In West Virginia, one in six residents (277,400 people) rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to help put food on the table. SNAP is the nation’s most important and effective anti-hunger program, playing a key role in reducing poverty and improving health and economic outcomes for households with children, adults with disabilities, seniors, veterans, and low-wage workers. If Congress moves ahead with a proposal to cut more than $200 billion from SNAP, households are at risk of going hungry and West Virginia state lawmakers could be on the hook for new state spending or painful decisions about what benefits to cut.
While the specific details of Congress’ proposal to cut hundreds of billions from the SNAP program are not public yet, some Republican leaders are calling for a cost-sharing requirement, where states would have to come up with a portion of SNAP benefits. This would mark the first time in history the federal government did not fund 100 percent of the cost of food benefits, according to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
While proponents have not yet said how much they would require states to pay in SNAP food benefit costs under a SNAP cost-sharing proposal, any costs would be significant for West Virginia, just as the state is facing a $400 million budget gap. In FY 2024, West Virginians received $566 million in SNAP benefits. That means a 10 percent match would cost $56 million annually or $566 million over a ten-year period; and a 25 percent cost share (similar to that in traditional Medicaid) would cost $141 million annually or $1.4 billion over a ten-year period.
If states were required to match even 10 percent of SNAP benefit costs ($56 million/annually), it would be equivalent to the cost of doubling the number of Child Protective Services (CPS) workers in the state (current annual spending is $24 million) or six times the amount the state currently spends on child care assistance ($8.8 million).
Shifting SNAP to a cost-sharing program between the federal and state government would mean that West Virginia state policymakers would have to raise new state revenue, cut funding for other state-funded priorities, or reduce and restrict program eligibility.
Because it would be difficult for West Virginia to absorb a 10 percent ($56) or 25 percent ($141 million) match at current benefit levels without raising revenue or cutting other spending, state lawmakers would risk not being able to pull down the full federal match, forfeiting federal dollars and being forced to cut program eligibility. This would dramatically reduce the reach of the program, harming households and retailers and putting an increased strain on charitable food providers.
For example, if West Virginia could only afford $35 million out of the state budget for SNAP benefits but the required match is 10 percent, they would have to cut benefits and eligibility enough to reduce overall spending on the program from $566 million to $385 million—effectively cutting the program by nearly one-third.
To illustrate what a 32 percent cut as exemplified above would mean for West Virginia, policymakers could consider the following options:
SNAP benefits are spent at 2,200 grocery stores and retailers in West Virginia. Every $1 in additional spending on SNAP benefits in a weak economy generates $1.54 in economic activity when households use their benefits to shop at local businesses in their communities.
Forcing states to help pay SNAP benefits would allow Congress to enact unpopular cuts while making someone else—state lawmakers—either pay the difference or decide which participants lose food benefits, making households less food secure and harming our broader food economy.
