Federal Reforms to Social Safety Net Programs: What Counties Should Know

Counties, regardless of size, location or resources, are deeply committed to promoting the health and well-being of residents. Each day, counties deliver essential services that support vulnerable individuals and families, serving as a vital partner in the federal, state and local human services delivery system.

While many federal human services and education programs are administered through federal-state partnerships, some states delegate the management of key safety net programs—such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)—to counties. County responsibilities vary by program and may include contributing administrative funding, determining eligibility, delivering services or contracting with providers, managing program funds, meeting Maintenance of Effort (MOE) and nonfederal share requirements, collecting data, enrolling participants and more.

On February 25, NACo joined a bipartisan coalition of national organizations representing states, counties and cities in sending a letter to congressional leadership expressing concern over proposed changes to SNAP, TANF and SSBG. The letter followed recent budget reconciliation proposals that would enact significant cuts to these programs.

This FAQ expands on the letter, outlining the potential impact of these cuts on counties and providing steps county leaders can take to advocate for preserving funding for these critical services.

Social Services Block Grant 

Nine states (Colorado, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin) pass SSBG funds directly to counties, though counties in other states can access SSBG funds as well. The highest share of SSBG spending goes toward child welfare and child protective services, counseling and support services and adult protective services. SSBG is the primary source of federal funding for adult protective services, which prevent and remedy abuse, neglect and exploitation of the elderly and disabled adults. The elimination of SSBG would shift the costs of providing these services to counties who are already operating under tight budget constraints, ultimately leading to a reduction of services for our most vulnerable residents.  

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

TANF is an important source of flexible funding for a variety of anti-poverty activities benefiting vulnerable residents, including cash assistance, child care, education, job training and work support programs. Nine states (California, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio and Virginia), representing more than half of the national caseload, delegate TANF administration, including Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements, to counties. Eliminating work participation waivers and reducing federal funding for TANF would eliminate important local flexibilities as well as increase the administrative and fiscal burden on state and local programs. 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

As the largest federal nutrition program reaching nearly 41 million households, SNAP is a foundational part of the social safety net and has a significant impact on combating hunger and poverty in low-income households, particularly in rural communities. Counties are responsible for administering the program in ten states, California, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin, that represent 34.3 percent of total participants, or 14.6 million people. Any reduction, or cost-shift in benefits for participants will increase the demand on state and locally funded service providers. Additionally, restricting a state’s ability to grant work exemptions or ending Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) would take away food assistance from participants and limit important state flexibility to tailor SNAP to meet the needs of their individual populations.  

Both the U.S. House and Senate have advanced budget blueprints that could lead to major policy changes through the reconciliation process. The proposed spending targets serve as minimums, meaning committees must cut at least the specified amount but could go further.

U.S. Senate 

On February 21, the Senate passed its budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 7), which allows for up to $515 billion in additional deficit spending over 10 years. It instructs the Senate Finance Committee—which oversees SSBG and TANF—and the Senate Agriculture Committee—which oversees SNAP—to each reduce spending by $1 billion.

U.S. House of Representatives 

The House budget resolution (H. Con. Res. 14) proposes at least $1.5 trillion in mandatory spending cuts over the next decade. It tasks the Ways and Means Committee with $330 billion in reductions and the Agriculture Committee with $230 billion. The resolution also includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.

The $230 billion target for the Agriculture Committee will likely impact SNAP, with potential proposals including cost shifts to states and counties, a rollback of the 2021 Thrifty Food Plan update, and changes to Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE). For the Ways and Means Committee, options under consideration include eliminating SSBG, reducing TANF funding and ending work participation waivers for TANF recipients.

With both chambers having passed their FY 2025 budget resolutions, the next step is for the House and Senate to negotiate a unified plan. While the timing remains uncertain, significant federal spending cuts are expected—potentially affecting programs like SSBG, TANF and SNAP, which counties help administer. Specific impacts won’t be known until policy details are included in a reconciliation package.