Minnesota lawmakers propose tightening SNAP eligibility, citing high error rate and fiscal risk
Loading...
Summary
Representative Pam Oldendorf introduced a bill to require net-income checks before SNAP enrollment and to align asset tests with other programs, citing a rise in Minnesota's SNAP error rate and potential federal penalties if the state does not lower errors below 6% by 2027.
Representative Nolan West, cochair of the Children and Families Finance and Policy Committee, opened a committee session to introduce legislation to tighten eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The measure, carried in the House by Representative Pam Oldendorf, would move the net-income test to the front of the eligibility process and restore asset-testing authorities officials say were removed after 2010.
Oldendorf said Minnesota’s SNAP error rate rose from about 4% in 2013 to roughly 9% today and that the state serves about 440,000 people with roughly $875 million in annual benefits. “If we do not get our error rate under 6% … the state of Minnesota would be held accountable for $86,000,000 in the year 2027,” she said, framing the bill as a response to a fiscal exposure under federal rules.
The bill would require eligibility staff to use net income, rather than advancing applicants under gross-income shortcuts, before benefits are issued. Oldendorf and West said the change is intended to reduce overpayments, which committee members were told account for a majority of current SNAP errors. The author also identified broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) — a policy that allows certain households to enroll through categorical pathways — as a major driver of payment errors and said restoring front-end checks would curb mistaken or improper payments.
Committee members pressed the author on the administrative impacts. Oldendorf said counties would continue to process applications and that the change should not materially increase day-to-day workloads because net-income and asset checks are already used in other county-administered programs. She acknowledged, however, that counties bear some administration costs and that incomplete federal support for county administration could translate into local budget pressure if the state must cover penalties.
Members also asked for concrete examples of fraud. Oldendorf cited prosecutions and federal findings as evidence that some improper payments have occurred and pointed to a federal initiative that asked states to clean SNAP roles; she said 29 states complied with that request and that multi-state reviews had identified duplicate payments and other anomalies. Several committee members said they want more data from the Department of Agriculture and county offices before the hearing.
Oldendorf said she had just filed the measure and planned outreach to potential cosponsors, including members across the aisle, and reported she expects a senator to carry a companion bill in the Senate. No formal vote or committee action took place at the meeting. The author said county stakeholders will be invited to provide input at the public hearing.
Because the hearing focused on policy design and data requests rather than final votes, the next procedural step is a formal committee hearing where counties and agency staff will be asked to respond and provide the data Oldendorf and members requested.
