Senate committee advances three SNAP bills tightening waivers, work rules and error‑rate oversight

The Arizona Senate Health and Human Services Committee on Feb. 3 advanced a package of bills that would tighten state control over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program policy, require sharper scrutiny of SNAP payment error rates, and expand mandatory employment‑and‑training requirements for some recipients.

Sponsor remarks and motion Senate Bill 13‑34, introduced to bar the Department of Economic Security (DES) from seeking, applying for, accepting or renewing any waiver of SNAP work requirements for able‑bodied adults without dependents unless specifically required by federal law or authorized by state law, was moved for a pass recommendation and recorded as advancing out of committee by a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no and 2 not voting.

Why sponsors say reform is needed Senator Kavanaugh, the sponsor, said the changes are intended to restore elected‑official oversight of program expansions and to curb what he characterized as uncontrolled SNAP spending. He told the committee that waivers or expansions should come through the Legislature rather than through administrative action.

Opposition, concerns and data cited Drew Schafer of the William E. Morris Institute for Justice testified in opposition, saying more than 600,000 Arizonans rely on SNAP and that the state has recently lost a large share of households from the program. Schafer warned that removing the state’s ability to relax work requirements during periods of high unemployment would reduce access when demand rises.

Fiscally focused testimony and error‑rate provisions Senate Bill 13‑33 (the “O SNAP Act” as described in committee) requires DES to reduce the SNAP payment error rate to no more than 3% by Dec. 30, 2030, and—under an adopted amendment—to provide more frequent progress reports and submit to Auditor General oversight and a special audit. Testimony from Tim Pugliese of FGA Action described Arizona’s SNAP error rate as “a little bit under 8.5%,” outlined federal penalty thresholds (e.g., penalties begin when error rates exceed 6% and increase at higher tiers), and estimated potential costs to the state could be on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars if penalties apply.

Mandatory employment and training changes Senate Bill 13‑31 would require certain able‑bodied recipients to participate in mandatory employment‑and‑training (E&T) programs, and the sponsor described raising an age threshold from 52 to 60 for a subset of exemptions. Supporters said mandatory participation offers recipients access to work or training resources; opponents and witnesses argued mandatory programs can be administratively costly and may reduce participation in SNAP when supports are not adequately resourced.

Agency capacity and implementation questions Kathy Burr of DES, testifying as agency neutral, told the committee the agency has faced staff reductions and significant call volumes and that eligibility interviews take roughly 45 minutes to an hour. Burr said DES currently operates a voluntary SNAP E&T (SNAP CAN) program with 22 third‑party providers and that a shift to a mandatory E&T model would require additional reporting, tracking and capacity evaluation.

Votes and next steps SB 13‑34 advanced with a committee pass recommendation (4–1–2). SB 13‑33 was amended in committee to require more frequent reporting and a special audit and was given a due‑pass recommendation. SB 13‑31 also received a due‑pass recommendation after debate and testimony (vote recorded 4 ayes, 2 no, 1 not voting). Each bill will proceed to the full Senate for further consideration.

What remains unclear Committee testimony referenced federal H.R.1 and USDA quality‑control data when discussing who lost SNAP benefits and why; the committee did not adopt additional funding in these bills to scale up E&T capacity. DES witnesses said they would implement required changes but could be limited by available program capacity and funding.