CEEWB: The Future of SNAP

12

Fraud – It is critical that initiatives designed to prevent fraud at application and before approval be explored and implemented in order to ensure truly eligible people are receiving benefits thereby preserving the integrity of the program.  Identity theft is a seriously increasing problem, especially within the federal and state benefits levels, and it is imperative this program implement safeguards appropriate to current day circumstances.  Trafficking, or the improper redemption of SNAP benefits for the acquisition of nonfood items, has also been and continues to be of great concern to policymakers, states, and the public since it represents unlawful activity as well as public funds not utilized for their intended purpose. Program integrity could be enhanced through additional resources to monitor and control trafficking. Some of those resources are already available in the states. States have historically been responsible for investigating and responding to fraudulent acts of recipients (in cases of benefit misuse, by filing claims and carrying out disqualifications) while FNS has taken responsibility for SNAP retailer activity. However, certain states have the ability and have shown the will to take direct action against retailers abusing the program and to take more decisive action against recipients misusing their benefits. States should be allowed to step up their efforts and should receive appropriately enhanced support from FNS for doing so. Identity theft has emerged as a rapidly growing concern that needs greater attention. The federal

technical issues should be interpreted and resolved. There are regional variations in guidance and training provided by FNS; a range of interpretations about the meaning of FNS manual material; different rulings by FNS on the same issue over time; and citation as violations of practices that have been frequently approved in the recent past. Better and more consistent training and communication; simpler and more straightforward procedural rules; fewer variations in interpretation; and simplified procedures for sampling, completion, and submittal of findings for reviewed cases are among the urgent improvements needed at once. Re-examine the QC error threshold – SNAP formerly had a very sensible tolerance level of $50 in budget changes before an error was cited, but the 2014 farm bill lowered that figure. Minor variations in circumstances should not be included in eligibility factors and their associated QC reviews. A fresh examination of a proper threshold amount, with a focus on the return on investment of “chasing” small errors, should be an immediate priority. Re-examine the QC requirement for a face-to- face interview – Although there are waivers available for telephone and video conferencing interviews for some cases, the face-to-face interview is still required for many others. A great deal of time and cost goes into meeting this requirement with limited benefit. Also, the face- to- face interview is not being conducted by FNS in their National Error Rate Review Project for FFY 2016, which is being used to determine the National SNAP-QC error rate.