[ad_1]
This blog is an update to TICAS’ analysis of SNAP and Medicaid cuts proposed in the House Reconciliation framework that was published prior to the passage of H.R.1. Our initial analysis summarized the impact of SNAP and Medicaid cost shifts to states. Since the reduction of the Medicaid expansion match rate was not included in the final bill, this update does not include Medicaid analysis.
On July 4, President Trump signed a policy framework that would cut billions of dollars from critical nutrition programs to offset tax cuts for the wealthy—with devastating implications for individuals with lower incomes and for the higher education system. These cuts will reduce funding for essential support programs and attempt to shift more responsibility to states at a time when many states are already facing budget shortfalls.
As these cuts squeeze state budgets and erode critical support systems, they will also harm access to higher education while demand for workers with more education is growing. Affording both education and living expenses is already out of reach for many, which helps explain why only 64% of students in four-year programs graduate within six years—and why 43 million adults have some college education but no degree or credential.
Our nation cannot afford for states to sacrifice a healthy population or an educated workforce in exchange for tax cuts projected to add $4.1 trillion to the federal deficit. It is imperative that members of Congress protect their states and their constituents by reversing deep cuts to SNAP as they work to reauthorize the Farm Bill.
The Impact of Cost-Shifting to States
The federal spending cuts passed by Congress in H.R. 1 will necessitate increasing state tax revenue and/or making state level spending cuts. Unlike the federal government, states must balance their budgets annually. In fiscal year 2024, 40 states saw declining tax revenues, and many are already projecting short- and long-term fiscal shortfalls, increasing the odds that many states will need to make spending cuts. Healthcare and higher education comprise over 30 percent of state spending, with higher education comprising 15 percent of state budgets alone.
Increasing state costs of administering the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and requiring many states to cover a portion of the cost of SNAP benefits for the first time will further deepen state budget pressures. Indeed, the SNAP cuts included in H.R.1 are projected to save $120 billion over the next 10 years by shifting costs to states. Whether state legislators decide to cut SNAP benefits, funding for transportation, or education, students lose access to critical resources. The consequences are clear: states will be expected to do more with fewer resources and everyday Americans will ultimately pay the immediate and long-term price.
Cuts to SNAP: Implications for States and Higher Education
SNAP is currently administered through a partnership between the federal government and states, but SNAP benefits are fully funded by the federal government. For the first time in program history, states will also pay a portion of SNAP benefits based on their error rates. States are already responsible for funding a portion of administrative costs such as salaries and benefits for SNAP staff. Benefit costs are the allotments that SNAP participants receive to purchase food. The law shifts a portion of SNAP benefit costs to states if they have a payment error rate above 6%. States with higher error rates would contribute more toward SNAP benefits, though their share would be capped at 15%. Cost-sharing begins in FY 2028 with some flexibility in how error rates are determined at the beginning of the implementation period.
| SNAP Payment Error Rate | State Share | Number of States Impacted |
|---|---|---|
| Error rate below 6% | No benefit cost share requirement | 8 |
| 6%-8% error rate | State required to pay 5% of SNAP benefits | 6 |
| 8%-10% error rate | State required to pay 10% of SNAP benefits | 16 |
| 10% or higher error rate | State required to pay 15% of SNAP benefits | 20 + DC |
The cost shifts to states will impact over 40 states and DC based on their FY24 error rates. States will face stark choices: reduce SNAP benefits, cut eligibility, or find other ways to limit access. But the effects wouldn’t stop there. Because higher education is primarily funded by state tax dollars, federal cuts to SNAP will reverberate through education budgets as well, where higher education remains the largest source of discretionary spending that can be cut.
When SNAP cost-sharing is enacted, current and future students, many of whom are also navigating food insecurity, will experience a double blow when states are forced to choose between ensuring residents don’t go hungry or funding public colleges and keeping tuition affordable. While state leaders may make different decisions, cutting discretionary programs such as healthcare or education will have long lasting impacts on today’s students as well as future generations.
State Budget Impact Example: SNAP Benefit Cost-Sharing
To contextualize how federal cuts to SNAP would put downstream pressure on state budgets, we used the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) recent cost-sharing analysis (Table 2). We assessed what shifting the cost of SNAP benefits from federal to state responsibility, based on a state’s FY24 error rates would mean in the context of a state’s FY 2024 state and local higher education spending (Table 1.4) and found that:
-
42 states + DC have an error rate above 6% and would need to fund a portion of SNAP benefits,
-
36 states + DC would be responsible for at least 10% of benefits costs, and
-
16 states + DC would pay at least 10% or more of the equivalent of their state’s higher education budget in SNAP benefits.
| State | Total SNAP Benefits Issued FY24 | State Error Rate FY24 | SNAP Cost Shift, Based on FY24 Error Rates | SNAP State Benefit Responsibility, FY24 | FY24 Higher Education Budget | SNAP Cost Share as a Percent of HE Funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | $1,734,000,000 | 8.32% | 10% | $173,400,000 | $2,583,356,000 | 6.71% |
| Alaska | $251,000,000 | 24.66% | 15% | $37,650,000 | $335,687,000 | 11.22% |
| Arizona | $2,015,000,000 | 8.84% | 10% | $201,500,000 | $2,384,181,000 | 8.45% |
| Arkansas | $550,000,000 | 9.56% | 10% | $55,000,000 | $1,125,169,000 | 4.89% |
| California | $12,377,000,000 | 10.98% | 15% | $1,856,550,000 | $24,289,688,000 | 7.64% |
| Colorado | $1,303,000,000 | 9.97% | 10% | $130,300,000 | $1,623,171,000 | 8.03% |
| Connecticut | $893,000,000 | 10.25% | 15% | $133,950,000 | $1,618,140,000 | 8.28% |
| Delaware | $255,000,000 | 12.37% | 15% | $38,250,000 | $285,369,000 | 13.40% |
| DC | $319,000,000 | 17.38% | 15% | $47,850,000 | $104,448,000 | 45.81% |
| Florida | $6,605,000,000 | 15.13% | 15% | $990,750,000 | $7,235,971,000 | 13.69% |
| Georgia | $3,269,000,000 | 15.65% | 15% | $490,350,000 | $4,839,493,000 | 10.13% |
| Hawaii | $731,000,000 | 6.68% | 5% | $36,550,000 | $873,722,000 | 4.18% |
| Idaho | $281,000,000 | 3.59% | 0% | $0 | $692,074,000 | 0.00% |
| Illinois | $4,469,000,000 | 11.56% | 15% | $670,350,000 | $6,701,380,000 | 10.00% |
| Indiana | $1,434,000,000 | 9.52% | 10% | $143,400,000 | $2,024,749,000 | 7.08% |
| Iowa | $529,000,000 | 6.14% | 5% | $26,450,000 | $942,338,000 | 2.81% |
| Kansas | $408,000,000 | 9.98% | 10% | $40,800,000 | $1,459,429,000 | 2.80% |
| Kentucky | $1,152,000,000 | 9.11% | 10% | $115,200,000 | $1,493,608,000 | 7.71% |
| Louisiana | $1,902,000,000 | 6.62% | 5% | $95,100,000 | $1,671,801,000 | 5.69% |
| Maine | $364,000,000 | 10.26% | 15% | $54,600,000 | $397,481,000 | 13.74% |
| Maryland | $1,499,000,000 | 13.64% | 15% | $224,850,000 | $3,793,083,000 | 5.93% |
| Massachusetts | $2,618,000,000 | 14.10% | 15% | $392,700,000 | $2,546,803,000 | 15.42% |
| Michigan | $3,061,000,000 | 9.53% | 10% | $306,100,000 | $3,472,622,000 | 8.81% |
| Minnesota | $856,000,000 | 8.98% | 10% | $85,600,000 | $2,059,152,000 | 4.16% |
| Mississippi | $842,000,000 | 10.69% | 15% | $126,300,000 | $1,252,013,000 | 10.09% |
| Missouri | $1,513,000,000 | 9.42% | 10% | $151,300,000 | $1,502,883,000 | 10.07% |
| Montana | $169,000,000 | 8.89% | 10% | $16,900,000 | $312,373,000 | 5.41% |
| Nebraska | $332,000,000 | 5.50% | 0% | $0 | $1,130,236,000 | 0.00% |
| Nevada | $1,007,000,000 | 5.94% | 0% | $0 | $964,064,000 | 0.00% |
| New Hampshire | $154,000,000 | 7.57% | 5% | $7,700,000 | $175,988,000 | 4.38% |
| New Jersey | $1,926,000,000 | 14.33% | 15% | $288,900,000 | $3,374,206,000 | 8.56% |
| New Mexico | $1,028,000,000 | 14.61% | 15% | $154,200,000 | $1,436,505,000 | 10.73% |
| New York | $7,354,000,000 | 14.09% | 15% | $1,103,100,000 | $7,914,982,000 | 13.94% |
| North Carolina | $2,940,000,000 | 10.21% | 15% | $441,000,000 | $5,688,372,000 | 7.75% |
| North Dakota | $111,000,000 | 7.91% | 5% | $5,550,000 | $470,036,000 | 1.18% |
| Ohio | $3,178,000,000 | 9.01% | 10% | $317,800,000 | $2,827,986,000 | 11.24% |
| Oklahoma | $1,506,000,000 | 10.87% | 15% | $225,900,000 | $1,200,378,000 | 18.82% |
| Oregon | $1,597,000,000 | 14.06% | 15% | $239,550,000 | $1,486,922,000 | 16.11% |
| Pennsylvania | $4,268,000,000 | 10.76% | 15% | $640,200,000 | $2,261,604,000 | 28.31% |
| Rhode Island | $343,000,000 | 12.29% | 15% | $51,450,000 | $264,091,000 | 19.48% |
| South Carolina | $1,294,000,000 | 9.25% | 10% | $129,400,000 | $1,951,617,000 | 6.63% |
| South Dakota | $180,000,000 | 3.28% | 0% | $0 | $339,580,000 | 0.00% |
| Tennessee | $1,623,000,000 | 9.47% | 10% | $162,300,000 | $2,810,089,000 | 5.78% |
| Texas | $7,211,000,000 | 8.32% | 10% | $721,100,000 | $15,103,346,000 | 4.77% |
| Utah | $383,000,000 | 5.74% | 0% | $0 | $1,837,969,000 | 0.00% |
| Vermont | $147,000,000 | 5.13% | 0% | $0 | $144,876,000 | 0.00% |
| Virginia | $1,766,000,000 | 11.50% | 15% | $264,900,000 | $3,440,556,000 | 7.70% |
| Washington | $1,920,000,000 | 6.06% | 5% | $96,000,000 | $3,006,610,000 | 3.19% |
| West Virginia | $566,000,000 | 9.43% | 10% | $56,600,000 | $574,048,000 | 9.86% |
| Wisconsin | $1,364,000,000 | 4.47% | 0% | $0 | $2,132,752,000 | 0.00% |
| Wyoming | $57,000,000 | 5.12% | 0% | $0 | $439,271,000 | 0.00% |
Conclusion
Once states are responsible for a portion of SNAP benefit costs beginning in FY28, the impact will be immediate and far reaching. Millions of Americans across every state and territory may lose access to critical food assistance—a program that keeps people stable, nourished, and able to work or pursue education. To prevent this, states would have to make deep spending cuts elsewhere in their budgets. History shows that when the federal government withdraws support from states, they fill the gap by slashing discretionary programs such as higher education budgets. This translates to fewer resources for colleges, higher tuition for students, and reduced access to postsecondary education. These efforts stand in stark contrast to policymakers’ stated goals of improving people’s ability to be self-sufficient as credentials and degrees result in less use of public programs and greater economic mobility.
State leaders should not be forced to decide whether people in their state can eat or be trained for the jobs of the future. Congress must work with states to help them improve their SNAP error rates and reverse the cost shifting provisions included in H.R. 1 before they go into effect. It is essential that Americans have access to food so they can live a life that allows them to focus on work and school. Enhancing access to basic needs programs like SNAP makes education more attainable and improves self-sufficiency in the long-term.
[ad_2]
