County budgets could see impact from federal SNAP reform

The House passed a major policy bill last week that includes a provision that would reform food assistance in the United States, shifting costs to states and local governments. If the proposed changes are implemented, counties could face rising administrative costs to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, and millions of people would likely lose access to the assistance program, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 

Over 40 million participants benefit from SNAP, with at least two-thirds of recipients being children, people with disabilities and adults older than 60. 

The reconciliation package would result in an over $300 billion reduction in federal funding toward SNAP through 2034 and include significant cost shifts to county governments. 

Under current SNAP rules, able bodied adults without dependents — individuals aged 18-49 deemed work-eligible and not living with children — are limited to participating in SNAP for three months over a three-year period unless they show compliance with certain work requirements. 

The legislation would expand this time limit to older adults up from age 54 to 64, as well as to adults with children that are over the age of 6. 

States would also be barred from seeking waivers on work requirements due to a lack of work opportunities and high unemployment in the area, and counties would be significantly restricted from doing so.   

The provision would add roughly 6 million people to the work requirement, making it more difficult for people to receive assistance and increasing administrative work for states and local governments, which are tasked with screening the reports for eligibility, according to Dottie Rosenbaum, the senior fellow and director of federal SNAP policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ food assistance team.   

Impacts to counties 

Estimates from Erie County, N.Y.’s Department of Social Services currently place a direct cost of $12.3 million to Erie County in 2026 and more than $100 million annually by 2028 if the proposed changes to SNAP and other federal programs become law. 

“Our department is already stretched to the limit, working to help county residents access the services they need to lead better, fuller and richer lives while ensuring that accountability and transparency are always observed,” said Karen Rybicki, Erie County commissioner of Social Services, at a press conference. 

“These cuts force an onerous burden on our staff while at the same time taking away needed supports from people that cannot afford to lose them.” 

Erie County estimates that they would need more than $3.2 million to create 36 new positions for SNAP compliance, as a result of increased work requirements, a cost that would be difficult to absorb alongside other funding shifts.

“Absorbing state SNAP costs is not something that state budgets will be able to do easily,” Rosenbaum said. 

“So, if a state simply can’t absorb or pay the share that’s being required by this law, they could cut very deeply elsewhere in their budgets to come up with the funds to pay this match, which is a way in which counties would be potentially affected. 

“Even if they’re not directly affected by the state requiring them to put up a share — there are other services and activities they pay for that would then be shifted to counties if they have to cut their budgets deeply someplace else.” 

Counties in 10 states administer SNAP 

Counties are responsible for administering the SNAP program in 10 states: California, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. The 10 states represent 34.3% of total SNAP participants, and 31.8% of the national total in SNAP benefits. With the exception of North Dakota, counties in these states are also partially or fully responsible for the 50 percent non-federal match for SNAP administrative funds. 

Roughly 3 million to 3.5 million each month — would likely be unable to participate in the SNAP food program under the changes proposed, according to a Congressional Budget Office preliminary analysis provided to Congress. 

Mecklenburg County, N.C. Manager Anthony Trotman said he’s “concerned” about the proposed policy changes and the county’s administrative capacity to implement it. The county currently allocates $19 million in its yearly budget toward administering the food assistance program, which serves roughly 152,000 residents in Mecklenburg County, as of March 2025, according to county data. 

Counties only collect property and sales taxes — while the federal government and states also collect income tax — so they would likely have to raise taxes to accommodate rising costs for SNAP at the local level, he said. 

“Our only ability is to raise taxes to sustain the loss and/or not administer the program at the same level, and so that is just an issue,” Trotman said. 

“It already is a strain on some individuals that are unemployed or don’t have the ability to work in order to maintain their homes, so if counties throughout the country or cities raise property taxes, that just continues to impact our ability to maintain the cost of living in these various communities.” 

Local economies 

Reducing federal investment in SNAP could also hurt local economies and lead to job loss, Trotman said. Every dollar spent on SNAP benefits generates an estimated $1.50 in economic activity, according to research from the Economic Research Service. 

“Based on calculations, the economic impact is approximately half a billion dollars,” Trotman said. 

“It supports grocery stores and supports farmers markets, because we do Double [Up Food] Bucks (which doubles SNAP benefits for fresh fruits and vegetables) in our farmers markets. It also supports the overall food chain — truckers, farmers and food processing companies. So, when you make a cut to SNAP, there’s a ripple effect — not only to the consumer, but the overall food ecosystem.” 

This would not be the first time SNAP faced reform. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 resulted in a significant reduction in food assistance funding (it limited eligibility and established time limits on benefits), but the current proposed changes are “almost twice as deep as a share of baseline spending,” Rosenbaum said. 

“What’s really striking about this is that it turns its back on sort of the core purpose of SNAP,” Rosenbaum said. “SNAP is supposed to be available to people no matter what state they live in, and ensure that people can afford an adequate diet — if they are temporarily unemployed, if they experience a divorce, if they have been homeless and fallen on hard times. 

“That’s what the program is supposed to do, and this state match really turns its back on that national commitment.” 

Trotman was one of numerous county officials who advocated to maintain the federal government’s contribution to SNAP benefits during his visit to Washington, D.C. at NACo’s Legislative Conference, and he said he’s “hopeful” that members of Congress heard their concerns regarding what the local impact would be, and “respond accordingly.”