Policy & Practice | Spring 2026

A technology-based accuracy support solution eases that burden by acting as an always‑on assis tant. It can summarize interviews instantly, creating a digital record for downstream reference. It can continu ously compare entered data against verification documents, flagging inconsistencies in real time. It can even present curated policy guidance to eli gibility staff when needed. Above all, these technology solu tions do not make eligibility decisions. They surface risks and inconsistencies, but a human still applies judgment and makes the final determination. Technology does the “hunting and pecking” through case data so staff can focus on interviews, data corrections, and decision making. This model reinforces professional confidence. When staff issues benefits, they can do so knowing that incon sistencies have been checked and the policy has been applied correctly. Improving the Employee Experience Accuracy is often discussed in terms of compliance, but it has equally sig nificant implications for workforce sustainability. strength rather than a compliance burden. When eligibility professionals are supported and empowered, when processes are informed by real‑time insight, and when technology is designed to augment rather than replace human judgment, accuracy becomes a shared

Why Accuracy Is Central to the Human Services Mission When states administer federally funded benefits, they serve as the front door to essential support. Accuracy in eligibility determinations directly affects three fundamental outcomes: eligible households receive the correct benefit based on their level of need, public funds are spent responsibly as intended, and rework and appeals are reduced through more efficient program workflows. Getting decisions right the first time means fewer interruptions for families, fewer downstream corrections for agencies, and more substantial confi dence in program integrity. Federal oversight has increasingly mirrored this reality. Program‑specific quality control measures and broader payment integrity frameworks are placing greater emphasis on preventing errors upstream—before benefits are issued—rather than identifying them after. Moreover, with recent policy changes in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that intro duce increased benefit cost-sharing tied to accuracy, the stakes for states have never been higher. The Limits of a Reactive Quality Control Model Historically, quality control in human services has operated reac tively. Cases selected for review have already been issued benefits, and if an error is found, the case is returned to an eligibility team for correction. By that point, the household has already received the benefit, an appeals process may be underway, and agency staff is absorbing the rework. This model also limits states’ ability to respond quickly. States need to

understand where and how errors occur so they can prevent them earlier in the process. As caseloads grow more complex and policies become more nuanced, reactive review alone is no longer sufficient. Accuracy must move upstream, closer to the decision point, where corrections are least disruptive and most effective. Understanding the Real Sources of Errors Public conversation about errors in human services programs often jumps quickly to assumptions of deliberate misuse of funds. In practice, most inac curacies have different origins. Eligibility determinations today involve many policy rules, multiple data sources, and eligibility support documentation in different formats. A single case may be touched by several people across its life cycle. A slight inconsistency in data that’s missed early can compound as the case moves forward. Root‑cause analysis frequently reveals that errors stem from cross‑document mismatches, incomplete informa tion, or gaps between what is reported verbally and what appears in submitted documentation. These are challenges of process complexity, not intent. Technology plays a crucial role here. Not to assign blame, but more important, to surface inconsistencies early enough for correction, when they still can be addressed quickly, fairly, and with minimal disruption for both families and agencies. Technology as an “Always‑On” Partner for Staff Staffing and training remain essen tial. But neither alone can solve today’s accuracy challenges. SNAP eligibility workers across the country make tens of thousands of decisions each day. They reconcile multiple documents, interpret house hold circumstances, check information against policies, and enter data into eligibility systems that ultimately calculate benefit amounts based on the manual input, not the source docu ments themselves.

David Crowson is the Vice President of Business Solutions for Maximus.

Policy & Practice Spring 2026 20