Committee weighs bill to authorize broader data matches for public‑assistance eligibility; DCF officials say much of it already occurs

The Committee on Welfare Reform took testimony on House Bill 2360, a proposal directing the secretaries for children and health to enter into data‑matching agreements with commercial entities and state or federal agencies to check public‑assistance program eligibility and detect possible fraud. Proponents argued broader, routine matching would improve program integrity; opponents cautioned that the department already performs many matches and that additional third‑party alerts could overwhelm staff and delay benefit processing.

Steve Green of Opportunity Solutions Project told the committee the bill has three central elements: authorizing third‑party contracts to collect data, tightening redetermination timing, and publishing a public, aggregate report on program‑integrity findings. Green said actively looking for fraud produces results and gave an example of EBT transactions and resale networks: "Usually, it's about 50¢ on the dollar," he said of typical EBT resale arrangements, and he argued public reporting would make the scale of the problem clearer.

Department of Children and Families (DCF) staff outlined current practices and limits. Carla Whiteside Hicks, director of Economic and Employment Services at DCF, testified the department already receives many matches: death records daily, out‑of‑state electronic‑benefit‑transfer (EBT) usage daily, new‑hire and Department of Labor data monthly or quarterly, and social‑security notices for benefit starts or stops. "We do that daily," she said of death‑record matches; on labor data she noted employers report quarterly, and DCF verifies at application, interim and annual reviews. She warned some information would be duplicative or unusable without client confirmation: under federal SNAP (food‑assistance) rules, data that a client has not reported cannot always be used to take case action until the client is given notice and verification. Whiteside Hicks also said that to receive certain IRS‑level Social Security Administration files, everyone with access would need to be fingerprinted — a significant operational constraint.

Food‑bank representatives and community groups opposed the bill. Karen Siebert, representing Harvesters and Second Harvest Community Food Bank, said additional data alerts “will place more strain on DCF staff and as such could threaten the food assistance benefits of low‑income Kansans.” She cited another state’s experience (Ohio) where a third‑party data feed produced millions of alerts that bogged caseworkers and required legislative fixes.

Committee members asked about data accuracy, third‑party reliability and the bill’s fiscal impact. Representative Brownlee Page repeatedly raised a concern about prior vendor reporting errors (Equifax was referenced in committee discussion as an example of a third‑party data problem) and asked whether vendors had corrected previous inaccuracies. Staff confirmed a fiscal note existed but said it had only just been received by committee staff and would be distributed for review.

Supporters said broader and more regular matches would reduce improper payments and recover funds, while the department and food‑security groups urged caution to avoid creating duplicate, unverified alerts that slow applications and renewals. The hearing closed without a committee vote; members requested additional information including the fiscal note and, in at least one case, vendor follow‑up on data‑quality questions raised during the hearing.