Committee debates bill to expand SNAP data matches; Department of Children and Families says many checks already exist

The Committee on Government Efficiency heard from supporters and opponents of Senate Bill 85, which would direct the Kansas Department for Children and Families (DCF) to enter agreements with state agencies and federal sources to continuously compare food assistance (SNAP) enrollment with other data sets and to publish quarterly aggregate findings of noncompliance and fraud investigations.

Steve Green, a visiting fellow testifying for Opportunity Solutions Project, said the proposal aims to reduce improper payments. “In Kansas, we have an improper payment rate of about 12%,” Green told the committee, citing Food and Nutrition Service figures and a 2013–2022 trend. He described improper payments as overpayments or underpayments that occur when reported household income or circumstances are incorrect, and argued that monthly crosschecks against death records, incarceration, lottery winnings and out‑of‑state EBT transactions and quarterly crosschecks against wages and tax records would reduce overpayments and restore benefits to truly eligible households.

Karen Siebert, advocacy and public policy advisor for Harvesters — the Kansas Food Bank and Second Harvest Community Food Bank, testified in opposition. She said the bill’s continuous‑review requirements could “place more strain on DCF staff and as such could threaten the food assistance benefits of low income Kansans.” Siebert warned of an Ohio example where for‑profit vendor matches produced large numbers of outdated alerts that bogged down staff and delayed processing. “This is a solution in search of a problem,” she said, urging the committee to oppose SB 85.

Dr. Carla Whiteside Hicks, director of Economic and Employment Services at DCF, told the committee the agency already receives many of the matches the bill would require and has automated checks in place. “We do receive a daily report, from FIS ... and we verify that information,” she said, and described a recent EBT skimming incident in Wyandotte County that her team detected in a daily report; the agency shut the affected cards down and reissued benefits, and she estimated the incident affected more than 500 households and “we're thinking it may be up to a thousand households.” Whiteside Hicks said DCF receives death records, matches with Department of Labor wage data, a match for Department of Corrections incarceration data, and an interface with Social Security Administration that triggers case action when benefits begin, end or change. She said DCF also shares an eligibility determination system with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment and participates in national matches such as the new‑hire directory and child support enforcement required by Food and Nutrition Service.

Whiteside Hicks described limits that would make parts of the bill difficult or costly to implement as written: DCF does not participate in the Social Security Administration beneficiary earnings exchange record (it did in the past) because the eligibility system is owned by a contractor (Accenture) and federal rules restrict contractor access to that SSA data; access, she said, would require a manual process. She also said HUD data matches would likely require re‑verification by DCF and therefore duplicate effort, and that the Kansas Lottery report DCF currently receives is for winnings above $3,500 per month but could be adjusted to $3,000 if required.

Committee members pressed on costs and on whether the bill would target fraud. Senator Hoelscher and others noted the fiscal note the committee received appeared large given existing DCF matches and asked whether the bill would meaningfully address fraud versus administrative error. Whiteside Hicks said the state is under a Food and Nutrition Service corrective action plan for improper payments but that DCF’s numbers are improving and the agency expects to satisfy federal requirements by the fall; she distinguished improper payments (which can be agency error) from intentional fraud.

Supporters argued tighter, frequent data checks can reduce overpayments and preserve taxpayer resources for eligible households; opponents and DCF warned the bill could generate duplicative alerts, add cost and staff burden, and reintroduce cases of large vendor‑produced alert backlogs seen in other states. The committee closed the hearing on SB 85; members were told the committee will work bills, including SB 13, SB 79, SB 77 and SB 85, in the next session depending on available time.