Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SNAP Error Rate topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SNAP error‑rate changes under HR1 could cost Kansas millions; DCF outlines plan to reduce errors
Summary
DCF Secretary Howard told the committee HR1 will shift SNAP administrative match to a 75% state / 25% federal split starting FY2027 and tie potential state share of benefit costs to payment‑error rates; Kansas' recent error rate (~9–10%) could expose the state to large costs absent rapid improvement, and DCF proposed automation and training investments.
Secretary (Department for Children and Families) told the Committee on Legislative Budget that HR1 made two major changes affecting SNAP: beginning in federal fiscal year 2027 the federal share of administrative costs drops (states would shoulder 75% of administrative costs), and a new provision links a state’s potential share of SNAP benefit costs to its payment‑error rate. Howard said the administrative match shift would annualize to roughly $16.4M in state funds and about $12.1M would be experienced in the next state fiscal year (three quarters).
On the payment‑error side, the law would require states to pay between 0% and 15% of benefit costs depending on the state’s payment‑error rate. Kansas’ FY24 payment error rate was 9.98% and its cumulative FY25 rate through August was 9.13%. "If we made no progress on where we were today, you would experience the state would experience an impact of about $40,000,000 in federal fiscal year '28," Secretary Howard said.
Howard described a multi‑part improvement plan: targeted verification (particularly of shelter costs), enhanced training, changes to interview tools and case review processes, and automation (bots/QA applications) to identify error‑prone cases before benefits are issued. DCF estimated technology and automation requests around $2.8M (all funds) this year with an ongoing maintenance cost roughly $1.3M in later years. Howard said the department expects progress: recent monthly case reviews showed improvement (August single‑month error rate 5.5%), and DCF is working with consultants and peers to adopt proven practices.
Why it matters: HR1 shifts administrative costs to states and threatens new state costs tied to accuracy, creating both near‑term appropriation needs and medium‑term incentives to invest in process and automation to reduce errors.
Next steps: DCF will refine budget requests for automation and training and continue reporting monthly quality‑control results to the committee.
