Connecticut electronic benefit cards (EBT) were used in more than $7.2 million in taxpayer-funded cash transactions outside the state over a roughly two-and-a-half-year period, including in Florida resort towns, Hawaii beach communities, Las Vegas, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam, according to public records obtained through a Freedom of Information request.
The records, covering July 2022 through October 2024, show EBT cards tied to Connecticut cash assistance accounts used outside the state 73,576 times across more than 50 states and territories.
The data, obtained from the Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS), shows the out-of-state transactions totaled approximately $7.21 million — about 3.5 percent of the more than $206.2 million in total cash transactions recorded in the dataset. Nearly $5.65 million of that came through ATM withdrawals; the remainder involved cash purchases, purchases with cash back and a small number of other withdrawal types.
Out-of-state use is not automatically improper. People travel. Families relocate, and emergencies happen. Connecticut also borders New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, making some cross-border activity unsurprising. But the breadth and pattern of what the records show raises questions that deserve answers.
The Theft Problem
Not all distant transactions are evidence of misuse by recipients. In many cases, the culprit is skimming, a form of fraud in which criminals steal card information and PIN numbers from compromised payment terminals, create counterfeit cards and drain accounts remotely. Transactions can appear in distant states even though the cardholder never left Connecticut.
Connecticut EBT accounts have been targeted by exactly this kind of fraud. FOX61 reported that DSS said more than $6 million in benefits have been stolen from Connecticut recipients in recent years.
The federal program that allowed states to replace certain stolen benefits expired at the end of 2024. DSS now allows recipients to lock and unlock their EBT cards through MyDSS and block out-of-state transactions, but warns that if benefits are stolen, it can replace the card — not the lost funds.
Those tools still fall short of what other states are pursuing. Massachusetts is rolling out chip-and-PIN-enabled EBT cards, among the first in the country to do so, on the grounds that chip cards generate a unique transaction code that is far harder to skim than magnetic-stripe cards.
Ohio announced this year that SNAP cards would automatically block online and out-of-state purchases unless recipients temporarily unlock them; state officials said their fraud analytics team identifiednearly 56,000 suspicious out-of-state transactions affecting 12,900 accounts and totaling more than $6.3 million in six months. South Carolina adopted a similar default-block approach for high-risk transactions.
Connecticut officials have acknowledged the skimming concern and pointed to card-locking tools as their primary response. NBC Connecticut reported that DSS said there is a federal push toward chip-enabled EBT cards, while Connecticut has instead rolled out card-locking and out-of-state blocking tools.
The contrast with peer states raises a straightforward policy question: should Connecticut adopt stronger default protections, and if distant transactions are legitimate, how does the state distinguish temporary travel from extended out-of-state residence?
Where the Money Went
New York was the largest out-of-state destination, accounting for more than $2 million across 19,910 transactions. Massachusetts followed with nearly $1.1 million across 11,065 transactions. Florida recorded more than $823,000 across 9,146 transactions, where the activity begins to look less like routine border travel.
Orlando led all Florida cities with more than $90,000 in transactions, followed by Kissimmee with more than $53,000. Miami, Tampa, Jacksonville, Fort Myers, Hollywood, Lakeland, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and Naples also appeared repeatedly.
California recorded more than $232,000 in transactions. Georgia accounted for more than $322,000, North Carolina more than $279,000, Pennsylvania more than $241,000 and Texas more than $157,000.
Some transactions occurred in places that generally require a plane ticket from Connecticut. Hawaii recorded 42 transactions totaling more than $3,800. Puerto Rico accounted for nearly $46,000 across 298 transactions. Guam recorded one transaction. Alaska recorded six, totaling about $59.
The dollar volume also grew over the period reviewed. Out-of-state transactions totaled approximately $1.44 million in the second half of 2022 and rose to more than $3.29 million from January through October 2024.
The largest single out-of-state ATM withdrawal was $3,120 from a machine in Marina del Rey, California, in September 2024. Additional large withdrawals of $2,480 and $1,780 appeared in Los Angeles and $1,640 in Marina del Rey.
The records also contain unusually large purchase transactions, $2,002 in North Windham during 2023 and $2,424 in Greeley, Colorado, during 2022. The largest ATM withdrawal in the dataset, $4,000, occurred in East Hartford in 2023. Other large withdrawals included $3,000 in West Hartford and $2,500 transactions in Bristol and Wolcott.
What the Records Do and Don’t Show
None of this proves wrongdoing. The records do not identify recipients, explain why a card was used in a particular location or show what withdrawn cash was ultimately spent on.
What they do show is a system moving taxpayer-funded cash through debit-style cards, across state lines and sometimes across oceans, with limited visibility once the money leaves the machine. Unlike SNAP food benefits, which are restricted to approved purchases, cash assistance can be withdrawn from ATMs and spent with far less visibility once converted to cash. After that there is no further trail.
Recipients must meet Connecticut residency requirements to qualify for benefits. State and federal rules permit temporary travel, but extended or repeated out-of-state use can raise eligibility questions that the current system appears poorly equipped to detect or investigate systematically.
Whether the explanation in any given case is travel, theft, or inadequate residency verification, or some combination of all three, the underlying question is the same: is Connecticut doing enough to verify thattaxpayer-funded assistance is reaching eligible Connecticut residents, and protecting those residents when it is not?
