Pennsylvania Asset Test Slows Down Caseworkers

New data from Pennsylvania show that the state is among the slowest in the country in processing applications for its SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) program. What’s causing the delays? Many advocates say too much paperwork and too much red tape – linked to the reinstatement of the SNAP asset test last year.

Federal law requires states to process all SNAP applications within thirty days. In Pennsylvania, however, fewer than 82% of applications are assessed within this time frame. In a controversial move last year, Pennsylvania brought back an asset test for SNAP, set at $5500 per family. Since then, only .05% of the state’s 1.8 million SNAP participants have been found ineligible due to excess savings (this is unsurprising given that the average SNAP family has only $331 in the bank). At the same time, the number of applicants denied support due to insufficient paperwork has increased by 17,000, accounting for over 100,000 denials a year. In other words, these burdensome documentation requirements are tripping up families who are both eligible and in need of assistance – and slowing down eligibility workers.

Pennsylvania’s experience would come as no surprise to many of the state SNAP administrators we spoke to last year when researching for our policy paper about asset limit reforms. From Illinois to Virginia to Colorado, administrators reported that eliminating their asset limits allowed caseworkers to process applications more efficiently and devote more time to more consequential aspects of case management. And this is reflected in the data. Despite having far more SNAP participants than Pennsylvania, both New York and Florida process their applications much more quickly, with over 90% in each state completed within the thirty-day window. Both states have eliminated their SNAP asset test.

In addition to slowing down the delivery of benefits, the asset test can also decrease program integrity. Two-thirds of SNAP payment errors are a result of caseworker errors, and the asset test is a particularly complex evaluation because of its numerous and unpredictable exemptions. Ohio, for example, was facing $3 million in federal sanctions because of its payment error rate before an independent consultant recommended eliminating the asset evaluation to improve accuracy. As one administrator from Ohio explained, “from radiation exposure compensation to Agent Orange settlements, to Japanese ancestry permanent resident survivors’ benefits…there’s just so many different exclusions [from the asset test]…so accuracy for that is hard.” After the asset test was lifted, payment accuracy markedly improved. And without the asset test to deal with, caseworkers could devote more time to other components of the eligibility determination.

Asset limits are counterproductive to families’ long-term financial security. Pennsylvania shows how this red tape also impedes program access and integrity. This is the approach that many House Republicans just voted to impose on all 50 states. Fortunately, that measure was defeated and the House can reconsider their plan. Pennsylvania should too.