Local Control, Discretion, and Administrative Burden: SNAP Interview Waivers and Caseloads During the COVID-19 Pandemic

• Published date: 01 October 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/02750740231186423
• Author: Colleen Heflin,William Clay Fannin,Leonard Lopoo
• Date: 01 October 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Local Control, Discretion, and

Administrative Burden: SNAP Interview

Waivers and Caseloads During the

COVID-19 Pandemic

Colleen Hef‌lin

1

, William Clay Fannin

1

, and Leonard Lopoo

1

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture waived the certif‌ication interview for the Supplemental

Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), substantially reducing the administrative burden associated with SNAP application for

both applicants and agencies. Using primary policy data collected from ten county-administered states, we f‌ind that only 27%

of counties implemented the interview waiver. Further, models of local decision-making indicate that public health risk, demo-

graphic vulnerability and economic need, and political orientation in the county were not statistically signif‌icant predictors of

waiver use. Finally, we f‌ind that the waiver choice did affect SNAP caseloads: using difference-in-difference models that make

use of the natural experiment, we f‌ind that counties that adopted the SNAP inter view waivers experienced a 5% increase in

SNAP caseloads.

Keywords

administrative burden, local control, discretion

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a historic increase in food

hardship, particularly among families with children in the

United States (Gundersen et al., 2021; Schanzenbach &

Pitts, 2021; Ziliak, 2021). Household Pulse Survey data

from April 23 to May 5, 2020, found that nearly 10% of all

adults reported that their household sometimes or often did

not have enough to eat in the past 7 days (13% among house-

holds with children), whereas only 3.4% of adults reported

that their household did not have enough to eat at some

point over the entire year of 2019 (Center on Budget and

Policy Priorities, 2020). Demand for nutrition assistance

through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

(SNAP) expanded accordingly. SNAP provides a monthly

benef‌it to support food consumption among eligible low-

income households averaging $129.83 per person in

FY2019 before increasing to $217.33 in FY2021. From

February to May 2020, SNAP enrollment grew by 17%,

three times faster than any previous 3 months since the

1970s (The New York Times, 2021; U.S. Department of

Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, 2020). The federal

government reimburses states for the full cost of SNAP ben-

ef‌its dispersed and 50% of the administrative costs (U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Off‌ice of Inspector General,

2016).

Despite the growing need for nutrition assistance pro-

grams, federally mandated application processes, such as

requirements for individual interviews and in-person certif‌i-

cation appointments, created public health risks and

impeded enrollment through the associated level of adminis-

trative burden. In response, the United States Congress

passed legislation to allow the U.S. Department of

Agriculture to grant states waivers to reduce the administra-

tive burden and public health risks associated with the

usual enrollment practices for SNAP.

Under federal program rules, SNAP requires new and

recertifying applicants to complete a certif‌ication interview

prior to benef‌it approval, which most often occurs over the

telephone. These interviews allow eligibility workers to

gather accurate household information and for applicants to

ask questions about navigating the SNAP program.

Proponents contend that SNAP certif‌ication interviews

protect program integrity by ensuring only eligible applicants

receive benef‌its and that the benef‌it amount successful

1

Syracuse University, Syracuse, USA

Corresponding Author:

Colleen Hef‌lin, Syracuse University, 215 Eggers Hall, Syracuse, New York

13244-1020, USA.

Email: cmhef‌lin@syr.edu

Article

American Review of Public Administration

2023, Vol. 53(7-8) 334–346

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/02750740231186423

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp