CEEWB: The Future of SNAP
11
New measures of SNAP performance – A balanced and comprehensive assessment of SNAP’s performance and impacts is needed. It would measure not just the accuracy of individual state eligibility decisions but would tell policymakers and the larger public how SNAP has made the lives of individuals and families better. While grounded in consideration of accuracy and timeliness, the program accomplishes so much more: supporting gainful employment, stabilizing family budgets, and improving nutrition and other factors of economic well-being. The intense and nearly exclusive focus on current QC metrics leaves little staff time and capacity – either state or federal – to pay proper attention to these significant and broad impacts. SNAP plays important roles in preventing downstream, “heavy touch” and costlier problems and in strengthening families in multiple other ways, and these outcomes must be given their proper weight. Focusing so much attention on payment accuracy has basically cast these other positive impacts of SNAP into the shadows and undermines public opinion of the program. Of course, accurate benefits must remain important, but a properly balanced assessment approach would place far more emphasis on preventing errors rather than “chasing” them after the fact. Independent analysis – One way to develop and put in place a modernized measurement system would be to have an independent, outside party study SNAP’s QC and integrity procedures, such as was done to resolve QC concerns in the 1980s by the National Academy of Sciences. This analysis should examine which measures are most relevant and useful for evaluating SNAP’s success and how they should be administered. It should focus particularly on what SNAP could learn from how other government programs are measured, how SNAP’s broader impacts can be practically evaluated, and how improvements in administration can best be incentivized. Test alternative success outcomes – There are potentially several ways to evaluate the success of a broader approach within SNAP, such as further documenting progress toward less food insecurity,
toward greater engagement with the workforce, and toward greater overall economic capacity and independence. Demonstration projects testing SNAP as a strong factor in achieving such outcomes should be implemented, with some of the funding and procedures now devoted to output compliance repurposed for these broader and far more impactful goals. Performance incentives – Bonus funding awards to states were enacted with the 2002 farm bill. These modest amounts have proven successful in bringing state attention to important aspects of performance not limited to just payment accuracy, to the benefit of program quality and customer service. Incentive funding for high state performance should be reviewed to determine how past successes can be strengthened and targeted to modern approaches that deliver documented improvements. Healthier food choices – There is a great deal of interest in, and concern about, food choices that SNAP participants make. Many of our members have for years called for greater attention to the major role SNAP plays in the national problems of inadequate nutritional intake, obesity, early-onset diabetes, and other food-based concerns. Several innovative tests of food choice incentives have been held to assess whether wiser and healthier food choices result – including the USDA-funded Healthy Incentives Pilot in Massachusetts, market bucks to reward the purchase of fruits and vegetables, growing numbers of farmer’s market programs and several public-private efforts in Michigan and Minnesota. More such pilots should be carried out on a frequent basis, perhaps coupled with a rigorously evaluated state pilot in one or more areas to test restrictions on unhealthy food purchases such as sugar- sweetened beverages. With appropriate data support, the quality of SNAP recipients’ food choices could become part of a broader evaluation of successful program outcomes. Interim improvements to the existing QC system – As we examine new and better ways to evaluate SNAP, the current Quality Control system stands in serious need of significant improvement. For example, far too much confusion exists around what QC procedures are permissible and how a long list of
Made with FlippingBook Annual report