Committee debates data-sharing bill for continuous SNAP eligibility reviews; fiscal and staffing questions linger

The Committee on Welfare Reform heard testimony on Senate Bill 85, which would direct the secretary for children and families to enter into agreements with state agencies to continuously review and compare state data relevant to public assistance eligibility.

David Weese, revisor with the Revised Statutes Office, summarized the measure for the committee, saying it would require the secretary to receive and review state information that may affect food assistance eligibility from multiple state sources and to make certain non-confidential, non-aggregate information about fraud and noncompliance available to the public at least quarterly.

Steve Green, representing Opportunity Solutions Project, testified in support of Senate Bill 85, saying the bill narrows the review to DCF operations and removes a Medicaid/KDHE component present in earlier drafts. “We just think … that should be publicly available and transparent and easy to access,” Green said. He cited existing DCF fraud-detection work and urged clearer public reporting.

Haley Kotler, campaign director at Kansas Appleseed, testified in opposition. She told the committee that DCF already cross-checks applications against multiple databases, maintains an investigative fraud unit and a hotline, and that Senate Bill 85 would add “unnecessary and costly layers” including the potential need for 13 new state employees. Kotler asked the committee to oppose SB85 and to focus on streamlining existing processes and addressing non-state sources of fraud such as EBT skimming.

Carla Whiteside Hicks, identified in the hearing as a Kansas Department for Children and Families official, told lawmakers staffing and technology constraints limit DCF’s ability to absorb additional data-review mandates without funding. She said the department currently has about 300 eligibility workers statewide and is training an additional 60 existing staff to add eligibility duties; she estimated the combined records in the eligibility system could be on the order of a half-million entries (with duplication across programs). She said training the 60 staff would take about a year to reach full functioning levels.

Representative members asked several implementation and fiscal questions. Representative Riley asked about the size of the database and DCF staffing; Whiteside Hicks answered with the staffing and approximate data scope. Representative Helwig asked about the term “dietary supplements” in a separate SB79 amendment discussion; the reviser read the statutory definition that mirrors existing state sales-tax language.

Committee follow-up and directions: Committee members asked the chair to request a new fiscal note from the Kansas Legislative Research Department to reflect the bill’s amendments and potential staffing costs. The committee also scheduled a field visit to DCF facilities to preview the cross-check process and to better understand implementation and fiscal implications before advancing the bill.

No committee vote on Senate Bill 85 occurred that day; the committee closed the hearing and planned additional information and briefings before further action.