California spends a lot more to administer a federal nutrition program than some other states, a critical new federal audit shows.
In certain California counties in particular, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program costs far exceed the national average. San Francisco County, for instance, spent $73 a month administering each SNAP case in 2014, while New York City spent $23 per case.
The wide ranges, auditors cautioned in the report made public Monday, could suggest “possible waste and operational inefficiencies.”
State and county officials have countered that significant cost-of-living differences across different regions explain at least some of the administrative cost differences.
The federal government has a responsibility to act as a careful steward of taxpayer dollars.
Agriculture Department Office of Inspector General.
Overall, the Agriculture Department Office of Inspector General auditors found that California counties were spending an average of $34 a month for each SNAP case, compared to $10 a month spent by Ohio counties.
“Large variances in SNAP administrative costs continue as (the Food and Nutrition Service) does not perform adequate monitoring or conduct sufficient coordination with states and counties to assist in containing costs, minimizing variances, and sharing best practices,” auditors stated.
It can all add up to potentially worrisome levels, auditors say, as California currently serves more than 2 million residents through SNAP, which is overseen at the national level by the Agriculture Department’s Food and Nutrition Service.
“FNS is unable to ensure it has efficient and effective state and county operations involving the federal share of SNAP administrative costs, which total over $3.6 billion in FY 2014,” auditors warned.
Auditors further said a “lack of effective FNS oversight led to inaccurate program financial reporting and questioned costs” in California and other states.
Formerly known as the “food stamp” program, SNAP provides benefits fully paid for by the federal government, while the Agriculture Department generally reimburses the states for 50 percent of their administrative costs.
In response, Agriculture Department officials have initiated a study to identify the specific causes of the wide variation in administrative costs, among other steps that OIG auditors characterized in part as inadequate.
“FNS will share with states any identified cost containment strategies that do not negatively affect state program performance,” the Food and Nutrition Service stated.
Michael Doyle: 202-383-6153, @MichaelDoyle10