SNAP Payment Accuracy: Strategies for Reducing Payment Error Rate

In the coming year, states and territories may face significant financial pressure from the Payment Error Rate (PER) cost share mandate included in HR1. One estimate suggests two-thirds of states could face an additional $100 million annually in SNAP program costs if PER is not reduced below 6%. The National Governors Association hosted a conversation with US Digital Response (USDR) to walk through recent research highlighting actionable strategies that states and territories can take to reduce their PERs.

USDR presented findings from six months of pro bono technical assistance provided to Arizona, Maryland, and North Carolina, focused on identifying realistic, high-impact interventions to improve SNAP payment accuracy. Their approach combined qualitative interviews with staff across policy, IT, and data systems, caseworker shadowing, data analysis of quality control (QC) findings, and policy and manual review. USDR also released a companion playbook with deeper detail on all recommendations.

USDR's presentation can be viewed here and a recording is available here. Please contact the NGA Children & Families team for the recording password.

Speakers:

• Maria Reyes-Gaskin, Product Technologist-in-Residence, U.S. Digital Response
• Naveen Eluthesen, Software Engineer, U.S. Digital Response
• Dylan Vrosh, Design and Research Lead, U.S. Digital Response

Common Causes of Payment Errors

Across all three states, USDR found that the majority of payment errors stem from system-wide challenges rather than individual caseworker mistakes or knowledge gaps. Key drivers included:

• Hard-to-use eligibility systems that make it easy to miss verification documents
• Client notices written in jargon and acronyms that make it difficult for clients to know what to report
• Policy changes that are not communicated clearly or tested with frontline staff before rollout
• High productivity expectations for caseworkers that can conflict with case quality

Recommended Strategies

Prioritize Processing Change Reports:

• Prioritize processing stalled client-change reports, and tag change reports clearly so caseworkers can easily identify what has changed, as unprocessed client-reported changes (like reported changes to income or household size) can often account for a significant portion of a state's PER

Pre-Authorization Quality Assurance (QA Teams):

• Build teams that take a second look at cases before a determination is made, as PER depends on proactive prevention, rather than correction
• Be selective about which cases receive the review, using programmatic risk-flagging to identify high-error-risk cases, to minimize impact on timeliness and manage worker caseload

In-System Error Risk Flagging:

• Build a prompt into the eligibility system that surfaces high-risk case elements to caseworkers just before benefits are authorized, like a pop-up for caseworkers that calls out potential errors or high-risk categories

Improve Eligibility System Usability:

• Allow caseworkers to view verification documents side-by-side with data entry fields, surfacing time-sensitive income tasks, and automating manual income calculations, as wages and salaries represent the largest income error category across states
• Avoid responding to income errors by implementing stricter verification policies, as this tends to increase timeliness problems, worker burden, and client burden - and can itself introduce new errors when major policy changes are rolled out

Strengthen Cross-Team Feedback Loops:

• Break down siloes across policy, IT, and frontline operations to catch and correct recurring errors through peer learning sessions, plain-language policy rollout communications, and leadership visits to work side-by-side with caseworkers

Redesign Key Client-Facing Notices:

• Redesign core forms, starting with the Request for Information and Change Report forms, using plain language principles to mitigate client confusion that causes unnecessary errors

Create Proxy Measures of Success:

• Track a set proxy metrics alongside PER to monitor whether systems changes are having an impact on program integrity, to guard against PER assessment delays and lag

This summary was developed by Jessica Kirchner, Senior Policy Analyst for the Children & Families team.