Search

The article discusses the errors and fraud in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) of the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) focusing on the modification of state involvement in the quality control system.

The article discusses six data matches which have been mandated as part of the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These include the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, National Directory of New Hires, the Social Security Administration Prisoner Verification System, and the Social Security Administration Dean Master File.

The article discusses the difference between agency and recipient errors and recipient fraud in the U.S. Topics include the estimation of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) overpayment rate on the extent of all overpayments and the absence of a single standard measurement that quantifies agency and recipient errors and recipient fraud. Also presented are the calculations on the extent of the fraud and errors.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the nation's largest domestic food assistance program, serving about 42.2 million recipients in an average month at a federal cost of over $68 billion in FY2017. SNAP is jointly administered by the state agencies, which handle most recipient functions, and the federal government--specifically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS)--which supports and oversees the states and handles most retailer functions. In a program with so many diverse stakeholders, detecting, preventing, and addressing errors and fraud is complex. SNAP has typically been reauthorized in a farm bill approximately every five years; this occurred most recently in 2014 (P.L. 113-79). Policymakers have long been interested in reducing fraud and improving payment accuracy in the program. Provisions related to these goals have been included in past farm bill reauthorizations and may be considered for the next farm bill, expected in 2018. There are four main types of inaccuracy and misconduct in SNAP: • Trafficking SNAP benefits is the illicit sale of SNAP benefits, which can involve both retailers and recipients. • Retailer application fraud generally involves an illicit attempt by a store owner to participate in SNAP when the store or owner is not eligible. • Errors and fraud by households applying for SNAP benefits can result in improper payments. Errors are unintentional, while fraud is the intentional violation of program rules. • Errors and fraud by state agencies--agency errors can result in inadvertent improper payments; the discussion of agency fraud largely focuses on certain states' Quality Control (QC) misconduct. Certain key ideas are fundamental to any discussion of SNAP errors and fraud: • Errors are not the same as fraud. Fraud is intentional activity that breaks federal and/or state laws, while errors can be the result of unintentional mistakes. Certain acts, such as trafficking SNAP benefits, are always considered fraud; other acts, such as duplicate enrollment, may be the result of either error or fraud depending on the circumstances of the case. • SNAP fraud is rare, according to all available data and reports. • There is no single measure that reflects all the forms of fraud in SNAP. There are some frequently cited measures that capture some part of the issue, and there are relevant data from federal and state agencies' enforcement efforts. The most frequently cited measure of fraud is the national retailer trafficking rate, which, most recently, estimated that 1.50% of SNAP benefits redeemed from FY2012-FY2014 were trafficked. While the national retailer trafficking rate (which is issued roughly every three years) estimates the extent of retailer trafficking, there is not a standard recipient trafficking rate, nor is there an overall recipient fraud rate. USDA-FNS is responsible for identifying stores engaged in retailer trafficking--using transaction data analysis, undercover investigations, and other tools--and punishing store owners. Retailers found to have trafficked may be subject to permanent disqualification from participation in SNAP, fines, and other penalties. USDA-FNS also works to identify fraud by retailers applying to accept SNAP benefits. Retailers found to have falsified their applications may be subject to denial, permanent disqualification, and other penalties. While retailer trafficking and retailer application fraud are primarily pursued by a single federal entity (USDA-FNS), recipient violations (i.e., recipient trafficking and recipient application fraud) are pursued by 53 different state agencies. Recipients found to have trafficked may be required to repay the amount trafficked and may be subject to disqualification from receiving SNAP benefits and other penalties. State agencies' efforts to reduce and punish recipient fraud vary, which is evident, for instance, in state- submitted data on recipient disqualification activities. The national payment error rate (NPER) is the most-often cited measure of nationwide payment accuracy. Using USDA-FNS's Quality Control (QC) system, the NPER estimates states' accuracy in determining eligibility and benefit amounts. The NPER has limitations, though; for instance, it only reflects errors above a threshold amount ($38 in FY2017). In FY2014, it was estimated that 3.66% of SNAP benefit issuance was improper--including a 2.96% overpayment rate and a 0.69% underpayment rate. Regardless of the cause of an overpayment, SNAP agencies are required to work toward recovering excess benefits from households that were overpaid (this is referred to as "establishing a claim against a household"). In FY2014, according to USDA-FNS's FY2014 State Activity Report and Annual Quality Control Report, an estimated $2.1 billion in benefits were overpaid, an estimated $500 million in benefits were underpaid, and about $575 million in claims were established by states to recover overpayments. USDA-FNS identified data quality issues that prevented the publication of an NPER in FY2015 and FY2016, but USDAFNS expects to publish an NPER for FY2017 in June 2018. Overpayments and underpayments to households can be the result of recipient errors, recipient fraud, or agency errors during the certification process. State agencies rely on household-provided information in applications, but also employ a range of data matches--some required by federal law, some optional that vary by state--to promote and double-check information. According to the USDA-FNS FY2016 State Activity Report, of states' established claims for overpayment, approximately 62% of overpayment claim dollars were for recipient errors, about 28% were for agency errors, and about 11% were due to recipient fraud. In addition to inadvertent agency errors, state agencies and their agents have been involved in isolated instances of fraud. Beyond cases of fraud conducted by state agency employees for personal gain, in FY2017 the Department of Justice obtained False Claim Act settlements from three state agencies accused of falsifying their Quality Control data and unlawfully obtaining federal bonuses. Investigations into this matter, conducted by the USDA Office of the Inspector General (USDA-OIG), are ongoing. Across all types of fraud, oversight entities such as the Government Accountability Office and USDA-OIG have identified issues and strategies relevant to combating errors and fraud in SNAP. USDA-FNS has also proposed related regulatory changes that were not finalized. On the retailer side, issues identified focus on opportunities to prevent and more promptly punish trafficking. On the recipient side, issues identified include the nonexistence of a recipient fraud rate, states varied levels of anti-fraud effort (which may be better incentivized), and improvements to data matching in the application process. Changes that strengthen payment accuracy and punishments against fraud can be in tension with other policy objectives such as preserving recipient access to the program, and may have unintended consequences such as incurring costs greater than their savings. Balancing program objectives such as these are considerations for policymakers in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC) which aims to detect and prevent duplicate enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It mentions that NAC was funded by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Partnership for Program Integrity and Innovation from April 2013 until May 2015. It notes that some state agencies detect duplicate enrollment through exchanging enrollment data with neighboring states.

The article focuses on state agency falsification of quality control data in the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It states that at least three state agencies are engaged in fraud related to quality control data falsification since 2008, according to the Department of Justice. It also mentions that several states are still under investigation for fraud, according to Ann M. Coffey of the Department of Agriculture-Office of Inspector General.

The article discusses false claims by U.S. state agencies regarding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) quality control (QC) data and state payment error rates. It states that the QC process begins with state agency analyses which determine state payment error rates, which the Department of Agriculture-Food and Nutrition Service to develop the SNAP national payment errot rate.

The article outlines the penalties associated with recipient fraud in the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as of March 2018. These include the restitution of benefits defrauded, disqualication from any federal, stat or local means-tested public assistance program, and criminal charges and penalties.

The article discusses the retailer trafficking and its extent in the U.S. Topics include the publication of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service on the annual report over the yearly administrative activities of the retailers who took part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the prevalence of retailer trafficking and the effect of the increased program participation rate of the smaller stores on retailer trafficking.

The article discusses the challenges encountered by Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in recovering overpayments from poor and near-poor households of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It outlines the report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) which shows the percentage of overpayments established and collected as shares of estimated dollars overissued in fiscal year 2005 to 2014.

The article outlines the proposed changes to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules to augment the monetary penalties against trafficking retailers. These include increasing transfer of ownership civil money penalties, and creating additional civil money penalties. It states that these penalties coan discourage retailers from engaging in trafficking and help recoup federal funds lost to fraud.

The article discusses the proposal of the U.S. Food and Nutrition Service to implement statutorily mandated data matches to verify household application information in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It mentions that the implementation of data matches may require large upfront investments and ongoing costs to state agencies. It notes the audit to five states compliance with federal requirements and determined that all five were improperly handling the mandatory data match.

The article focuses on the certain store owners who remain active in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) despite permanent disqualification for trafficking due to a longstanding U.S. Department of Agriculture-Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) policy. It states that USDA-Office of the Inspector General proposed for a change to SNAP regulations and USDA-FNS policy to permanent disqualify all stores associated with an owner of a store that is permanently disqualified.

The article discusses the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) of the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that contain provisions addressing shortcomings in existing retailer application regulations. The proposed changes include retailers failed to report changes in ownership, disqualified Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients applying to become SNAP authorized retailers and illegal retailer-to-retailer transfers of SNAP authorization.

The article discusses the utilization of Interstate Identification Index of the National Crime Information Center by the Food and Nutrition Service of U.S. Department of Agriculture to perform background checks on retailers applying to participate in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The article offers information on the verification and use of Social Security Numbers (SSNs) of the retailers in reviewing retailer fraud in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) of the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It mentions the recommendation of the Office of Inspector General of the USDA to use other methods to verify applicant retailer information such as the memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with state licensing agencies.

The article discusses the different burdens of proof for retailer and recipient trafficking wherein a state agency must meet a higher level of burden of proof to disqualify a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipient for fraud.

The article discusses the implementation of photographs on electronic benefits transfer (EBT) system of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) household members. It mentions that EBT cards are issued to households wherein they can appoint authorized representatives to use their EBT cards to shop on the households' behalf. It notes that the implementation of photo EBT requires upfront and ongoing costs to the state and federal government.

The article discusses the implementation of several provisions from the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to enhance the stocking standards for retailers under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The article outlines the ways in which U.S. state agencies detect recipient fraud in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as of March 2018. These include through an analysis of electronic transaction data, undercover investigations, and multiple card replacement. Other means include state law enforcement bureau agreements between state agencies and law enforcement entities, tips and referrals, and data matching.

The article focuses on the claims threshold, the minimum dollar value of overpayments that must be collected by U.S. state agencies in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The article outlines the penalties associated with retailer trafficking in the U.S. as of March 2018. These include disqualification from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), disqualification from participation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and restitution of benefits trafficked.

The article discusses the quality control (QC) system of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the U.S. It highlights the significance of the quality control (QC) system in assessing the SNAP improper payments. Also mentioned are the establishment of the system by the Food Stamp Act of 1977 and the development of the national payment error rate (NPER).

The article discusses the way retailers can be a source of fraud in the application process for the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Topics mentioned include the move of retailers to misrepresent and circumvent disqualification in the application, requirements for them to get SNAP authorization, and the engagement in the sale of transfer of store ownership to a relative.

An introduction is presented in which the authors discuss the fraud and errors in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program which serves as the U.S. domestic assistance program.

The article discusses errors and fraud in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) of the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Topics discussed include the establishment of federal incentives to conduct pre-certification investigations and difficulties in collecting amounts overpaid to or trafficked by recipients.

The article focuses on the strategies employed by the U.S. Food and Nutrition Service, the Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General, the Governmental Accountability Office and other stakeholders to combat errors and fraud in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The article discusses the errors and fraud in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) of the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The article focuses on the detection of U.S. agency errors in the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by ongoing, independent process improvements, supervisory case review, process improvements and recipients.

The article notes that errors that occur during the process of evaluating an application for the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) certification can result in underissuance or overissuance of SNAP benefits.

The article discusses the plan of the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to launch the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Fraud Framework in fiscal year 2018 to prevent fraud.

The article discusses the report from the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Agriculture which shows that the Food and Nutrition Service required an increase requirements for high-risk stores that will participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The article discusses the changes in electronic benefits transfers (EBT) transaction processing, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Food and Nutrition Service uses to detect retailer trafficking activity in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, since 2014.

The article focuses on the national payment error rate in the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for fiscal year 2015-2016.

The article discusses false claims by U.S. state agencies regarding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) quality control (QC) data and state payment error rates.

The article outlines several ways in which U.S. state agencies detect recipient fraud in the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These include an analysis of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) transaction data, the use of social media and online commerce websites by individuals attempting to traffic SNAP benefits, and undercover investigations.

The article discusses the way a household commits an error in the application to receive or recertifies Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in the U.S. which include misundertanding SNAP rules, providing incorrect information, and miscalculating benefit.

The article focuses on the emergence of fraud and error in the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program when determining eligibility of recipients and their benefit amounts.

The article reports on the role of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service on the administration of the retailer side of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program including retailer fraud.

The article discusses the concept of trafficking of the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits by retailers and recipient which involves the direct of exchange of the benefits, such as food stamps, for cash, controlled substances, or explosives.

The article mentions the extent of the fraud and errors of the federal agencies in the U.S.

The article offers information on the state agency employee fraud in the U.S. which is the deliberate effort of the employees of the state to unlawfully take advantage of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) overpayments.

The article discusses the fraud of state agency and their agents in the provision of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to recipients in the U.S. which affects the program's integrity.

The article focuses on the errors of a state agency in the provision of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to recipients in the U.S.

The article discusses the way a recipient of the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits can commit fraud in the initial application and recertification process.

An introduction is presented in which the authors discuss the types of fraud and errors in the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program which are committed by retailers, recipients, and state agencies.