Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SNAP Work Requirements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
JCAR permits ODJFS to revise two SNAP work‑requirement rules after members press for federal guidance
Summary
The Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review voted 9–0 to allow the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services to revise and refile two SNAP rules after lawmakers raised concerns the department’s interpretation of H.R.1 could make people aged 60–64 lose benefits when they turn 60.
The Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review voted unanimously to authorize the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services to revise and refile two rules governing SNAP work requirements, after members expressed concern the rules could be applied more stringently than federal law for people ages 60–64.
The committee’s action, moved under Revised Code 106.022, permits ODJFS an extra 30 days to amend or withdraw rules numbered 5101.4‑3‑11 and 5101.4‑3‑13. The roll call recorded nine yeses and zero noes.
Lawmakers said they worried the department’s interpretation of H.R.1 — particularly how general work requirements and able‑bodied adult exemptions interact — could unintentionally make people eligible at 59 ineligible after their 60th birthday. "I'm worried about both of these being interpreted by the department as more strict than the federal law is requiring them to be," a senator told ODJFS during the review.
Rachel Johansen of ODJFS told the committee the department’s rules reflect its reading of H.R.1 and that Ohio’s approach aligns with multiple other states. Johansen said ODJFS has discussed the implementation with stakeholders and does not expect USDA/FNS to issue clarifying guidance. "We have not received any additional guidance from USDA on this specific point and we have to go off what we see in the legislation," she said.
Members pressed for concrete scenarios in which someone exempt under one set of work requirements might lose eligibility when moving into the 60–64 bracket. Representatives described personal and constituent concerns about potential increases in food insecurity and asked whether the department would delay rule adoption to seek federal guidance; Johansen responded the agency would be "nervous about muddying the waters" by delaying implementation but committed to the department’s current legal interpretation.
The motion to authorize refiling cited a potential prong‑8 concern (that a rule implements federal law in a way more burdensome than the federal requirement) and was seconded before the committee voted.
Next steps: ODJFS may use the additional period to revise the two rules and return them to JCAR; members said they would monitor whether any further federal guidance becomes available.
