National Accuracy Clearinghouse (NAC) Evaluation | Final Report
October 2015
6
3. How does the NAC compare to the use of PARIS?
4. What is the NAC’s return on investment?
Impact on Dual Participation. Comparisons of dual participation prevalence before and after the pilot
show a reduction occurred in all five pilot states, but with large variations in magnitude. Alabama and
Mississippi have had the largest declines (81 percent); Louisiana has also had a significant reduction (71
percent) in dual participation. Florida and Georgia have experienced a (relatively) small reduction (27
percent).
Effectiveness in Utilization of the NAC. The ability of pilot states to utilize NAC data to prevent dual
participation from occurring has varied greatly. Alabama and Mississippi’s prevention efforts have been
extremely successful, with consistently less than 10 percent of possible instances resulting in dual
participation. These percentages translate into the reductions in prevalence the states have realized.
While Louisiana’s efforts have not been as consistent, less than 20 percent of matches on average turn
into dual participation. Georgia and Florida have had lower levels of success at preventing dual
participation with 30 – 45 percent of matches resulting in dual participation.
Comparison of NAC and PARIS. The Public Assistance Reporting and Information System (PARIS)
presents states with some tools to reduce SNAP dual participation; however, the NAC is a more robust
and effective means for curbing SNAP dual participation. The advantages and limitation of PARIS were
identified by PCG as a part of site visits that occurred during the pre-pilot phase and are also documented
in previous reports by the General Accounting Office and Health Systems Research, Inc.
Specifically, the
NAC surpasses PARIS in the capacity to support the prevention of dual participation, supports constructive
interstate communication, allows for easier identification of “false positives,” and identifies individuals
that would not be flagged by matching only on Social Security Numbers.
Return on Investment. The net impact of the NAC during the pilot phase totaled approximately $5.6
million in SNAP overpayment avoidance (100% federal dollars). This estimate is conservative, as it only
focuses on the impact of prevention of dual participation and not the early detection of dual participation
that the NAC can also support. In addition, the estimate assumes that an individual will remain eligible in
one of the two states involved, and the calculation uses only matches that are almost certain to represent
actual dual participation. Most importantly, the estimate reflects the business processes that were in
place during the pilot. As states modify their approaches and improve system integration, the degree that
they are able to stop dual participation before it begins is expected to increase. Estimates of the savings
realized if the NAC were implemented nationwide average more than $114 million annually – less than
two-tenths of one percent of total SNAP benefits issued annually, but a significant amount nonetheless.
Recommendations
The five NAC pilot states have implemented the tool in significantly differently ways, and have realized
different levels of success. Those that have achieved superior outcomes provide a set of best practices
that should be considered as use of the NAC continues in the current states and as expansion beyond the
pilot is explored. Furthermore, the pilot states have learned lessons that should be heeded by any state–
current or future–intending to use the NAC. The best practices, lessons learned, and opportunities for
improvement may be identified under three general categories: technical recommendations, business
processes, and staff utilization.
GAO-01-935, “PARIS Project Can Help States Reduce Improper Benefit Payments.” September 2001; and “Evaluation to Determine the
Effectiveness of the Public Assistance Reporting and Information System Final Report.” Health Systems Research, Inc., June 30, 2007.