Kansas lawmakers press DCF on SNAP errors, corrective actions after USDA review

At a meeting of the Kansas House Select Committee for Government Oversight, legislators and agency staff reviewed state administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, after federal Food and Nutrition Service (USDA FNS) reviews flagged performance shortfalls and triggered corrective-action oversight.

The committee heard legislative revisers, Legislative Research staff and Department for Children and Families (DCF) officials describe the statutory framework for food assistance; four federal quality measures used by USDA to evaluate state SNAP programs; recent Kansas performance on those measures; DCF’s fraud- and transaction‑monitoring practices; and steps the agency is taking to improve timeliness and accuracy.

Why it matters: SNAP is federally funded and federally administered through state agencies. High error rates can trigger corrective action and potential financial penalties, affect federal‑state relations and change how quickly eligible Kansas households receive benefits. Committee members pressed DCF for detailed data on error causes, corrective-action progress and fraud recoveries.

The revisers and analysts: Jill Walters of the Revisor’s office summarized statutory authority for select committees and quoted relevant state law and rules that govern how the committee was convened and its charge (citing House Rule 11.03, Senate Rule 8 and KSA 46‑1205(c)). Jenna Moyer and other reviser staff briefed members on statutory provisions in Article 7 of Chapter 9 of the Kansas Statutes that govern food assistance eligibility and program requirements.

KLRD and the federal metrics: Amanda Prosser, fiscal analyst with Legislative Research, walked the committee through a KLRD packet and USDA materials that show four USDA Quality Control measures states track: the Program Access Index (PAI), the Payment Error Rate (PER), the Application Processing Timeliness Rate (APTR) and the Case and Procedural Error Rate (CAPER). Prosser noted gaps in federal reporting during the COVID years and said USDA has sent letters urging Kansas to address its rates; she pointed committee members to the state’s corrective action plan that USDA accepted in January of the current year.

How DCF described the program and recent results: Tanya Keys, DCF deputy director, summarized SNAP eligibility, transaction monitoring and DCF’s response to federal reviews. Key DCF figures and statements presented to the committee (as described in the meeting record): - Program snapshot (DCF): about 97,000 households received SNAP in June 2024; average recipient age 38; average monthly benefit roughly $189 per household reported by DCF. Average household size reported as about two persons; DCF said roughly two‑thirds of cases last one year or less and about one‑third six months or less. (Source: DCF testimony in packet.) - Federal review process (DCF): DCF staff review case files and send a sample (about 1,800 case files per month) to USDA FNS, which conducts a secondary federal review. Those reviews feed the PER and CAPER measures used to judge state accuracy and timeliness. - Performance goals (DCF/FNS): DCF and the committee identified the following targets cited in testimony or federal guidance: APTR target ~95% (timely processing within 30 days); PER target 6% or less (payment‑accuracy target); CAPER target "at or below" the national CAPER rate. KLRD/USDA materials cited a recent national CAPER of about 44.52%. - Recent Kansas numbers (attributed in testimony): Keys told the committee the state’s most recent APTR reported by DCF reached about 96% in April 2025. On payment accuracy, Keys reported federal‑fiscal‑year‑to‑date PER ‘‘just over 11%’’ and said the state wants to reach 6% or less. Committee members and KLRD staff also discussed Kansas CAPER values; the transcript records differing numeric references and committee members asked DCF and KLRD to provide a consistent time series and methodology for those measures.

Fraud, transaction monitoring and recoveries: DCF described its transaction monitoring and investigations process. Key points included: - DCF said it operates a continuous transaction‑monitoring process with vendor transaction files, a fraud hotline and a dedicated program‑integrity unit (one chief investigator and 14 special investigators) that receives and investigates referrals. - DCF told the committee that when fraud is detected the agency typically seeks a federal waiver (an administrative settlement), and if the recipient declines a waiver the case may proceed to the Office of Administrative Hearings. - DCF provided sample counts: for the most recent partial year cited in testimony, the agency said 121 investigations resulted in signed waivers that resolved overpayment findings; other years show hundreds of referrals with a smaller share resulting in fraud findings and administrative hearings. Committee members requested an updated, reconciled table showing referrals, findings, overpayment amounts, collections and retained shares by fiscal year (DCF agreed to provide the breakdown).

Root causes and agency remedies discussed: DCF and KLRD staff told the committee that the primary drivers of payment error are data or documentation errors in income, rent and self‑employment calculations and inconsistent documentation practices by eligibility workers. DCF described actions it has taken or planned: - A statewide "One Kansas" caseload model that treats applications as a statewide queue so staff anywhere in the state can process incoming applications and reduce local backlogs. - Deployment of workload‑management software (named "Current" in testimony) and other automation (bots) to register and route applications; committee members were told 800 software licenses were appropriated for State Fiscal Year 2026 and DCF said it will implement the software to improve throughput and consistency of work assignment. - Increased training and targeted case reviews for workers or offices that show higher error rates; DCF said federal FNS provides technical assistance as part of corrective‑action oversight.

Waiver on sugary beverages and candy: The committee discussed a DCF waiver request to USDA seeking permission to restrict purchases of sugar‑sweetened beverages and candy with SNAP benefits. DCF said it submitted a waiver request and then, shortly after, requested the document be rescinded from the submission portal; DCF told the committee it was evaluating the request and coordinating with the governor’s office and that agency staff planned to prepare a resubmission to comply with a recent Senate bill requirement. DCF staff told the committee they view SNAP’s purpose as supporting a healthy diet and nutrition education, and committee members pressed for clarification on the policy path forward.

Committee requests and outstanding items: Committee members pressed for several follow‑ups and additional materials; DCF and KLRD agreed to provide or clarify: - A consistent month‑by‑month and fiscal‑year time series for the four USDA quality measures (PAI, PER, APTR, CAPER) and the methodology used to compute the Program Access Index and related rankings. - A reconciled table of fraud and overpayment referrals, findings, amounts owed, amounts collected, and the agency’s retained share by fiscal year (including split of underpayments vs. overpayments). - A list of current corrective action plans that affect DCF programs and the status of each plan, plus semiannual updates submitted to USDA FNS. - Details on staffing (numbers of eligibility workers, vacancies) and the administrative cost funding mix for processing SNAP (state general fund and federal administrative funds were cited).

What the committee did not decide: The meeting recorded extensive discussion, data requests and commitments from DCF and KLRD to provide additional documentation. There were no recorded formal votes or policy enactments at this meeting.

Next steps: Committee members and staff said they may refer items for further review or audit; several legislators suggested Legislative Post Audit or further staff work to compare Kansas policy options with other states to understand drivers of the Program Access Index.

Ending: Committee members thanked agency staff and requested the documents above be circulated to members. Several legislators said they will consider the data before determining next steps on potential oversight, legislative fixes or appropriations adjustments.