.png)
When it comes to funding counties, equal isn’t fair, especially when need is uneven. Last year’s federal reconciliation bill, sometimes called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” cut federal funding for SNAP administration. As a result, states must cover a much larger share of the cost of running this federal program. The Ohio Legislature’s response shifts the burden unevenly; House Bill 730 includes $10 million of state funds and $2.5 million federal funds to make a “supplemental” payment of counties’ SNAP administration costs. Rather than allocating funds based on where SNAP recipients live—as the state has traditionally done—the Ohio House plan protects smaller counties while pushing the largest costs onto counties with the most residents receiving SNAP.
Flat funding may sound fair. In practice, it penalizes size and need.
Historically, Ohio has allocated SNAP administrative funding so that resources followed caseloads. The House plan breaks from that precedent. Instead of targeting dollars to counties facing the largest federal cuts, a limited pool of state and federal resources is distributed evenly across county Job and Family Service departments, stopping once a county’s expected loss is met or the money runs out.
Under this approach, 59 counties facing federal funding losses under $220,000 are fully covered. Seven other counties have at least 75 percent of their costs covered. The remaining county Job and Family Service departments receive the same capped amount, $226,486, regardless of the scope of expected federal funds reduction. This includes South Central JFS which comprises Ross, Hocking, and Vinton counties.
This approach fully protects smaller counties with modest losses, while leaving larger counties to somehow absorb the remaining costs on their own.
Counties serving the most people are asked to absorb the largest losses. They must divert local dollars to meet this unfunded mandate. The greatest impact is for Summit ($1.35 million remaining), Montgomery ($2.2 million), Lucas ($2.4 million), Hamilton ($2.5 million), Franklin ($5.4 million), and Cuyahoga ($7.3 million). The map below shows the percentage of the expected federal reduction covered by the House plan.
View the Estimated Supplemental Payment of County Administered SNAP Program Table
The money isn’t targeted and it isn’t enough.
Roughly one quarter of SNAP recipients live in counties that are fully protected under this proposal. The remaining 76 percent live in counties where local governments are left to figure out how to cover the shortfall. Supporters of the plan argue that large counties can handle the costs because they have larger overall budgets. That argument ignores a basic reality. Larger counties have larger budgets because they serve more people, including more people receiving SNAP.
Counties cannot change eligibility rules or benefit levels. Those decisions are made at the federal level. When administrative costs rise, counties have only one option and must divert local money from locally determined priorities to meet federal requirements and keep the program running.
A short-term patch, not a solution
The inequity is compounded by timing. The $10 million in state funding included in the House plan covers only about one-third of the total federal SNAP administrative cut for the first nine months of these new, ongoing costs. Much more is needed; this is not a long-term fix. It is a temporary patch that leaves the deepest holes where need is greatest.
Efficiency means targeting resources where need is highest, not spreading dollars evenly and calling it fair.
The Senate should adopt a more targeted funding formula which follows the state’s longstanding practice. Residents of large counties shouldn’t be the only ones asked to feel the pain of federal cuts.
