowledgements 

This summary was prepared by Kate Fink and 

Steven Carlson, Office of Analysis, Nutrition 

and Evaluation, based on an analysis prepared 

by Carole Trippe, Mathematica Policy Research. 

References 

Government Accountability Office. Farm Bill 

Options Ease Administrative Burden, but 

Opportunities Exist to Streamline Participant 

Reporting Rules among Programs, GAO-04-916. 

Washington, DC: September 2004. 

Government Accountability Office. States Have 

Made Progress Reducing Payment Errors, and 

Further Challenges Remain, GAO-05-245. 

Washington, DC: May 2005. 

Program Development Division. Food Stamp 

Program State Options Report (5th Edition). Food 

and Nutrition Service, USDA, September 2004. 

Trippe, Carole. The Impact of Simplified Reporting 

on Food Stamp Payment Error Rates. 

Memorandum for the Food and Nutrition Service, 

USDA, August 2005. 

Trippe, Carole, and Liz Schott, Nancy Wemerrus, 

and Andrew Burwick. Simplified Reporting and 

Transitional Benefits in the Food Stamp 

Program—Case Studies of State Implementation. 

Report for the Economic Research Service, USDA 

 (E-FAN-04-2003), May 2003. 

References can be found at www.fns.usda.gov, 

www.ers.usda.gov, and www.gao.gov.

Understanding State Variations 

Ranking States by the estimated change in 

error rates under the simplified reporting 

policies sheds some light on the reasons for 

the wide range of State effects (Table 2). For 

example: 

• All of the States with the 10 largest 

reductions expanded the population 

covered by simplified reporting to 

include households with and without 

earnings; 4 of the 7 States that covered 

only households with earnings were 

among the 10 with the smallest 

reductions (excluding those that did not 

adopt simplified reporting at all). 

• Most (11 of 15) of the States with the 

largest reductions did not have the 

waiver to act on all reported changes; 

most (11 of 15) with the smallest 

reductions did. 

• Almost all (6 of 7) States with the largest 

reductions have a higher-than-average 

percentage of households with errors that 

occur between certification actions and a 

higher-than-average percentage of 

households with errors caused by client 

failure to report. Almost all (6 of 7) 

States with the smallest reductions had 

lower-than-average percentages of 

interim or client-caused reporting errors. 

States that had a larger share of such 

errors – that are no longer counted under 

simplified reporting – stand to gain more 

than States with a smaller share. 
Page 4 

Table 1: Impact of Simplified Reporting on State-Reported Food Stamp Payment Error Rates 

 FY 2000 Payment Error Rates (Percent) Drop in Error Rates (Percentage Points) 

State Lower Upper Maximum Lower Upper Maximum 

Baseline Bound Bound Impact Bound Bound Impact 

Alabama 11.2 8.0 7.9 7.9 3.2 3.3 3.3 

Alaska 6.6 4.3 4.0 4.0 2.3 2.6 2.6 

Arizona 4.7 3.4 3.3 3.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 

Arkansas 3.8 2.5 2.2 2.2 1.3 1.6 1.7 

California 12.8 12.8 12.8 10.3 0.0 0.0 2.6 

Colorado 6.8 4.9 4.5 4.5 1.9 2.3 2.3 

Connecticut 8.9 7.2 7.2 6.9 1.7 1.7 2.0 

Delaware 12.4 11.0 11.0 10.1 1.4 1.4 2.3 

District of Columbia 10.2 7.1 7.1 6.9 3.1 3.1 3.2 

Florida 9.2 7.4 7.4 7.0 1.8 1.8 2.1 

Georgia 8.3 7.4 7.0 6.0 0.9 1.3 2.3 

Guam 9.7 9.7 9.7 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 

Hawaii 6.4 6.4 6.4 5.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 

Idaho 10.2 8.1 7.6 7.6 2.1 2.6 2.7 

Illinois 8.9 7.5 6.8 5.7 1.4 2.1 3.1 

Indiana 6.5 4.6 4.2 4.2 1.9 2.3 2.3 

Iowa 6.8 6.3 5.8 4.7 0.5 1.0 2.1 

Kansas 9.3 8.6 7.6 6.0 0.7 1.7 3.2 

Kentucky 5.6 4.2 4.0 3.5 1.4 1.6 2.1 

Louisiana 5.6 4.3 3.8 3.6 1.3 1.8 2.0 

Maine 9.3 7.6 6.9 6.9 1.7 2.4 2.3 

Maryland 10.4 7.9 7.8 7.6 2.5 2.6 2.7 

Massachusetts 8.4 7.2 7.2 7.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 

Michigan 12.1 10.6 10.4 7.8 1.5 1.7 4.3 

Minnesota 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 

Mississippi 4.6 4.6 4.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.2 

Missouri 8.0 5.7 5.4 5.4 2.3 2.6 2.6 

Montana 8.7 6.1 5.0 5.0 2.6 3.7 3.7 

Nebraska 10.0 9.2 8.5 7.7 0.8 1.5 2.4 

Nevada 5.2 4.7 4.4 3.8 0.5 0.8 1.4 

New Hampshire 9.5 8.4 7.9 7.5 1.1 1.6 2.0 

New Jersey 12.8 8.3 8.2 8.2 4.5 4.6 4.6 

New Mexico 7.9 7.5 7.5 6.6 0.4 0.4 1.3 

New York 12.1 10.7 10.6 10.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 

North Carolina 7.0 5.6 5.5 5.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 

North Dakota 7.0 7.0 7.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 

Ohio 7.2 7.0 6.7 4.6 0.2 0.5 2.6 

Oklahoma 7.0 6.0 5.8 5.3 1.0 1.2 1.8 

Oregon 9.7 7.4 5.9 5.9 2.3 3.8 3.8 

Pennsylvania 8.1 5.6 5.2 5.2 2.5 2.9 2.9 

Rhode Island 8.0 8.0 8.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 3.3 

South Carolina 4.2 3.8 3.7 3.2 0.4 0.5 1.0 

South Dakota 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 

Tennessee 5.5 4.8 4.8 4.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 

Texas 4.1 3.1 2.8 2.8 1.0 1.3 1.3 

Utah 14.4 14.4 14.4 13.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 

Vermont 9.9 7.9 7.2 6.9 2.0 2.7 3.0 

Virginia 9.0 7.4 7.1 6.1 1.6 1.9 2.8 

Virgin Islands 5.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 

Washington 7.3 7.3 7.3 6.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 

West Virginia 4.8 4.2 4.2 3.1 0.6 0.6 1.8 

Wisconsin 12.0 10.0 8.9 8.9 2.0 3.1 3.1 

Wyoming 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 

Total 8.5 7.3 7.0 6.3 1.2 1.5 2.2 

Note: The drop in error rates is calculated as the difference between the baseline error rates and the simplified reporting error rates for the lower 

bound, upper bound, and maximum impact estimates. 
Page 5 

Table 2: Drop in Error Rates Under Simplified Reporting Compared with Percentage of Households Affected 

(States Rank Ordered by Lower Bound Drop in Error Rate) 

Baseline

Error Rate

(Percent)

State Lower Upper Max

(FY 2000) Bound Bound Impact

New Jersey 12.8 4.5 4.6 4.6 Most 7.3 Yes 5.6 0.0 0.2 5.7

Alabama 11.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 Most 8.2 No 2.5 2.1 0.8 5.4

DC 10.2 3.1 3.1 3.2 Most 8.4 Yes 5.2 0.5 0.3 6.0

Montana 8.7 2.6 3.7 3.7 Most 9.1 No 3.7 2.1 0.4 6.2

Maryland 10.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 Most 5.5 Yes 3.6 0.3 0.1 4.0

Pennsylvania 8.1 2.5 2.9 2.9 Most 7.1 No 1.5 2.3 0.2 4.0

Alaska 6.6 2.3 2.6 2.6 Most 10.0 No 2.5 1.7 0.7 5.0

Missouri 8.0 2.3 2.6 2.6 Most 5.6 No 2.7 0.7 0.2 3.6

Oregon 9.7 2.3 3.8 3.8 Most 5.6 No 1.9 0.9 0.5 3.3

Virgin Islands 5.5 2.2 2.2 2.2 Most 7.3 No 5.2 0.0 0.4 5.6

Idaho 10.2 2.1 2.6 2.7 Most 5.8 No 1.5 1.2 0.4 3.1

Vermont 9.9 2.0 2.7 3.0 Most 5.6 Yes 2.0 0.6 0.5 3.1

Wisconsin 12.0 2.0 3.1 3.1 Most 5.6 No 2.2 0.6 0.2 3.0

Colorado 6.8 1.9 2.3 2.3 Most 5.2 No 2.1 1.3 0.2 3.6

Indiana 6.5 1.9 2.3 2.3 Most 6.9 No 1.9 1.6 0.5 4.0

Florida 9.2 1.8 1.8 2.1 Most 5.0 Yes 2.3 0.4 0.2 2.9

Connecticut 8.9 1.7 1.7 2.0 Most 5.4 Yes 2.8 0.5 0.1 3.4

Maine 9.3 1.7 2.4 2.3 Most 3.5 No 1.0 1.2 0.3 2.5

Virginia 9.0 1.6 1.9 2.8 Most 5.5 Yes 3.0 1.0 0.3 4.4

Michigan 12.1 1.5 1.7 4.3 Earners 9.4 Yes 3.1 2.1 0.1 5.4

Delaware 12.4 1.4 1.4 2.3 Most 9.3 Yes 3.3 1.5 0.0 4.8

Illinois 8.9 1.4 2.1 3.1 Earners 6.0 No 1.8 1.6 0.2 3.7

Kentucky 5.6 1.4 1.6 2.1 Most 3.2 Yes 1.7 0.4 0.3 2.5

New York 12.1 1.4 1.5 1.4 Most 4.4 No 2.0 0.3 0.0 2.4

North Carolina 7.0 1.4 1.5 1.5 Most 4.4 No 1.9 0.7 0.1 2.7

Arizona 4.7 1.3 1.4 1.5 Most 3.5 Yes 2.2 0.4 0.2 2.8

Arkansas 3.8 1.3 1.6 1.7 Most 2.7 No 0.6 0.9 0.2 1.7

Louisiana 5.6 1.3 1.8 2.0 Most 4.2 Yes 3.0 0.4 0.0 3.4

Massachusetts 8.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 Most 4.5 Yes 2.1 0.2 0.2 2.5

New Hampshire 9.5 1.1 1.6 2.0 Most 4.2 Yes 1.8 0.9 0.0 2.7

Oklahoma 7.0 1.0 1.2 1.8 Earners 4.6 No 2.4 0.7 0.1 3.1

Texas 4.1 1.0 1.3 1.3 Most 3.2 No 2.1 0.1 0.1 2.2

Georgia 8.3 0.9 1.3 2.3 Most 5.8 Yes 2.2 1.4 0.1 3.6

Nebraska 10.0 0.8 1.5 2.4 Most 3.8 Yes 0.8 0.5 0.4 1.6

Kansas 9.3 0.7 1.7 3.2 Most 6.7 Yes 1.2 1.5 0.2 2.9

Tennessee 5.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 Most 2.6 Yes 1.3 0.6 0.2 2.1

West Virginia 4.8 0.6 0.6 1.8 Earners 4.0 Yes 1.6 1.1 0.3 3.0

Iowa 6.8 0.5 1.0 2.1 Most 5.5 Yes 0.8 1.6 0.2 2.6

Nevada 5.2 0.5 0.8 1.4 Most 4.6 Yes 1.2 1.8 0.0 3.0

New Mexico 7.9 0.4 0.4 1.3 Earners 3.6 No 1.4 0.3 0.2 2.0

South Carolina 4.2 0.4 0.5 1.0 Earners 2.6 No 1.5 0.2 0.2 1.9

Ohio 7.2 0.2 0.5 2.6 Earners 6.4 Yes 1.8 0.9 0.2 2.9

California 12.8 0.0 0.0 2.6 None 17.3 N/A 3.1 1.6 0.4 5.2

Guam 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 None 5.2 N/A 1.5 0.4 0.3 2.2

Hawaii 6.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 None 6.9 N/A 1.1 0.7 0.1 1.9

Minnesota 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 None 2.6 N/A 0.1 1.1 0.1 1.3

Mississippi 4.6 0.0 0.0 2.2 None 2.8 N/A 0.8 1.3 0.0 2.1

North Dakota 7.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 None 5.1 N/A 0.2 0.8 0.6 1.6

Rhode Island 8.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 None 7.6 N/A 5.0 0.4 0.2 5.5

South Dakota 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.5 None 2.1 N/A 0.9 0.6 0.0 1.5

Utah 14.4 0.0 0.0 1.3 None 4.6 N/A 0.8 1.0 0.0 1.8

Washington 7.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 None 2.7 N/A 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.9

Wyoming 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 None 0.3 N/A 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3

Total 8.5 1.2 1.5 2.2 42 total 6.1 22 total 2.2 0.9 0.2 3.3

48,270 48,270 48,270 48,270 N/A 46,023 N/A 46,023 46,023 46,023 46,023

7,320,483 7,320,483 7,320,483 7,320,483 N/A 6,881,715 N/A 6,881,715 6,881,715 6,881,715 6,881,715

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,460 N/A 940 413 98 1,451

Percent of 

Households 

with Reported 

Overissuance 

Interim Errors

Percent of 

Households 

Made Ineligible 

by Composition 

or Resource 

Interim Errors

Total Percent 

of Households 

with 

Excludable 

Interim Errorsa 

Percent of 

Households 

with Interim 

Errors

State Has 

Waiver?

Percent of 

Households 

with Client 

Unreported 

Interim Errors

Weighted 

Sample Size

Unweighted 

Count With 

Characteristic

Population 

Covered 

By SR

Drop in Error Rate

(Percentage Points)

Unweighted 

Sample Size

a

Total percent of households with excludable errors is the sum of the percent of households in the previous three columns. Sample universe: 

There are 48,270 households on the FY 2000 file. After excluding households with no earnings and all adults that are elderly or disabled, and 

households with migrant laborers or that receive the homeless deduction, there are 46,023 households. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or 

marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten 

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and 

TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.