Recent legislation passed by Congress, branded by supporters as the ‘big, beautiful bill,’ is poised to significantly raise Alabama’s costs associated with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The bill, which was championed by President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers, shifts substantial financial burdens from the federal government directly onto state governments.
In Alabama alone, the changes could result in an additional $200 million in costs over the next few years as SNAP serves a monthly average of 376,000 households, or approximately 752,000 individuals.
During a meeting with the State Board of the Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR), Brandon Hardin, the food assistance director, elucidated the potential ramifications on the state budget.
Under the existing framework, federal dollars cover the full cost of SNAP benefits while also covering half of the administrative expenses.
Starting in 2027, however, states will be required to finance 75% of administrative costs, which alone will escalate Alabama’s expenditures by an estimated $39 million based on current operations.
The most dramatic change comes in 2028 when states are expected to contribute toward the actual benefits for the first time.
Should states maintain their SNAP payment error rates below 6%, they will not incur this new cost.
Alabama’s error rate has fluctuated over recent years, with specific rates recorded at 4.68% in 2022, 7.07% in 2023, and rising to 8.32% last year.
If the state’s error rate falls between 6% to 7.99%, the state will have to cover 5% of the SNAP benefits.
Considering that Alabama provided $1.77 billion in SNAP benefits last year, a 5% contribution would approximate to an additional state cost of $88.5 million.
Should the error rate fall within the 8-9.99% range, the state’s responsibility would escalate to 10%, amounting to $177 million in new expenses.
In the unfortunate event that Alabama’s error rate exceeds 10%, the state would face a staggering 15% liability, which could translate to a cost of $265.5 million.
Despite having one of the lowest error rates among eight regional states for the past three years, Alabama may not escape the impending financial burden due to recent increases.
The DHR’s Hardin emphasized that the majority of payment errors stem not from deceitful practices but rather from changes in clients’ circumstances, such as moving residences that impact housing and utility allowances.
To combat this, Hardin stated that the agency needs to increase its resources and staffing to facilitate more frequent interactions with clients.
Currently, eligibility reviews for clients are conducted every 12 months, but the frequency may need to increase to capture changes in status more efficiently.
‘Payment errors represent situations where the client’s initial case relied on outdated information during the 12-month certification period,’ Hardin remarked.
By engaging with clients more regularly, the likelihood of reducing the error rate increases.
Alabama’s error rate was calculated based on an in-depth review of 1,109 cases, revealing $36,000 in incorrect payments against $441,000 identified in the audited cases.
With an error rate of 8.32%, Alabama’s ranking was the 16th lowest nationwide.
Hardin confirmed that discussions with state legislators are already underway as the next regular session approaches in January.
However, specific strategies for adjusting to the new fiscal landscape are not yet finalized.
The DHR has ramped up training initiatives to target areas prone to errors, particularly those linked to wages and housing costs.
With approximately 900 individuals working within the state’s food assistance program, Hardin underscored the DHR’s commitment to improving operations.
‘We are actively enhancing our training efforts to address common error factors,’ Hardin mentioned.
He acknowledged that tough decisions loom for legislators regarding the necessary investments into the program to effectively achieve their goal of maintaining an acceptable error rate.
As Alabama navigates these changes, the potential impact on SNAP recipients and the state’s food assistance framework will undoubtedly be closely monitored.
image source from：al
