WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 1071

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS-TECH

104th Regular Session Introduced by John Curran

The bill strengthens SNAP by expanding automated data checks and monthly/quarterly reviews to verify eligibility, detect fraud, and remove those inappropriately using benefits.

0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 1071

Summary — SB 1071 (2025): SNAP eligibility verification; EBT fraud detection

Status: Introduced Feb 3, 2025; currently listed Rule 3-9(a) / Re-referred to Assignments (bill versions include Senate and House engrossed texts).

Purpose
- Strengthen verification, data-matching and fraud detection for Arizona’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and tighten controls on electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card use.

Key provisions
1. New statutory section (A.R.S. §46-232) — SNAP eligibility reviews and public reporting
- Data matches:
- Require the Department of Economic Security (DES) to enter a data‑matching agreement with the Department of Revenue to identify households with lottery/gambling winnings of $3,000 or more. Where federal law permits, treat matched winnings as “verified on receipt”; otherwise refer large winnings (at/above the elderly/disabled resource limit per 7 C.F.R. §273.8(b)) for further investigation.
- Regular automated reviews (monthly or quarterly) of state-provided data to identify changes that may affect SNAP eligibility:
- Monthly: information from Department of Health Services; state corrections; out‑of‑state EBT transactions (possible residency changes).
- Quarterly: Industrial Commission (unemployment, wages), Department of Revenue (tax records showing income/wage/residency changes), and DES internal records.
- Federal data checks (monthly) jointly by DHS and DES:
- SSA records (earnings, SSI, death, pension), National Directory of New Hires and federal child‑support data (HHS), HUD payment/earnings data, and FBI fleeing‑felon data.
- Case review requirement: any received information indicating a SNAP recipient’s changed circumstances must trigger a case review.
- Public transparency: DES must post quarterly aggregated statistics (excluding PII) from noncompliance/fraud investigations, including number of investigations, prosecutions referred, improper payments, amounts recovered, percentage of improper payments, and out‑of‑state EBT spending by state.

  1. Amendments to A.R.S. §46-297.01 — EBT card replacements and out‑of‑state spending
    • Replacements: after two replacement-card requests in 12 months DES must send a warning letter; third and subsequent requests trigger a scheduled interview and fraud determination (federal waivers to be sought where needed). Fourth request explicitly requires interview before issuing a new card.
    • Out‑of‑state spending:
      • If more than 10% of an EBT balance is used on out‑of‑state purchases in a six‑month period, schedule an interview to determine fraud.
      • New monthly EBT‑transaction check: identify individuals who made purchases exclusively out‑of‑state over a 90‑day period; contact them within 30 days to verify in‑state residency. If they do not reside in Arizona, remove them within 30 days after contact and refer the case to the appropriate U.S. Attorney within 15 days of removal.

Who is affected
- SNAP recipients in Arizona (especially those with cross‑jurisdictional activity, gambling winnings, incarceration or employment changes)
- Arizona Department of Economic Security, Department of Health Services, Department of Revenue, Department of Corrections, Industrial Commission, EBT vendors
- Arizona Attorney General and federal U.S. Attorney offices (for prosecution referrals)

Procedural/timing elements
- Regular review schedules specified: monthly or quarterly data reviews; quarterly public postings.
- Several actions depend on data‑sharing agreements and potentially required federal waivers (e.g., treating certain external data as “verified on receipt,” fraud‑investigation procedures).
- The bill’s text appears in multiple engrossed versions with some agency-name differences (e.g., references to Department of Gaming or Department of Revenue in earlier drafts); final implementing agreements and federal approvals will determine operational details.

Potential impacts and considerations
- Expected outcome: increased automated detection of potential ineligible recipients and improper payments; increased referrals for prosecution and recoveries.
- Administrative impacts: added workload and IT/data‑integration needs for DES and partner agencies; costs to establish/maintain data‑matching and frequent reviews.
- Privacy and accuracy risks: increased risk of erroneous discontinuances if automated matches are treated as verified without adequate safeguards; need to ensure compliance with federal SNAP rules and data‑sharing/privacy laws.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.