More than 32,000 Kansans have dropped from the state’s food-assistance rolls since last summer, an accelerating decline that anti-hunger advocates say is putting thousands of families at risk.
Nearly 7,000 Kansans lost Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits in the most recent month alone, according to Kansas Appleseed. Since July 2025, more than 14,000 Kansas children have also lost benefits.
Some of the decline was expected. H.R. 1, the sweeping federal legislation signed by President Donald Trump in July 2025, expanded SNAP work requirements to include thousands of additional adults.
But advocates say something else may also be happening: People who remain eligible for SNAP may be losing benefits because they don’t understand the new requirements, didn’t receive notices, couldn’t complete recertification or encountered processing delays.
“We’re concerned about reports of families losing benefits simply because they were never notified about the steps needed to keep them,” said Josh Powers, public policy and advocacy strategist for Harvesters.
How the Federal Work Requirement Works
SNAP has more than one set of work rules, but the one significantly expanded by H.R. 1 applies to people the federal government calls “able-bodied adults without dependents,” or ABAWDs.
People subject to the ABAWD rule generally must work or participate in qualifying work activities for at least 80 hours per month — roughly 20 hours per week — to continue receiving SNAP without being subject to a time limit.
The 80 hours don’t all have to come from a paying job. They can include paid employment, qualifying volunteer work, certain job-training or employment programs, or a combination of those activities. For example, someone working 10 hours a week could potentially combine those hours with 10 hours of qualifying training or another approved activity.
Failing to meet the requirement can have serious consequences. An ABAWD who doesn’t meet the work requirement and doesn’t qualify for an exemption generally can receive SNAP for only three months during a 36-month period.
However, not everyone has to meet the ABAWD work requirement. Exemptions include certain people who are pregnant, unable to work because of a physical or mental limitation, or living with a child under age 14. Other exemptions and circumstances can also apply.
So, for example, a parent living with a 9-year-old doesn’t have to work 20 hours a week simply to avoid the ABAWD time limit.
What H.R. 1 Changed
The 20-hour work requirement isn’t new. What changed is who has to meet it.
Before H.R. 1, the ABAWD time limit generally applied to adults through age 54. The new law raised that age to 64, bringing many adults ages 55 through 64 under the work requirement for the first time.
The law also narrowed the exemption for adults living with children. Previously, living with a child under 18 generally provided an exemption from the ABAWD time limit. H.R. 1 lowered that age to under 14.
That means a parent whose youngest child is 15 may now have to meet the work requirement to avoid the three-month time limit.
H.R. 1 also eliminated special exemptions for veterans, people experiencing homelessness and certain former foster youth under age 24. Those individuals previously could receive SNAP without meeting the ABAWD work requirement. Now they may have to meet it unless they qualify for another exemption.
Kansas DCF estimated that about 10,284 Kansans could be affected by lowering the child exemption from under 18 to under 14. Another 2,800 could be affected by extending the work requirement through age 64, while about 3,760 could be affected by eliminating the exemptions for veterans, people experiencing homelessness and certain former foster youth.
Kansas Has a Separate 30-Hour Rule
Here’s where things get more complicated.
The federal ABAWD rule generally requires 20 hours per week of work or qualifying activities to avoid the federal SNAP time limit.
Kansas also operates a separate mandatory SNAP Employment and Training program, or E&T, for certain recipients.
Kansas DCF says certain SNAP recipients without dependents who aren’t working at least 30 hours per week can be required to participate in E&T.
The program isn’t a 30-hour class someone takes and completes. Participants can be assigned ongoing employment-related activities, such as job-search assistance and training, GED or high school completion, career and technical education or other activities intended to help them obtain or maintain employment.
That means the federal 20-hour requirement and Kansas’ 30-hour threshold are different and not the same.
For example, someone working 25 hours per week may be working enough to satisfy the federal ABAWD requirement but could still be required to participate in Kansas’ E&T program because they aren’t working 30 hours.
Parents with dependent children on their SNAP case, however, generally aren’t part of Kansas’ mandatory E&T population simply because they work fewer than 30 hours.
Children Account for a Troubling Share of the Losses
Children aren’t subject to the ABAWD work requirement, yet they account for a striking share of Kansas’ SNAP decline.
Earlier analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found children accounted for nearly half of Kansans who had left SNAP by April. Kansas Appleseed now says more than 14,000 children have lost benefits since July 2025.
Advocates say increased paperwork and administrative problems may be contributing. Families have reported delayed benefits, difficulty completing recertifications and benefits ending unexpectedly.
“The paperwork requirements appear to be overwhelming not only for our neighbors who are struggling to feed their families, but DCF as well,” said Haley Kottler, senior campaign director for Kansas Appleseed.
Advocates are urging DCF to address processing delays, improve notification and help eligible Kansans comply with the new rules.
The rapidly falling enrollment also leaves an important question for state officials: How many of the 32,000 Kansans who have left SNAP actually became ineligible — and how many remain eligible but lost their benefits because they didn’t understand the new requirements or got caught in administrative red tape?
