Funding cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program included in the House budget reconciliation bill would place new administrative burdens on many counties, all while the federal government would slice its share of administrative costs in half under the legislation.

The House GOP's One, Big Beautiful Bill Act includes major changes to SNAP that would reduce the projected cost of the program by $286 billion over 10 years. These proposals range from changes to the Thrifty Food Plan to work requirements, lowering the threshold for error rates and more. 

Two of the most controversial provisions included in the bill involve shifting costs to states and counties. Currently the federal government covers 100% of SNAP benefits and splits administrative costs with states 50-50. 

Under the bill, which is now before the Senate, states would be responsible for 75% of the administrative costs. They also would be required to help cover the cost of SNAP benefits for the first time, with the total cost-share varying according to the state's error rates.

Democrats and anti-hunger groups are warning that states are not equipped to cover the new costs. Cutting the federal share of the administrative costs alone would saddle states with an additional $27 billion in expenses through 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 

House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson, R-Pa., has argued that the bill's expanded cost-share requirements are needed in part to ensure better accountability in the program. The bill would require states "to have some skin in the game" and encourages "more effective and efficient administration of the program," he said during committee consideration of the bill. He noted that the SNAP benefits have been 100% funded by the federal government.

But in some states, the extra costs would also trickle down to the county level, where it’s harder to find ways to fill gaps in funding.

Counties are responsible for administering SNAP in 10 states: California, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. In four states – Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and North Carolina – counties cover all the administrative costs, while in five they cover a portion, according to the National Association of Counties.

Rural counties likely to struggle with additional costs

Under the current 50-50 cost-share with the federal government, counties contribute about $1.4 billion in administrative costs. Under the House reconciliation proposal, this could increase by up to $900 million, just in the 10 states where counties bear some financial responsibility.

These counties represent about 34% of all SNAP participants, or about 14 million people, said Eryn Hurley, managing director of government affairs at NACo. 

Eryn-Hurley_nacostaff.webpEryn Hurley (NACo photo)

Like states, counties have to balance their budgets, either by raising tax revenue or cutting programs. However, counties have further limitations on how they can raise revenue. For example, some states cap their ability to raise property taxes. 

“It’s a difficult situation between the two, between raising revenue or cutting essential services at this point,” said Hurley. 

Already, county leaders are trying to grapple with how to cushion programs like SNAP given a range of cuts and policy changes coming from the federal level. 

Heidi Hall, chair of the supervising board for a district in Nevada County, California, said she’s concerned about both the SNAP state cost-share being determined by error rates and the additional administrative costs. 

About 79% of children in Nevada County would qualify for federal nutrition programs, according to 2021 data from Feeding America. About a third of the county is at or around the poverty rate, Hall said.

“The minute something gets cut when people are living paycheck to paycheck … they’re stuck with trying to decide are they really going to deprive themselves of food or are they going to not pay a bill somewhere else,” Hall said. “These cuts, because they’re going towards the most vulnerable in our community, they will be felt right away."

Nevada County has “extraordinarily high” meal costs, meaning SNAP benefits often need to be supplemented, said Hall. The program has helped reduce food insecurity since the pandemic, but with the current food prices, food banks are feeling “pinched,” which will exacerbate food insecurity in the area. 

 It’s easy to be “in the know” about what’s happening in Washington, D.C. Sign up for a FREE month of  Agri-Pulse news! Simply click here

Increasing state administrative costs from 50% to 75% is expected to cost counties in California nearly $200 million more, Hall said. Federal grants do not cover administrative costs, which have to be paid for out of counties' general funds, Hall said.

Even without the new administrative cost-share, states and counties would need more money to adhere to some of the other policy changes included in the reconciliation bill, such as an expansion of work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents. 

These changes would require restructuring the program on the administrative side, said Hurley, and include hiring or retraining employees, which is already difficult at the county level.

In total, NACo expects the new provisions will require 6 million people to fulfill the work requirement, a major undertaking for the counties in the 10 states that are responsible for screening and determining eligibility.  

“This is a new change to a program without any funding to make that change,” Hall said. 

It’s less clear exactly how the benefit-cost-share proposal would impact counties. At a minimum, however, the more states are expected to cover for benefits means the less able they will be to assist counties in covering the new administrative costs. 

Counties must also grapple with other federal cuts

States and counties are already grappling with personnel losses at federal agencies, cuts to federal grants, a possible state cost-share in Medicaid through the reconciliation bill and more, Hall said. 

For example, the Department of Social Services in Erie County, New York, estimates the proposed changes to SNAP and other federal programs in reconciliation will result in a direct cost of $100 million annually by 2028.

“We’re getting those cuts directly, they’re coming from multiple places,” Hall said. “We’re going to have the hard choices, we’re going to have to cut back programs, maybe eliminate programs.” 

Hall said anything that can’t be funded through the federal or state level is going to be funded by the county’s general fund. This also has to cover everything from police budgets to administrative costs. 

Ultimately, state and county leaders are projecting SNAP participants will lose benefits from all these changes.

“The bottom line you have to understand for counties is: we’re at the ground level, our bottom is our constituents,” Hall said. “Constituents are already going to be hurting from these cuts to SNAP benefits.” 

To soften the blow of these changes, Hall said the county will look at shifting funds, likely from the “rainy day” savings. However, it will be difficult to do this as counties face more administrative costs on top of the policy changes. 

If the policies approved in the Senate version of the bill, Hall said people would “absolutely” lose benefits. 

Heidi-Hall.jpgHeidi Hall (NACo photo)

“These programs are running at a bare minimum,” Hall said. “We know people are going to be losing food benefits or there are going to be fewer benefits for more people.”

Additionally, she said the policy changes in the House reconciliation bill to SNAP would hurt small farmers in the area as SNAP provides a market for them.

Shortly after the House passed the reconciliation bill, some Senate Ag Committee members indicated they were not in favor of some of the SNAP policy changes, namely shifting more costs to states. 

However, the provisions that would shift more costs directly to states and those that increase the administrative burden make up the bulk of savings from the Agriculture Committee.  

CBO estimates that requiring states to cover between 5% to 25% of SNAP benefits would result in $128 billion in savings at the federal level between 2026-2034. Expanding work requirements is estimated to save $92 billion. Increasing the state administrative cost-share to 75% would yield $27 billion in savings. 

The House reconciliation bill also includes parts of the farm bill, like increased spending on commodity programs, crop insurance and foreign market promotion. 

Already, Senate Agriculture leaders are unclear if all the House farm bill provisions will pass the Senate’s Byrd Rule. But they may also struggle to ax the state cost-share provisions while also including the farm bill policies. 

For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com