Audit estimates up to $1.2 million in Kansas SNAP benefits may have gone to recipients living out of state; DCF says federal rules and costs limit fixes
Loading...
Summary
Legislative auditors reported that limited testing of EBT transactions suggests about $700,000–$1,200,000 in SNAP benefits may have been paid to recipients who appeared to live out of state during FY2023–24; auditors and DCF officials stressed federal privacy rules and implementation costs constrain responses.
Legislative Post Audit staff told the Legislative Post Audit Committee that their SNAP Part 2 audit found a limited but measurable amount of SNAP benefits that may have been paid to recipients who lived outside Kansas. ‘‘We identified an estimated 700,000 to 1,200,000 in SNAP benefits paid to recipients who may not have lived in Kansas,’’ auditor Heidi said during the committee presentation.
The auditors said they selected a random sample of about 10,000 EBT cards from the roughly 290,000 cards active in federal fiscal years 2023–24 and flagged cards that made 75% or more of purchases in other states. In that sample they found 51 cards that potentially indicated out‑of‑state residence, representing roughly $63,000 in benefits in the sample. LPA projected those sample results to the full population at a 95% confidence level to reach the statewide estimate.
Auditors emphasized caveats: they excluded purchases in neighboring border states (to avoid misclassifying lawful cross‑border grocery trips), could not access certain recipient file data because federal SNAP privacy rules restrict disclosure, and reviewed only a 24‑month window. Heidi said those limitations likely caused an understatement of total potential misuse.
The audit also compared DCF policies against 11 state and federal fraud‑prevention requirements and found DCF generally compliant, but not offering recipients the state‑law option to place photographs on EBT cards. LPA recommended DCF offer recipient photos on cards "to comply with state law," noting DCF told auditors it lacks a fiscal appropriation to implement that change.
In response, DCF representative Dr. Carla Whiteside Hicks said the agency already monitors out‑of‑state transactions and uses federal systems such as the Public Assistance Reporting Information System and the National Accuracy Clearinghouse to identify cross‑state benefit activity. She cautioned that states cannot block SNAP use in other states and that, "we cannot stop [a recipient's] benefit once it's been issued to them," explaining the timing and operational limits of benefit issuance.
Dr. Hicks also said adding photos would raise per‑card costs: current cards cost roughly $0.20 each to issue and adding a photo would raise the per‑card cost to about $2.65, which for more than 90,000 households would be an administrative cost to the state. She asked legislators to consider funding if they want DCF to implement the photo option.
Why it matters: auditors warned that while the amounts identified are a small share of total SNAP spending in the examined years (less than 1%), federal changes taking effect in 2028 could require states with high payment error rates to share a portion of benefit costs, which would make even modest mispayments a state fiscal exposure.
The committee accepted the SNAP Part 2 audit and forwarded the report for the record; LPA sent the flagged EBT card numbers to DCF for follow‑up.
