Enhancing SNAP Quality Control 

Completion Rates

Final Report

U.S. Department of Agriculture | Food and Nutrition Service | Office of Policy Support | January 2016
USDA is an Equal Opportunity Provider
Enhancing SNAP Quality Control

Completion Rates

Final Report

January 2016

Authors

Brittany McGill

Betsy Thorn

Carole Trippe

Chrystine Tadler

Meg Tucker

Submitted to

Food and Nutrition Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

3101 Park Center Drive

Alexandria, VA 22302

Project Officer

Bob Dalrymple

Submitted by

Insight Policy Research, Inc.

1901 North Moore Street

Suite 1100

Arlington, VA 22209

Executive Project Director

Stéphane Baldi
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates

This report was prepared by Insight Policy Research, Inc., under Contract No. AG‐3198‐C‐12‐0021 with

the Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.  

Suggested Citation  

McGill, B., Thorn, B., Trippe, C., Tadler, C., & Tucker, M. (2016). Enhancing SNAP Quality Control

completion rates. Prepared by Insight Policy Research, Inc., for the Food and Nutrition Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture. Alexandria, VA.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates

Acknowledgements

nsight Policy Research, Inc., prepared this report under Contract No. AG‐3198‐C‐12‐0021 with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). The report represents a team effort with

many individuals making key contributions. We gratefully acknowledge their assistance. In particular, we

recognize the sustained contributions of the FNS Project Officer Bob Dalrymple, whose insightful

comments throughout the study and on the interim deliverables greatly improved this research. We also

thank staff from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Quality Control (QC) branch of

the National Office for their invaluable assistance and input over the course of the study. These

individuals include Stephanie Proska, Patrick Lucrezio, Lana Rae Tapia, David Young, Terry Wiggins, Mary

Black‐Finke, and Nick Manthos.

FNS Regional Offices played a critical role in this study, assisting with recruitment of study States,

providing valuable input and feedback, participating in site visits and survey data collection, compiling

State SNAP QC staff information for survey States, and providing SNAP QC case files for re‐reviews. Staff

in the Mid‐Atlantic Regional Office and Southwest Regional Office participated in onsite interviews and

provided support in planning and conducting site visits. Federal SNAP QC reviewers in the remaining five

Regional Offices participated in online surveys.

We thank the State SNAP QC offices, whose cooperation made this report possible. In particular, we

thank the staff in six States—Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania—who

participated in in‐depth data collection for this study, including participating in onsite interviews,

providing support in planning and conducting site visits, and providing administrative case file data.

North Carolina and the District of Columbia participated in pretests of data collection instruments, and

42 other States participated in online surveys.

We are grateful to Carol Olander for her thoughtful review of this report and very helpful comments. We

thank Adam Sage from RTI for recruiting and managing field interviewers for the field re‐reviews and

David Young for providing quality assurance for the field re‐review analyses.  

Finally, many Insight colleagues made key contributions to this report. Anne Peterson provided helpful

advice and quality assurance review throughout the project. We thank Teresa DeAtley, Marisa

Greenberg, Rebekah Myers, and Elaine Wilcox‐Cook for their research assistance. Nicole Huret cleaned

and tabulated the survey results and together with Elaine Ayo produced the maps illustrating QC

completion rates for the 53 SNAP State agencies. Nancy McKenzie edited the report and Kim Kerson

provided graphics and production support.

I
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates    

Contents

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. i

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. i

A. Study Overview................................................................................................................................. i

B. Summary of Findings ....................................................................................................................... ii

C. Recommendations for Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates...................................................... iv

Chapter 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................ 1

A. Background ......................................................................................................................................1

B. Overview of SNAP QC Process......................................................................................................... 4

C. Organization of the Report.............................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 2. Study Methodology ............................................................................................................ 8

A. Data Collection and Analysis............................................................................................................ 8

B. Study Limitations and Considerations ........................................................................................... 13

Chapter 3. State QC Review Process................................................................................................... 15

A. State SNAP QC Review Process...................................................................................................... 15

B. Incomplete Cases........................................................................................................................... 29

C. State SNAP QC Staff ....................................................................................................................... 31

Chapter 4. Federal SNAP QC Review Process...................................................................................... 39

A. Regional Office SNAP QC Review Process...................................................................................... 39

B. Federal SNAP QC Staff ................................................................................................................... 44

Chapter 5. Characteristics of Incomplete Cases .................................................................................. 46

A. Differences in the Characteristics of Complete and Incomplete Cases......................................... 46

B. Potential Effect of Incomplete Cases on the Distribution of Characteristics in the National QC  

Research Database......................................................................................................................... 51

Chapter 6. Findings From QC Re‐Reviews  of Incomplete Cases.......................................................... 53

A. QC Re‐Review Outcomes............................................................................................................... 53

B. Field Interviewer Strategies for Completing Cases Previously Coded as Incomplete ...................56

C. Field Interviewer Challenges That Commonly Prevent Completion of Cases Previously Coded as

Incomplete .....................................................................................................................................61

Chapter 7. Challenges and Recommendations Related to  SNAP QC Review Completion .................... 64

A. Challenges and Recommendations Related to SNAP Certification Process.............................64

B. Challenges and Recommendations Related to SNAP QC Process ............................................ 67

C. Additional Recommendations To Improve the Overall QC Review Process............................76
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates    

Abbreviations and Acronyms............................................................................................................. 79

Glossary of Terms .............................................................................................................................. 80

References......................................................................................................................................... 82

Appendix A. QC Completion Rate for Active Cases by State, 1980 to 2014.........................................A‐1

Appendix B. State Survey Results......................................................................................................B‐1

Appendix C. Regional Office Survey Results....................................................................................... C‐1

Appendix D. Administrative Data Analysis Tables..............................................................................D‐1
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates    

Tables

Table E.1. SNAP QC Study Objectives and Data Collection Activities............................................................ i

Table 1.1. Study Objectives........................................................................................................................... 1

Table 2.1. Summary of Data Collection Sources and Methods by Study Objective ..................................... 8

Table 2.2. State and Regional Survey Response Rates ............................................................................... 10

Table 2.3. Number of SNAP QC Cases Included in Administrative Data Extracts per State,  

FY 2010–FY 2012....................................................................................................................................11

Table 3.1. Comparison of Typical Approaches To Contacting Clients Across Two States ..........................25

Table 5.1. Variables Collected for Complete and Incomplete SNAP QC Cases........................................... 46

Table 5.2. Distribution of Selected Characteristics Among SNAP QC Cases in Five States, Calculated  

With and Without Incomplete Cases, FY 2010–FY 2012 ....................................................................... 52

Table 6.1. Outcomes of Field Interviewer Re‐Reviews............................................................................... 54

Table 6.2. Case and Payment Error Rates for 11 Completed Re‐Reviews.................................................. 55

Table 6.3. Circumstances of Errors Among Completed Re‐Reviews........................................................... 55

Table 6.4. Reasons SQCRs Could Not Complete 11 Re‐Reviews Completed by Field Interviewers............57

Table 6.5. Case Example: Comparison of Contact Strategies Employed by SQCR and Field Interviewer...58

Table 6.6. Case Example: Comparison of Steps Taken To Schedule an Interview......................................60

Table 6.7. Reasons for Incomplete Reviews for Field Interviewers and SQCRs Incomplete ......................61

Table 6.8. Extent of Client Contact for Incomplete Reviews ...................................................................... 62

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates    

Figures

Figure E.1. Overview of the State SNAP QC Review Process........................................................................ ii

Figure 1.1. National Completion Rate for Active SNAP QC Cases for FY 1984 to FY 2014............................2

Figure 1.2. State SNAP QC Completion Rates for Active Cases, FY 2013...................................................... 3

Figure 1.3. National SNAP Payment Error Rate and Percentage of Incomplete SNAP QC Review Cases

Since FY 1983 ...........................................................................................................................................7

Figure 3.1. Overview of the State SNAP QC Review Process...................................................................... 16

Figure 3.2. Length of Time Reviewers Are Given To Complete Reviews by State Completion  

Rate Group.............................................................................................................................................17

Figure 3.3. Percentage of SQCRs That Report Safety Concerns at Least Occasionally Affect Ability To

Contact or Locate a Household by State Completion Rate Group ........................................................ 21

Figure 3.4. Percentage of Reviewers Reporting Various Strategies for Contacting Clients by State

Completion Rate Group......................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 3.5. Percentage of SQCRs Reporting Strong Encouragement for More Than Two Attempts To

Contact a Client by State Completion Rate Group ................................................................................ 23

Figure 3.6. Perceived Frequency of Turning Missed Appointments Into Completed Reviews by State

Completion Rate Group......................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 3.7. SQCR Reported Reasons for Most Recent Incomplete Cases................................................... 29

Figure 3.8. SQCR Perceptions of Change Over Time in Types of Incomplete Cases Among SQCRs  

With at Least 5 Years of Experience With SNAP QC .............................................................................. 30

Figure 3.9. SQCR Perceived Reasons for Increased Difficulty Locating Clients........................................... 30

Figure 3.10. SQCR Perceptions of Change Over Time in the Number of Contact Attempts Necessary  

To Complete a Case Review by State Completion Rate Group Among SQCRs With at Least 5 Years  

of Experience With SNAP QC................................................................................................................. 31

Figure 3.11. SNAP QC Directors’ Perceptions of Change in Number of SQCRs in Previous 5 Years by

State Completion Rate Group............................................................................................................... 32

Figure 3.12. Mean Years of SNAP QC Experience by State Completion Rate Group..................................33

Figure 3.13. Percentage of Managers and Reviewers With Job Duties Outside of SNAP QC by State

Completion Rate Group......................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 3.14. SQCR Perceptions of Change in SNAP QC Caseload Over Time by State Completion Rate

Group Among SQCRs With at Least 5 Years of Experience With SNAP QC ........................................... 35

Figure 3.15. SQCR Perceptions of Change in Training Frequency by State Completion Rate Group Among

SQCRs With at Least 5 Years of Experience With SNAP QC................................................................... 36

Figure 3.16. Percentage of SQCRs Who Received Training From a Third‐Party Contractor by State

Completion Rate Group......................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 3.17. Percentage of Managers Who Monitor Completion Rates by Reviewer................................37

Figure 3.18. Percentage of Managers Reporting Reviewers All Follow the Same Procedures When

Conducting Reviews by State Completion Rate Group ......................................................................... 38
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates    

Figure 4.1. Number of States in a Typical FQCR Caseload.......................................................................... 40

Figure 4.2. Frequency of FQCRs Attempting To Complete Incomplete Cases............................................ 43

Figure 4.3. Federal QC Staff Member Who Conducts Secondary Reviews................................................. 43

Figure 4.4. Percentage of FQCRs’ Work Time Spent on SNAP QC Reviews................................................ 45

Figure 5.1. Percentage of Households With Earned and Unearned Income by Review  

Completion Status .................................................................................................................................47

Figure 5.2. Percentage of Households With Zero Income and Receiving the Maximum Benefit Level  

by Review Completion Status................................................................................................................ 48

Figure 5.3. Percentage of Households With Elderly by Review Completion Status...................................48

Figure 5.4. Age of Household Head by Review Completion Status ............................................................ 49

Figure 5.5. Percentage of Households for Whom the Most Recent Administrative Action Was Initial

Certification by Review Completion Status........................................................................................... 49

Figure 5.6. Mean Number of Months Between Most Recent Administrative Action and Sample  

Month by Review Completion Status.................................................................................................... 50

Figure 5.7. Distribution of Metropolitan Status by Review Completion Status.......................................... 51

Figure 7.1. One State’s SNAP Interview Review Process Flow Chart.......................................................... 76
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates i

Executive Summary

he Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture developed the Quality

Control (QC) process for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 1977 to track and

measure errors in both eligibility and benefit determination for the program. States conduct monthly

reviews of a statistically representative sample of participating households (active cases) and

households for whom participation was denied, terminated, or suspended (negative cases). These

reviews measure the validity of SNAP cases and ultimately serve as the basis for the SNAP payment error

rate. The SNAP QC process also provides FNS with a probability‐based national sample that supports

research on the SNAP population.  

National completion rates for SNAP QC reviews have generally declined since peak levels in the 1980s

and State‐level completion rates vary widely. The purpose of this study is to examine the factors

contributing to incomplete reviews of active cases and to describe best practices associated with high

SNAP QC completion rates. Maximizing these completion rates will enable FNS to minimize bias in the

QC dataset and most accurately estimate the eligibility and benefit errors made by States.

A. Study Overview  

Data collection activities for this study included site visits to 6 States and 2 FNS Regional Offices, online

and telephone surveys of the remaining States and Regions, collection of extant administrative data

from 5 States, and field re‐reviews of 75 incomplete cases from 3 States. Table E.1 outlines the data

collection activities associated with each of the five research objectives of the study.

Table E.1. SNAP QC Study Objectives and Data Collection Activities  

Study Objective Data Source 

1. Describe the process of conducting a QC review at the

State level.

 Site visits to States, including in‐depth interviews with

State Quality Control Reviewers (known as SQCRs) and

QC managers

 Survey of State QC managers and reviewers

2. Describe the process of conducting a QC review at the

regional level.

 Site visits to Regional Offices, including in‐depth

interviews with Federal Quality Control Reviewers

(FQCRs) and QC managers

 Survey of FQCRs

3. Describe the characteristics of incomplete cases as

compared to complete cases, and determine the extent

to which incomplete cases may bias the data in the QC

database.

 Administrative data

4. Determine whether cases are being reviewed and

processed correctly.

 QC field re‐reviews of incomplete cases

5. Describe the challenges and best practices in the QC

review process at the State and Federal levels.

 Site visits to States

 Site visits to Regional Offices

 Survey of State QC managers and reviewers  

 Survey of FQCRs

   

T
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates ii

B. Summary of Findings

1. Variation in the State SNAP QC Review Process by State Completion Rate

The State SNAP QC review process is illustrated in figure E.1. Although the general process is consistent

across States, the details of each step vary.

Figure E.1. Overview of the State SNAP QC Review Process

Key findings regarding the association between SNAP QC review processes and QC completion rates

include the following:1

 Household interviews. QC reviewers in States with high completion rates were more likely to

routinely call clients prior to interviews (either to schedule or confirm appointments) and to

conduct interviews in clients’ homes.  

 Nonresponse follow‐up strategies. Reviewers in States with high completion rates made more

attempts to contact clients, used various means of contact, and identified creative ways to

obtain updated contact information for households. By comparison, State Quality Control

Reviewers (SQCRs) in States with low completion rates were more likely to submit a case as

incomplete because of failure to cooperate, rather than make additional contact attempts.

Similarly, reviewers’ efforts to reach collateral contacts were typically greater in States with high

completion rates.

 Staff workload. Overall workloads of SQCRs in site visit States with low completion rates were

generally higher than in States with high completion rates; these workloads tended to include

other job responsibilities outside of SNAP QC.

                                                            

1 It should be noted that some variations by State completion rate are based on interview data with six States and may not be

generalizable to all States.

QC cases are sampled and assigned to reviewers

SQCR schedules the household interview and prepares for the

interview by reviewing case information and checking electronic

databases

SQCR collects the necessary information through a household

interview and/or collateral contacts. SQCR conducts follow‐up

with nonresponsive clients as needed

SQCR processes the case, including documenting review process

and making error determinations

A second party (or parties) review(s) the case before the review

findings are transmitted to FNS through SNAP QCS
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates iii

 Staff Training. SQCRs in low completion States were more likely than SQCRs in other States to

report their training had decreased or not changed over time. SQCRs in low completion States

were also more likely to receive training from a third‐party contractor.

2. Federal SNAP QC Reviews of Incomplete Cases

FNS’s Regional Offices review all cases that are designated by States as incomplete or not subject to

review (NSTR), plus a subsample of active complete and negative cases, to ensure States are reviewing

cases and applying policy accurately. The Federal review process consists of a desk review, in contrast to

the face‐to‐face interviews and field work conducted during the State reviews. Although FQCRs are

authorized to attempt to complete incomplete cases, such attempts were uncommon. The primary

reasons cited were a lack of time and the absence of any requirement to make the attempts. FQCRs

rarely formally disagreed with State dispositions of cases as incomplete.

3. Characteristics of Incomplete Cases

Analyses of administrative data from five States suggest the following differences in the characteristics

of complete and incomplete cases:2

 Incomplete cases are more likely to have earned income and less likely to have unearned

income.

 Incomplete cases are more likely to include households with zero income and to receive the

maximum benefit level.  

 Incomplete cases include more households headed by individuals younger than 25 and fewer

households with elderly members.

 Incomplete cases are more likely to be newly certified and to have shorter intervals since the

most recent administrative action.

 Incomplete cases are more likely to be in metropolitan areas and less likely to be in micropolitan

areas.3

4. Field Re‐Review Findings

Field interviewers completed 17 percent of cases selected for re‐reviews (11 of 644). These cases had

been designated as incomplete by the State and Region. The 11 re‐reviews were completed despite

additional challenges, including lack of access to government databases for verifications, the voluntary

nature of client participation (e.g., no penalty for noncooperation), longer interim between the sample

month and the time of the re‐review than for SQCRs, and the requirement of a signed client release

prior to all collateral contacts.

                                                            

2 Because the proportion of incomplete cases is relatively small, however, the effect of these differences on estimates of the

characteristics of SNAP cases overall is modest. Effects may be more pronounced for analyses of certain subgroups. 3 A metropolitan (or urban) area includes a population of 50,000 or more. A micropolitan area includes an urban area with a

population of 10,000 to 49,999. All remaining areas are considered rural (U.S. Census, 2013). 4 Six of the original 75 cases were removed from the re‐review caseload because they were under investigation or had been

completed since the Federal review. Five cases were reclassified as NSTR because of changes in household circumstances since

the time of the SQCR review and were removed from additional analyses.   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates iv

Among the 11 completed re‐reviews, 3 contained payment errors, each the result of overissuance. The

case error rate5 for these cases was 27 percent, and the payment error rate6 was 13 percent.

Strategies for completing cases. The following strategies were used by field interviewers to successfully

complete the cases previously designated as incomplete.  

 Establishing verbal contact before scheduling and conducting interviews

 Greater persistence in contacting clients and use of a wider array of contact methods than those

documented by SQCRs, including text messaging, email, and home visits

 Conducting interviews in clients’ homes

 Working directly with collateral contacts to obtain missing documentation (i.e., rather than

relying on the client to obtain and provide the documentation)

C. Recommendations for Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates

Study results suggested the following recommendations for enhancing SNAP QC completion rates and

addressing challenges encountered by State and Federal reviewers.

1. Recommendations for FNS To Enhance SNAP QC Completion Rates

 Expand Federal efforts to complete incomplete cases, including additional efforts by FQCRs to

obtain information from clients or collateral contacts and expanded FQCR access to electronic

databases accessed by States.

 Collect additional data on incomplete cases, including State reporting of information on the

demographic, economic, and administrative characteristics of incomplete QC cases based on

data in State certification systems. Further research would enhance FNS’s understanding of

characteristics and patterns of incomplete cases.

2. Recommendations for Addressing Challenges Encountered During SNAP QC Reviews  

Obtaining household cooperation. Establishing contact with clients and persuading them to come to

scheduled interviews presents a substantial challenge for SQCRs, and many study respondents perceived

this difficulty has increased over time.  

Recommendations to States

 Be persistent and use a variety of contact modes, including text messaging, to increase the

likelihood of successfully reaching clients.  

 Contact clients by phone to schedule and confirm interviews to reduce the likelihood of

missed appointments and lost travel time by reviewers.

 Consider conducting interviews in clients’ homes, in the absence of safety concerns, to

reduce the likelihood of missed appointments and increase access to needed documents.

                                                            

5 The number of completed re‐reviews with errors divided by the total number of completed re‐reviews 6 The total amount of benefits issued in error divided by the total amount of benefits issued in the re‐review cases
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates v

 Consider conducting more interviews by phone for clients successfully reached by phone to

reduce clients’ transportation barriers and reviewers’ time spent traveling to appointments.

 Use home visits to try to reach clients otherwise difficult to locate, in the absence of safety

concerns.

 Enhance the ability to terminate SNAP benefits within the QC review period for

noncooperation to increase the likelihood of completing the QC review before the

submission deadline.

Obtaining enough information to complete a review. Missing or unavailable documentation commonly

prevented case completion. For example, some study respondents reported having limited or no access

to electronic databases that would assist with obtaining information necessary to complete cases.

Insufficient understanding of the circumstances in which “likely conclusion” may be used to complete

cases also inhibits case completion.  

Recommendations to States  

 Expand efforts to use collateral contacts in the absence of client interviews.  

 Expand access to The Work Number or other databases of employment and earnings data.

Recommendation to FNS

 Provide additional guidance to States on the use of likely conclusion.

Amount of time required to complete cases. Limited time and competing priorities presented

challenges to case completion for SQCRs, particularly in States with low completion rates, and for

FQCRs.  

Recommendation to FNS and States

 Reduce SQCR and FQCR workloads, or otherwise allot more time to work on cases, to

increase the level of effort invested per case.  

Recommendation to States

 Use technology to improve the efficiency of State SNAP QC review processes, such as online

workflow management systems, cellphones for SQCRs, and videoconferencing technology

for client interviews.

Potential tradeoffs between case completion and error identification. Incentives to lower State error

rates by coding cases with possible errors as incomplete may outweigh incentives to increase

completion rates. In some States, consultants advised State reviewers to reduce efforts to complete

cases beyond the minimum required and recommended other strategies to avoid errors.7

  

                                                            

7 Anecdotal evidence from some study respondents suggests that cases suspected of error may be systematically designated as

incomplete; if so, the error rate would be an underestimate of the true error.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates vi

Recommendations to FNS

 Clarify guidance in the FNS 310 Handbook, including more explicit guidance on the minimum

expected effort prior to designating a case as incomplete.

 Reevaluate incentives provided to States for low error rates: Revising the system of

incentives for States with low or improving error rates, or alternatively raising the penalties

for incomplete cases, may reduce the disincentive for error identification during the QC

process.  

Recommendation to States

 Prioritize case completion: Strong emphasis by State QC management on QC case

completion, independent of payment accuracy, may play a role in ensuring high completion

rates.  

3. Recommendations for Addressing Challenges Related to the SNAP Certification Process

Statewide efforts to modernize or streamline SNAP application and recertification procedures may have

had unintended consequences for SNAP QC procedures. Challenges related to SNAP certification

processes included the following.  

 Increased use of phone and online application procedures. These changes are thought to

contribute to the high rate of missed appointments for QC interviews by desensitizing clients to

the need for in‐person interviews during the QC process.  

 Reduced familiarity of eligibility workers with individual clients as a result of increased reliance

on phone interactions and case‐banking case management structures. This may have reduced

the likelihood that eligibility workers can assist SQCRs with locating a household, that household

changes or notifications are documented, and that clients have a familiar person to call with

questions about the QC process.  

 Reduced verification of eligibility criteria. These changes may have increased the challenge of

verifying information during the QC process by reducing the documentation available in the case

file.  

 Inadequate awareness of the SNAP QC process among clients and eligibility workers. This is

thought to contribute to noncooperation of clients with QC reviews.

Recommendations to States

 Increase awareness among clients about the SNAP QC process and its requirements.  

 Educate eligibility workers about the SNAP QC process.  

 Train eligibility workers to provide more thorough documentation in the case file, even if

verification from these sources is not required for certification.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 1

Chapter 1. Introduction

his report presents the results of a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service

(FNS) study of factors associated with incomplete case reviews in the Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program’s (SNAP) Quality Control (QC) process. Serving as a critical safety net for the Nation’s

families with low incomes, SNAP provided almost $70 billion in benefits during fiscal year (FY) 2014,

reaching an average of more than 46.5 million Americans each month to help them obtain a healthful

diet (USDA FNS, 2015a). FNS is committed to providing strong stewardship of the public funds used for

SNAP. Given the scope and size of SNAP, it is vitally important that SNAP benefits go to those who meet

the eligibility criteria and benefit amounts are correctly calculated.

The SNAP QC process was developed by FNS in 1977 to track and measure errors in eligibility and

benefit determination. States conduct monthly reviews of a statistically representative sample of

participating households (active cases) and households for whom participation was denied, terminated,

or suspended (negative cases). These reviews measure the validity of SNAP cases and ultimately serve as

the basis for the SNAP payment error rate. The SNAP QC process also provides FNS with a probability‐

based national sample that supports research on the SNAP population. While some national surveys

collect data on individuals participating in SNAP, only the QC database includes the detailed information

collected as part of the program application.  

The purpose of this study is to examine the factors contributing to incomplete active cases and to

describe challenges and best practices associated with SNAP QC completion rates. Minimizing bias in the

QC dataset and most accurately estimating the eligibility and benefit errors made by States requires

completing as many sample cases as possible. In FY 2014, the national completion rate was 91.9

percent. National completion rates for SNAP QC reviews have generally declined since peak levels in the

1980s, while State‐level completion rates vary widely. This study sheds light on the sources of this

variation and strategies that may enhance completion rates while addressing the five research

objectives described in table 1.1.

Table 1.1. Study Objectives

Study Objectives 

1. Describe the process of conducting a QC review at the State level.

2. Describe the process of conducting a QC review at the FNS regional level.

3. Describe the characteristics of incomplete cases as compared to complete cases and determine the extent to which

incomplete cases may bias the data in the QC database.

4. Determine whether cases are being reviewed and processed correctly.

5. Describe the challenges and best practices in the QC review process at the State and Federal levels.

A. Background  

Over the past few decades, the completion rate for reviews of active QC cases has decreased nationally

and remains below the peak levels of 97 percent achieved in FYs 1985 and 1986 (figure 1.1). The rate

declined to about 91 percent in FY 1998, rose slightly for the next 2 years, and then again declined

steadily to a low of less than 90 percent in FY 2006. The completion rate rebounded somewhat to

approximately 93 percent, where it remained between FY 2010 and FY 2013, before declining slightly to

92 percent in FY 2014.  

T
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 2

Figure 1.1. National Completion Rate for Active SNAP QC Cases for FY 1984 to FY 2014

Very little is known about the reasons for the overall decline in the completion rate or the potential for

incomplete cases to bias the estimates of error or household characteristics. A 1986 study by the

Government Accountability Office8 examined the QC processes and reported that both incomplete cases

and those designated as not subject to review (NSTR) were twice as likely to contain errors as complete

cases.  

Completion rates vary even more across States, with some completing nearly 100 percent of cases and

others fewer than 87 percent. Figure 1.2 shows SNAP QC completion rates for active cases in each of the

50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands in FY 2013, grouped approximately

into thirds. Even within States, completion rates vary over time, sometimes slowly and sometimes

fluctuating rapidly. For more information, see appendix A, which shows the active completion rate by

State, arranged by FNS region from FY 1980 through FY 2014.  

   

                                                            

8 At the time it was called the General Accounting Office.

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100

FY

1984

FY

1986

FY

1988

FY

1990

FY

1992

FY

1994

FY

1996

FY

1998

FY

2000

FY

2002

FY

2004

FY

2006

FY

2008

FY

2010

FY

2012

FY

2014

Rate
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 3

Figure 1.2. State SNAP QC Completion Rates for Active Cases, FY 2013

Differences in SNAP caseload or QC sample size, for example, do not appear to drive variation in

completion rates across and within States. Variations in QC review practices at the State level, however,

may play a role. For example, some States may rely more on extant data sources to complete reviews

than others. In 2010, FNS re‐reviewed a sample of incomplete cases and found many of these cases

were classified as incomplete because the household failed or refused to cooperate and the reviewer

did not use other options to complete the review. As a result, the reviewer disagreed with their

designation as incomplete in about 60 percent of the cases (USDA FNS, 2010, p. 11).9  

Incomplete case reviews pose potential problems for SNAP. First, FNS estimates of the SNAP payment

error rate may not be accurate if incomplete cases are systematically different (e.g., more error‐prone)

from complete cases. Second, if incomplete cases are systematically different from complete cases, the

national QC database widely used by FNS and other entities to study the SNAP population may over‐ or

                                                            

9 The FNS 310 Quality Control Review Handbook requires that reviewers attempt to complete the QC review by verifying

information through other sources or by using “likely conclusion.” Many cases in the study sample may have been completed

based on information from third‐party sources. “Likely conclusion” is another option that may be used when a reviewer is

unable to obtain all the necessary information to complete a review but is able to come to a likely conclusion about the

accuracy of the case based on available information.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 4

underrepresent certain types of households. Finally, increases in incomplete cases in turn create burden

for Federal reviewers, who are required to re‐review all incomplete cases.

B. Overview of SNAP QC Process  

1.   SNAP QC Process

The Food Stamp Act of 1977 established the current SNAP QC system, which was designed by FNS to

monitor and measure errors in SNAP eligibility and benefit determination. FNS also uses SNAP

household data generated by the SNAP QC system for an annual report describing the characteristics of

the SNAP population10 and for additional analyses.  

FNS developed the FNS 310 SNAP Quality Control Review Handbook (FNS 310 Handbook) to provide the

requirements and guidance for States to conduct SNAP QC reviews and determine errors. Within each

State, a QC sample is selected each month. State SNAP QC personnel, known as State Quality Control

Reviewers (SQCRs), conduct a review of SNAP cases selected in the sample each month. States must

report the findings of the reviews to FNS within 115 days.

For each active11 case selected for review, SQCRs examine the circumstances of the household during

the QC sample month and the most recent certification month; verify those circumstances based on a

household interview, documentation, and information from collateral contacts; and determine whether

the household’s SNAP eligibility determination and benefit calculation were correct or if any variances

are found. A variance is defined as an “incorrect application of policy and/or a deviation between the

information that was used and the information that should have been used to authorize the sample

month’s issuance” (FNS 310 Handbook, pp. 1–7). If the review findings indicate the household should

have received a SNAP benefit that is at least $3712 more or less than the benefit level determined for the

sample month (including if the review determines the household was ineligible), the case is found to be

in error.

After reviewing a QC case, the SQCR assigns one of three possible disposition codes:

1. Complete: The SQCR was able to verify all information needed to make a determination

regarding eligibility and benefit levels. Complete cases include three outcomes: (1) a correct

case (no variance), (2) a complete case with a variance but no error that exceeds the $37

threshold, or (3) a complete case with a variance and an error.13  

2. NSTR:14 The case should not be included in the QC sample. Examples include oversampled

cases,15 disaster cases, cases pending a hearing or under investigation for intentional program

                                                            

10 The latest report, for 2014, is the latest in an annual series that dates back to 1976.   11 Active cases are those determined eligible to receive SNAP benefits. Negative cases are those determined to be ineligible or

terminated from the program. This study does not address the QC review process for negative SNAP cases. 12 Prior to the 2014 Farm Bill, this threshold was $50. The threshold is $37 as of FY 2014 and will change with adjustments to

the June cost for the four‐person reference family for the Thrifty Food Plan. 13 This would result in an under‐ or overpayment (including findings of ineligibility when the entire allotment is an

overpayment).

14 This study focuses on the factors that contribute to a case being disposed as incomplete and does not address factors related

to NSTR cases. NSTR cases are not included in the QC database used for research purposes or in the calculation of payment

error.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 5

violation, and cases in which all household members have died, are institutionalized, or have

moved out of the State.

3. Incomplete: The SQCR is unable to complete the review. This designation is made when the case

record or household cannot be found, when the household refuses or fails to cooperate with the

review and the SQCR cannot verify the needed information,16 or when the SQCR cannot verify

enough information to reach a likely conclusion about the eligibility and benefit determination

of the case.  

After States submit their reviews to FNS, FNS conducts a Federal re‐review of a subset of SNAP QC cases,

including all cases classified as NSTR or incomplete and a subsample of all complete cases. These re‐

reviews are conducted by Federal Quality Control Reviewers (FQCRs) at FNS’ 7 Regional Offices, with

each Regional Office covering 5‐10 States (see figure I.2). As outlined in the FNS 315 Validation Review

Handbook (FNS 315 Handbook), which covers QC requirements at the Federal level, the purpose of

these re‐reviews is to validate the QC findings of the State agency. The re‐reviews ensure the State—

 Has not biased its reported error rates

 Has complied with FNS requirements concerning sampling, estimation, data management, and

QC review procedures, as outlined in the FNS 310 Handbook and FNS 311 Quality Control

Sampling Handbook (FNS 311 Handbook)

 Has complied with Federal regulations concerning certification processes

 Has accurately determined eligibility and benefit levels of active cases17  

 Has completed all possible reviews

During the Federal re‐reviews, FQCRs in FNS regional offices determine whether the State conducted the

QC review correctly and met all the standards in the FNS 310 Handbook. If the FQCR disagrees with the

State’s disposition of the case, the case may be returned to the State for further review and possible

revisions. If FNS and States disagree on how eligibility and benefits for a particular case should be

determined, the case may be forwarded to the FNS National Office for formal arbitration.

2.   Calculation of SNAP Payment Error Rates From SNAP QC Data  

Based on the final outcomes of the QC reviews, FNS calculates the State‐specific and national error rates

each year. The rates include both the percentage of cases in error (case error rate) and the dollar value

of the errors (payment error rate).  

                                                                                                                                                                                                15 Cases dropped to correct for excessive sampling are required to represent a random subsample of all selected cases

(including those completed, not completed, and not subject to review; USDA FNS, n.d.).   16 The distinction between failure and refusal to cooperate is whether the reviewer can verify that the household was contacted

and was aware the reviewer was seeking the household’s cooperation (FNS 310 Handbook, pp. 4–11). If, for example, a

household agrees to attend an interview with the reviewer but does not show up or follow up with the reviewer within 10 days,

the household may be classified as refusing to cooperate. If a household does not respond to messages left at the household’s

verified address, and the reviewer is unable to ascertain the household received the message, the household may be classified

as failing to cooperate. Both failure and refusal to cooperate are valid reasons for classifying a review as incomplete, but refusal

to cooperate may result in benefit termination.   17 Federal re‐reviews also ensure the State has accurately determined the validity of actions on negative cases; however, this

study focuses only on active cases.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 6

For each State, payment error rates are calculated annually based on the level of overpayments and

underpayments among completed reviews of active cases. For States with less than 98 percent of their

sampled cases completed, an adjustment is made in the error calculation to account for the unknown

error among the incomplete cases.18 The completion rate is factored into this adjustment, such that

penalties increase somewhat as the proportion of completed cases declines.  

The national payment error rate is calculated based on an average of the State error rates, weighted to

account for differences in caseload size. States may be sanctioned by FNS if their payment error rate

exceeds a certain threshold relative to the national average. They may also receive bonuses for low or

improving error rates.

The national payment error rate has declined nearly continuously over the last 3 decades, decreasing

from a high of 12.4 percent in FY 1981 to an all‐time low of 3.2 percent in FY 2013 (figure 1.3). The

payment error rate increased slightly to 3.7 percent in FY 2014. Many factors may have contributed to

the general decline in the payment error rate, including the following:

 Increased emphasis on SNAP QC and the importance of payment accuracy at the State and

national levels

 Administrative changes (e.g., reducing the number of changes households are required to report

between certifications as a result of simplified reporting)

 Legislative changes, such as increases in the payment error threshold (e.g., from $25 to $50 in

the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, resulting in fewer cases considered to be in

error19)

While the SNAP payment error rate has decreased, the percentage of incomplete SNAP QC reviews has

increased (i.e., incompletion rate; figure 1.3). This pattern introduces potential concerns about the

validity of error rate estimates. Although FNS applies a small adjustment to the payment error rates of

States that complete fewer than 98 percent of their case reviews, it is unclear whether the adjustments

sufficiently reduce the potential bias associated with the unknown level of error in these cases. If

incomplete cases are more error‐prone than complete cases, for example, State and national error rates

may be underestimated. As a result, it is critically important for FNS to understand the factors that

contribute to incomplete case reviews and to identify potential means to increase SNAP QC completion

rates.

   

                                                            

18 This adjustment is calculated as follows: 2 x (1 – completion rate) x standard error of State error rate. 19 The 2014 Farm Bill then decreased the threshold to $37, as mentioned above. The $50 tolerance was in effect during FY 2013,

the most recent year for which data were available for this report.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 7

Figure 1.3. National SNAP Payment Error Rate and Percentage of Incomplete SNAP QC Review Cases

Since FY 1983

C. Organization of the Report

This report sheds light on the SNAP QC processes at the State and Federal levels, particularly as they

relate to incomplete cases, and describes challenges and best practices with regard to completing cases.

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the methodology used to conduct the study. Chapters 3 and 4

describe the State and Federal SNAP QC review processes, respectively. Chapter 5 compares the

characteristics of households in complete and incomplete SNAP QC cases and assesses any evidence

that incomplete cases cause bias in the SNAP QC database. Chapter 6 presents results from field re‐

reviews of incomplete SNAP QC cases conducted by the study team and includes a comparison of steps

taken in re‐reviews to those taken by SQCRs. Chapter 7 summarizes the challenges SNAP QC reviewers

face when conducting case reviews and identifies promising practices and recommendations for

enhancing SNAP QC completion rates.  

Four appendices provide additional detail on the study methods and data. Appendix A illustrates the

trend in SNAP QC completion rates over time at the State level. Appendices B and C include detailed

results from the surveys of State and Federal SNAP QC staff, respectively. Appendix D provides detailed

results for the administrative data analysis.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

FY

1984

FY

1986

FY

1988

FY

1990

FY

1992

FY

1994

FY

1996

FY

1998

FY

2000

FY

2002

FY

2004

FY

2006

FY

2008

FY

2010

FY

2012

FY

2014

Rate

Incompletion Rate Payment Error Rate
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 8

Chapter 2. Study Methodology

he goals of this study are to identify factors that contribute to incomplete QC cases and to

recommend ways to increase the completion rates for SNAP QC reviews. This chapter describes the

study’s methods and data sources. Section A describes data collection and analysis, and section B

describes study limitations and considerations.

A. Data Collection and Analysis  

The study used the following four complementary study methods:

1. Site visits to six States and two Regional Offices  

2. Web and phone surveys of the remaining States and Regional Offices  

3. Collection of extant administrative data from five States  

4. Field re‐reviews of 75 recent incomplete cases from three States  

Table 2.1 presents a summary of the data sources used for each of the five research objectives. The

remainder of this section describes the four methodological components: site visits (section 1), surveys

(section 2), administrative data collection (section 3), and field re‐reviews (section 4).

Table 2.1. Summary of Data Collection Sources and Methods by Study Objective

Study Objective Data Source 

1. Describe the process of conducting a QC review at the

State level.

 Site visits to States, including in‐depth interviews with

SQCRs and QC managers

 Survey of State managers and reviewers

2. Describe the process of conducting a QC review at the

regional level.

 Site visits to Regional Offices, including in‐depth

interviews with FQCRs and QC managers

 Survey of FQCRs

3. Describe the characteristics of incomplete cases as

compared to complete cases, and determine the extent

to which incomplete cases may bias the data in the QC

database.

 Administrative data

4. Determine whether cases are being reviewed and

processed correctly.

 QC field re‐reviews of incomplete cases

5. Describe the challenges and best practices in the QC

review process at the State and Federal levels.

 Site visits to States

 Site visits to Regional Offices

 Survey of State QC managers and reviewers  

 Survey of FQCRs

1. Site Visits to States and FNS Regional Offices  

The study team conducted site visits to SNAP QC offices in two FNS Regional Offices and six States to

collect in‐depth information about the State and Federal SNAP QC processes. The study team developed

and revised four semi‐structured interview protocols for these visits, including separate instruments for

FNS regional QC managers, FQCRs, State QC managers, and SQCRs. The study team pretested these

instruments with SNAP QC staff from two States and used the staff’s feedback to make additional

revisions to improve clarity and content in the instruments. The interviews lasted about 1 hour.

T
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 9

Interview topics included staff resources, a description of QC review procedures and tools, reasons for

incomplete cases, challenges and best practices related to QC completion, along with other relevant

staff perceptions and experiences.

FNS Regional Office Site Visits. The study team conducted site visits at the Mid‐Atlantic Regional

Office (MARO) and the Southwest Regional Office (SWRO) in August and September 2013, respectively.

FNS selected MARO because of its relatively higher number of low‐completion States and SWRO

because of its relatively higher number of high‐completion States.

The study team conducted a total of 14 semi‐structured interviews (7 in each Regional Office). During

each site visit, the study team interviewed the QC branch chief, the QC coordinator, and five FQCRs,

which together encompassed nearly the entire SNAP QC staff in the two Regional Offices visited.20 The

study team also conducted a case file review during each visit to gain understanding of the case review

steps for active SNAP QC cases at the regional level, with particular attention to incomplete cases.

During this case file review, an FQCR walked the study team through the steps taken when reviewing a

case, including an overview of the components of the case file, an explanation of the documentation

reviewed during the course of a review, and a description of the process for documenting the Federal

re‐review findings and the procedures for communicating and arbitrating findings with the State

agencies.

State Site Visits. Six states—Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania—were

visited between May and July of 2014. FNS selected three of these States—Iowa, Ohio, and

Pennsylvania—because of their relatively low rates of SNAP QC completion. Mississippi and Oklahoma

were selected because of their relatively high rates of SNAP QC completion, and Kentucky was selected

because of its recently improved completion rate. Because of the geographic dispersion of QC staff

across each State, multiple sites were visited in some States. In other States, QC staff traveled to a

centrally located office where the interviews took place. Within each State, respondents varied by

tenure with SNAP QC and by rural/urban composition of their typical case assignments.

The study team conducted a total of 48 semi‐structured interviews. During each State site visit, the

study team interviewed the SNAP QC director, two QC supervisors, and five SQCRs.21 In addition to the

interviews, the study team conducted a case file review in each State, when State SNAP QC staff walked

the study team through a case file and the steps taken to review an active SNAP QC case, with particular

attention to incomplete cases. For example, the SQCR acquainted the study team with the components

of the case files received from the local SNAP offices, the order of actions taken by the reviewer to

conduct the review, the tools and resources used, how the review findings are documented, and

whether and by whom the case receives a secondary review before submission to FNS. Actions taken

prior to classifying a case as incomplete were emphasized during this discussion.  

Data Analysis. With the permission of each respondent, the study team recorded and transcribed the

interviews.22 The study team analyzed the transcripts and detailed notes using NVivo10 software. The

study team developed the coding scheme in an iterative process during the early stages of site visits and

interviews. Codes were developed to answer research questions by identifying interview text relevant to

                                                            

20 Two FQCRs who were not available in person during the visit participated in a phone interview with the study team following

the site visit. 21 Most interviews were in person during the site visits, but eight were conducted by telephone following the visit because the

respondents were located too far from the site visit location to interview in person.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 10

the research questions. To ensure intercoder reliability, the coding team met regularly during the coding

process to discuss the appropriate use of codes and to develop new codes as necessary. The analysis

included comparisons of States with high completion rates to those with low completion rates to

identify any differences.

2. Surveys of State and Federal SNAP QC Staff

Surveys of State and Federal SNAP QC staff collected information about the SNAP QC process in the

States and regions that did not participate in site visits. The surveys gathered information on the same

topic areas covered during the site visits but in a closed‐ended questionnaire format suitable for a Web

survey (e.g., as compared to the open‐ended semi‐structured format of interview instruments). The

surveys provided respondents an opportunity to offer additional input about the SNAP QC review

process in a comment field at the end of the survey. Verbatim responses in this field were reviewed and

analyzed in conjunction with the survey and interview data from the same respondent groups.

The two State instruments, a manager survey and an SQCR survey, captured similar information, with

some variations in questions to reflect different job duties (e.g., questions about supervision of staff in

the manager survey, detailed questions about reviewer procedures in the SQCR survey). The study team

developed and pretested these instruments with staff from two States, in combination with interview

instrument pretests described above. The instrument for the FQCR survey contained similar questions as

the SQCR survey, with the focus on the Federal process rather than the State process. The survey

administration time was approximately 30 minutes per respondent for all three surveys, and the

instruments were reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and an institutional review board.

All Regional and State QC staff were asked to respond to the surveys; no sampling was performed. The

surveys were conducted online with telephone follow‐up for SNAP QC staff in 42 States, including Guam

and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 5 Regional Offices.23 Data collection began in July 2014 and ended 5

weeks later. The State survey achieved a 90‐percent response rate24 and the Regional Office survey

achieved a 97‐percent response rate (table 2.2). Detailed results from these analyses appear in appendix

B.

Table 2.2. State and Regional Survey Response Rates

Eligible Population Respondents Response Rate 

States 634 568 89.6%

Regional Offices 30 29 96.7%

                                                                                                                                                                                                22 Two respondents did not wish to have the interviews recorded. In lieu of recording/transcribing, the study team took detailed

notes during these interviews. 23 The study plan was to contact all SNAP QC staff in States and Regional Offices that did not participate in pretest or site visits.

However, three States did not agree to participate in the survey. Three States provided names and contact information for the

SNAP QC directors but for no other staff. Finally, California administers SNAP QC at the county level for several of its largest

counties, while State reviewers conduct reviews for all the smaller counties. As a result, California has a much larger number of

SQCRs, so collecting staff information from counties for a complete frame would have been challenging. Instead, State QC staff

who conducted reviews for 39 (of 58) counties and county QC staff from the 2 largest counties (Los Angeles county and San

Bernardino county) were included in the sampling frame. 24 The State response rate is based on the 42 States that granted permission for their staff to participate in the survey. For three

of these States, only the director was included in the survey frame. Three other States refused to participate in the survey, and

no staff from these States was included in the survey frame.   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 11

Data Analysis. State responses were assigned to three analysis groups corresponding to high, average,

and low completion rates. Group assignment was based on dividing participating States into thirds

according to survey States’ completion rates in FY 2013, the most recent rates available at the time of

the survey data collection.25,26 Results were analyzed to examine any trends that distinguished States

with high completion rates from States with low completion rates. Regional responses were analyzed as

one group.

3. Administrative Data Collection

Administrative data were used to assess any differences in the characteristics of complete and

incomplete cases, including comparisons of incomplete cases to complete cases with errors and

complete cases with no errors. Information was collected on demographic (e.g., household size,

composition), economic (income and benefits), and administrative (certification/recertification status)

characteristics. Five States—Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, and Oklahoma27—provided the most

recent available administrative data for all incomplete active cases from the previous 3 fiscal years (FY

2010–FY 2012). To reduce State burden, FNS extracted administrative data for the complete active cases

over the same period from FNS’s SNAP Quality Control System (SNAP QCS). Table 2.3 indicates the

number of complete and incomplete cases included in the administrative data extracts per State.

Table 2.3. Number of SNAP QC Cases Included in Administrative Data Extracts per State, FY 2010–FY

2012

 Iowa Kentucky Mississippi Ohio Oklahoma Total 

Complete cases   2,877 3,855 3,673 3,899 3,375 17,679

Incomplete cases   356 249 99 329 96 1,129

Total 3,233 4,104 3,772 4,228 3,471 18,808

Data Analysis. Results were analyzed for individual States and for all five States together. The analysis

sought to identify differences in the characteristics of complete and incomplete cases and any patterns

that may distinguish States with high completion rates from those with low completion rates.28

Differences greater than 5 percentage points are described in chapter 5, while all results are included in

appendix D.29

                                                            

25 The ordering process did not include site visit and pretest States, the three States that declined participation in the survey, or

the three States where only the director agreed to participate. Completion rates for the three groups ranged from 86.34

percent to 92.04 percent for the low‐completion‐rate group, 92.06 percent to 94.66 percent for the average‐completion‐rate

group, and 94.74 percent to 100 percent for the high‐completion‐rate group.   26 This method of defining comparison groups was selected to maximize the cell size in each group, which would best support

comparisons between groups. Results were similar when defining the high‐ and low‐completion‐rate groups more narrowly,

such as by the top and bottom quartiles, rather than thirds. 27 As a result of changes to its IT system, Pennsylvania was unable to provide data for all 3 fiscal years and was not included in

this analysis. 28 In some instances, variables were missing for the incomplete cases for a given State but not for the complete cases. 29 Because results are based on a census of QC data for these five States, differences do not need to be tested for statistical

significance. A threshold of 5 percentage points was selected to approximate what may be considered a meaningful difference

between complete and incomplete cases.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 12

4. Field Re‐Reviews of Incomplete SNAP QC Cases

Field re‐reviews of incomplete QC cases were conducted in Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—three States

identified by FNS as having low completion rates. FNS provided the study team with 25 of the most

recently reviewed incomplete active cases from each of these 3 States, for a total of 75 cases. The cases

selected had been reviewed and identified as incomplete by both the States and Regional offices.30 Field

staff conducted the re‐reviews over an 8‐week period from September through October 2013. The cases

were initially sampled for QC review between October 2012 and March 2013.

Experienced field interviewers were selected and trained by the study team to conduct the SNAP QC re‐

reviews. Two field interviewers from each of the three States were recruited based on their extensive

experience conducting interviews in respondents’ homes and reaching populations that were difficult to

locate as a result of circumstances such as disconnected phone numbers, unemployment, and frequent

address changes. FNS conducted a 3‐day intensive training course for the field interviewers covering

SNAP eligibility and the QC review process, and the study team conducted additional training on

administrative procedures and interviewing techniques.  

After training, each field interviewer spent 8 weeks attempting to complete the assigned cases. The

process for conducting the QC re‐reviews was consistent with the general guidance provided by the FNS

310 Handbook. General steps included reviewing the case file, contacting the client to schedule an in‐

person interview, conducting the interview, verifying eligibility criteria, and documenting findings.

Because the FNS 310 Handbook guidance is broad and leaves States flexibility in executing the details of

QC review procedures, the study team provided field reviewers additional instruction specific to the re‐

reviews such as how and when to contact the clients to standardize procedures across field staff. The

field data collection process follows:  

 Preparing for the QC review by reviewing the case record for each assigned case and extracting

all necessary information needed for the interview. Field interviewers reviewed and recorded

the findings of the FNS‐380 form,31 steps taken by the SQCR to conduct the original review, all

contact attempts and communications, and the case review results of the SQCR and Federal

review. Field interviewers identified elements that were adequately verified and documented in

the case record (and thus needed no further attention during the field review) and identified

any missing documentation that would need to be obtained from the household or collateral

contacts

 Contacting SNAP clients by phone to schedule an in‐person interview, followed by sending

them a letter with the interview date, time, and location, and list of verification documents

needed. Field interviewers scheduled interviews in clients’ homes or neighborhood locations.

Field interviewers were encouraged to make up to seven phone attempts of a working number

for each client and to attempt a disconnected number once a day for the span of 2 weeks to

contact clients.  

   

                                                            

30 Six of the 75 cases were removed from the initial re‐review caseload because they were under investigation or had been

completed since the Federal review, resulting in a total re‐review caseload of 69 cases. 31 The FNS‐380 form is used to record information from the case record, to plan and conduct the field investigation, and to

record findings and document the verification that substantiates the eligibility and benefit level.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 13

 Conducting interviews and obtaining verifications from clients or collateral contacts. A field

interviewer traveled to the client’s home or other neighborhood location at the appointed date

and time of the interview. If the interview was conducted, the field interviewer completed the

interview using the FNS‐380 form and attempted to obtain necessary documentation to verify

residence, household composition, income, rent, utilities, mortgage, and assets. Field

interviewers also attempted to reach collateral contacts as needed to obtain necessary

documentation that was not in the case record or available from the client. Field interviewers

were instructed to make up to two visits to the client’s home (or other agreed‐upon location) to

attempt to conduct the interview, and up to seven phone attempts of a working number and

one in‐person visit to contact a collateral contact to obtain documentation.

 Documenting all steps in the process and recording all findings in the FNS‐380 form. Field

interviewers documented (1) preinterview activities (e.g., efforts to contact the client), (2)

interview procedures (e.g., whether the interview was conducted, what documentation was

obtained), and (3) postinterview procedures (e.g., efforts to reschedule a missed interview or

obtain outstanding verifications).

Field interviewers spent, on average, 30 calendar days to conduct each re‐review (from initial contact

attempt to documenting final conclusion), although time ranged from 1 to 58 calendar days.32 Like

SQCRs, field interviewers worked on several review cases at the same time, so these are not full days

spent on a single case; rather, these estimates of time reflect the total number of days that elapsed

from the first day the individual worked on a case until the day a determination was made. For

incomplete cases, the length of time covers the time from the day the field interviewer began working

on the case through the day that the decision was made that the case could not be completed.  

Data Analysis. Following the re‐reviews, the study team examined the findings to determine whether

any of the cases previously identified as incomplete by State and Regional QC review staff had been

successfully completed. Completed case reviews were those for which the field interviewer was able to

obtain all the needed verifications to determine whether the eligibility determination and benefit

amount were accurate for the sample month. The study team reviewed and verified information

recorded on the FNS‐380 form and completed the QC calculations to determine whether any completed

case reviews contained payment errors. In addition, a QC reviewer external to the research team

reviewed and validated all findings and error analyses. For re‐reviews that completed previously

incomplete cases, the team examined the steps taken by field interviewer staff to identify potential

strategies that might help increase completion rates. For re‐reviews that remained incomplete, the team

identified common issues that prevented completion.

B. Study Limitations and Considerations

The findings presented in this report are descriptive, and several factors merit consideration when

drawing conclusions or attempting to make generalizations. First, variables associated with SNAP QC at

the State level cover many elements that vary widely across States and are likely to interact:

 Staff and caseload sizes

 Population demographics

                                                            

32 In comparison, SQCRs spent 42 days on average attempting to complete these reviews, ranging from 7 to 84 calendar days.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 14

 QC procedures, tools, and training

 SNAP eligibility determination processes and options

Such complexity poses a serious challenge to identifying what factors facilitate or impede review

completion. Similarly, variation across States within each region inhibits the ability to draw conclusions

about the relationship between factors at the regional level and State completion rates.

One objective of the study was to determine whether cases deemed incomplete by State and Federal

QC personnel could be completed. However, important differences remained between the study

procedures and State and Federal review procedures as described below:

 In many cases, many months had elapsed from the time of the original QC review month and

the time the study team attempted the re‐review. This produced additional challenges for the

study team in locating a relatively mobile population and in securing verification of financial and

household composition details.

 Research staff did not have access to the same tools as State and Federal staff to complete the

reviews. For example, field re‐reviewers did not have access to State or Federal electronic

databases to obtain verification of eligibility criteria (e.g., income, employment) or additional

contact information for clients or potential collateral contacts.  

 Research staff required signed consent from the household to obtain information from

collateral contacts. In many cases, State SNAP QC reviewers may request information from

collateral contacts using consent included on the original SNAP application.

 Research protocols required maintaining confidentiality of the respondents, and field

interviewers assured respondents no information they provided would be conveyed to FNS or

the State. Unlike SNAP QC reviews, participation in the re‐review process was voluntary; field

interviewers had no authority to terminate (or reinstate) SNAP benefits for noncooperation, and

no incentives were offered for participation in the study. As a result, SNAP clients had different

motivations for participating in re‐reviews relative to State QC reviews.

An original objective of this study was to determine the impact of incomplete cases on overall error

rates, but the data collected for this study were too limited to address this objective:  

 First, the number of cases selected for field re‐review (and completed) for this study was too

small to support drawing conclusions about the overall SNAP payment error rates. The study

does, however, examine the payment error among the subset of cases completed during the

field re‐reviews. Further research with a larger sample of cases would be necessary to assess

whether bias exists in State or national error rates.  

 Similarly, the administrative data analysis examines the demographic, economic, and

administrative characteristics of incomplete cases as compared to complete cases. Without

knowing the level of error among the incomplete cases, however, comparisons between

complete cases found to have error and incomplete cases (with unknown error) do not permit

conclusions about potential bias in overall case and payment error rates.  
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 15

Chapter 3. State QC Review Process

his chapter examines States’ processes for completing QC reviews, from case assignment and

reviewer caseload through second‐party reviews (e.g., by a supervisor) and submission of QC

findings to FNS. Particular attention is given to how review procedures vary across States generally and

by different categories of SNAP QC completion rates. Findings are based primarily on in‐depth semi‐

structured interviews with SNAP QC directors, supervisors, and reviewers in six States and

supplemented with data from a survey of the same respondent groups in the remaining States.33

Percentages presented in the text and figures refer to survey results. Unless otherwise noted, results

from qualitative interviews and the surveys were consistent.

Both survey and interview data were analyzed with a focus on potential differences by State completion

rate.34 Survey results were analyzed according to three categories of State SNAP QC completion rates—

low, average, and high—based on rank ordering the 42 surveyed States by their FY 2013 completion rate

and separating them into thirds. Detailed tabulations of survey results appear in appendix B.

Section A of this chapter describes State procedures for conducting SNAP QC reviews. Section B

summarizes State QC staff perceptions of the reasons for incomplete cases and how they may have

changed over time. Section C provides an overview of the tenure, workloads, training, and oversight of

State SNAP QC reviewers.  

A. State SNAP QC Review Process  

Although States exhibit variation in the details of their QC process, the general steps in the SNAP QC

review process are the same in all States. That process begins with case sampling and concludes with

transmitting the review results to FNS. This section describes these steps (see figure 3.1) with an

emphasis on variations in practice between States with high completion rates and those with low

completion rates. Survey results related to this section appear in appendix B tables B.1a and B.1b.

   

                                                            

33 As described in chapter 2, all 53 State SNAP agencies were invited to participate in the study. Six participated in site visits, 2

participated in pretests of interview and survey instruments, 3 declined to participate, and the remaining 42 participated in the

survey. In three States participating in the survey, only the SNAP QC director participated in the survey.   34 Potential variations by State completion rate are reported where present; it should be noted, however, that many findings

reported in this chapter are based on interview data from 6 States and may not be generalizable to all States.  

T
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 16

Figure 3.1. Overview of the State SNAP QC Review Process

1. Case Sampling and Assignment to SQCRs

The first step in the SNAP QC process is to draw the sample of SNAP cases each month and assign them

to SQCRs.  

Sampling. Based on specifications outlined in the FNS 311 Quality Control Sampling Handbook, State

statisticians develop a sampling plan each year for selecting a random, representative sample of active

and negative SNAP cases each month. The plan identifies the methodology for how cases will be

sampled. Each year, the plan is revised and submitted to FNS for approval. Active and negative SNAP QC

cases are then sampled from administrative records each month. Sample sizes ranged from 325 in the

U.S. Virgin Islands to 1,359 in Arkansas in FY 2013, with the majority of States sampling between 1,050

and 1,200 cases.35  

If a State does not complete the minimum number of cases specified in its annual plan, it must sample

additional cases to meet that requirement. Additional cases may be drawn at any point in the fiscal year.

One of the interviewed QC directors reported monitoring the total number of completed cases each

month to sample additional cases relatively early in the year if it appeared additional cases would be

needed, while reviewers in other States described having larger  QC caseloads toward the end of the

year as a result of sampling additional cases late in the year.  

Case Assignment. Once the cases are sampled each month, they are assigned to SQCRs. Cases are

typically assigned to reviewers based on geographic proximity of cases to the reviewers’ location and

workload equity across reviewers. Reviewers do not specialize in certain types of cases, such as non‐

English‐speaking, homeless, or larger households.  

                                                            

35 Sample sizes among site visit States ranged from 1,075 in Iowa to 1,308 in Kentucky in FY 2013.  

QC cases are sampled and assigned to reviewers

SQCR schedules the household interview and prepares for the

interview by reviewing case information and checking electronic

databases

SQCR collects the necessary information through a household

interview and/or collateral contacts. SQCR conducts follow‐up

with nonresponsive clients as needed

SQCR processes the case, including documenting review process

and making error determinations

A second party (or parties) review(s) the case before the review

findings are transmitted to FNS through SNAP QCS
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 17

SNAP QC staff in the six site visit States were located throughout the State—some work in local SNAP

offices (three States), others in State government offices (two States), or their homes (one State). In no

State were reviewers centrally located in a single office. Typically, SQCRs (all those interviewed and 75

percent of those surveyed) reported occasionally being assigned additional cases when other reviewers

were on leave or staff resources were otherwise limited.  

Although cases are assigned to minimize the distance reviewers must travel for household interviews,

travel is sometimes significant. Twenty‐nine percent of surveyed reviewers reported at least one

overnight trip away from home each month. Among site visit States, overnight trips were less frequently

reported, but reviewers in more rural areas travelled further (up to 4 hours or more) to review a case.  

Time spent in the field offers another perspective. Reviewers across these States reported spending a

range of 1–7 days in the field each month conducting interviews, with many reporting 3–5 days. The

number of days in the field tended to vary based on the distance between cases and the number of

missed interviews that needed to be rescheduled.  

Review Timeline. The QC review period for States is 115 days from the time cases are sampled until the

time the review results must be submitted to FNS. That time is divided between first‐line reviews by

SQCRs, second‐party reviews by supervisors or other managers, and data entry for final submission.

Across the six site visit States, SQCRs reported having from 30 days to 3 months to conduct reviews. In

four of these States, reviewers reported review timeliness is part of their performance evaluation.

Among the surveyed States, 89 percent of SQCRs “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with a statement

indicating they have sufficient time to complete the SNAP QC reviews assigned to them.

Variation in Case Sampling and Assignment by State Completion Rate Group  

SQCRs in States with low completion rates reported shorter periods of time to conduct their reviews

than SQCRs in other States; approximately half as many reported having at least 75 days (15 percent) as

SQCRs in States with average and high completion rates (30 percent and 34 percent, respectively; figure

3.2).  

Figure 3.2. Length of Time Reviewers Are Given To Complete Reviews by State Completion Rate Group  

Source: Survey of State Quality Control Reviewers

Reviewers in States with low completion rates were somewhat less likely to report they “strongly

agreed” to a statement indicating they had sufficient time to complete the SNAP QC reviews assigned to

44% 31% 35%

41%

40% 32%

15% 30% 34%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate

<60 Days 60–75 Days 75+ Days
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 18

them (25 percent, compared to 31 percent and 35 percent of reviewers in States with average and high

completion rates, respectively).  

Reviewers in States with low completion rates were also somewhat less likely to be given interim

deadlines during their QC review period: 51 percent, compared to 66 and 61 percent of reviewers in

States with average and high completion rates, respectively.

2. Interview Preparation

SNAP QC reviews require an in‐person interview with the client in most cases.36 This section describes

how reviewers prepared for these interviews, including conducting a desk review of the case file,

searching electronic databases, scheduling the interview appointments, and confirming the interview.

Case File Review. As part of this first step, reviewers in several States reported printing relevant screens

from the administrative SNAP database to develop a hardcopy case file. At this stage, many reviewers

also entered case file information for the certification month in the FNS‐380 form.37 Other reviewers

reported completing the form at the end of the process. The majority of SQCRs surveyed (61 percent)

reported the case files they received from the local SNAP office typically contained all the certification

information they needed to conduct the review. In some cases, however, reviewers reported needing to

contact the local SNAP office for additional information if the case file was incomplete.  

Review of Electronic Databases. Reviewers were frequently able to gather some of the verifications

they needed from various databases at this stage, such as the Income and Employment Verification

System, Department of Motor Vehicles databases, and property records. Some State reviewers had

access to other public assistance program systems, such as Medicaid, childcare assistance, or child

support collection. In addition to providing information on other sources of income, these databases

may include alternate contact information for clients or collateral contacts. Many reviewers also had

access to and regularly used The Work Number, a database many States pay to subscribe to that

provides information on employment and earnings.

Many reviewers supplemented these sources with Internet searches when trying to find a client. The

online sources commonly reported were Google.com, whitepages.com, 411.com, and reverse phone

number search Web sites. These sites typically provide some information for free but often have limited

utility without paying for additional information. One respondent noted that having State‐funded access

to paid services on these sites would improve the ability for reviewers to locate clients. Few reviewers

used social media mechanisms, such as Facebook.  

Scheduling Interviews. Reviewers in site visit States reported sending a letter to notify clients of their

selection for a case review and, in five States, to assign a date and time for an interview appointment.

Consistent with this approach, virtually all SQCRs surveyed (99 percent) reported contacting clients by

mailing a letter.  

In five of the six States visited, interview dates, times, and locations were designated by the QC staff.

Typically, the appointment letters also included a list of documents the client should bring to the

appointment for verification purposes (e.g., pay stubs, lease agreements). In attempting to elicit more

                                                            

36 Most States, including each of the six site visit States, had exercised a waiver allowing telephone interviews with households

receiving less than $100 in benefits.   37 The FNS‐380 form is used (as a worksheet) for the QC process to document a household’s eligibility information for the

certification and review months and to identify errors.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 19

attention and response from clients, a small number of SQCRs reported customizing these letters.

Examples of such personalization included handwritten notes, handwriting addresses on the envelopes

in hopes of increasing the likelihood clients would open the letters, and highlighting the letter text

requesting clients call and confirm the appointment.  

In some States, letters were generated automatically and sent from a mail center rather than from the

reviewer directly. While reviewers typically arranged their interview schedules to minimize travel time,

clients had the option to call the reviewer to reschedule appointment times or locations.

In one State, a mail center generated and sent initial letters to clients notifying them their cases had

been selected for review and their reviewers would call them to arrange interviews. Reviewers in this

State then called each client a few days after the letter was mailed to establish a mutually convenient

day and time for the interview.

Interview Confirmation. While some clients called to reschedule or confirm their appointments upon

receipt of the letters (one reviewer estimated roughly 5–20 percent of respondents confirmed

appointments), many did not. Many reviewers contacted the households by phone in an attempt to

confirm the appointments, while some did not. Even if the SQCR had not successfully reached the client

to confirm the appointment, reviewers in most site visit States traveled to the designated location for

the appointment.

Variation in Interview Preparation by State Completion Rate Group  

A somewhat larger proportion of reviewers in States with high completion rates reported the case files

they received typically had all the certification information they needed to conduct the review: 68

percent, compared to 57 and 59 percent of reviewers in States with low and average completion rates,

respectively.

Reviewers in States with low completion rates were less likely to routinely call clients prior to

interviews—either to schedule or confirm appointments. In contrast, phone follow‐up appeared to be a

more standard procedure in States with high completion rates.

3. Household Interview

This section describes the household interview procedures, including the location and the language of

the interview.  

Interview. QC interviews with clients typically took place on weekdays during standard business hours,

although reviewers accommodated clients’ needs as much as possible by occasionally scheduling early

morning or early evening appointments. Interview length varied from 10 to 15 minutes in very simple

cases to 45 minutes or an hour for more complex cases.  

During interviews, SQCRs reviewed relevant case file information with the clients, noted any changes,

and collected as much documentation as possible (e.g., identification, pay stubs, unearned income

verification, bank statements, housing and utilities costs). Commonly, clients did not have all the

necessary documents available during the interview. In these cases, reviewers typically provided the

client with a list of documents still needed and a deadline for submitting them; some reviewers also

provided a stamped envelope for submitting them. Reviewers typically requested that clients provide

one or two collateral contacts that could verify household composition or other elements and asked the

clients to sign a release. This signed permission authorized other parties (e.g., banks, employers,

landlords) to provide information to QC staff.  
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 20

Interview Location. In five of the six site visit States, interviews typically took place in local SNAP offices,

although exceptions were made to accommodate client needs.38 Most reviewers reported conducting

interviews in clients’ homes at the request of clients who were elderly or had disabilities and were

unable to travel to a local office. Others reported conducting reviews in public places such as libraries,

fast food restaurants, or workplaces as alternate locations to local offices. In these States, safety

concerns were cited as one of the primary reasons for conducting interviews outside the home. Study

interview data, for example, indicated concerns related to high‐crime neighborhoods, criminal history of

clients or members of their household, and presence of dogs. Budgetary reasons were also provided for

limiting interviews to local offices.

In contrast, one State encouraged reviewers to conduct all interviews in clients’ homes. The advantages

reported were to make clients feel at ease, eliminate any transportation challenges, and improve access

to verification documents. Reviewers in this State generally did not feel safety concerns were an issue

for home interviews, and SNAP QC management felt strongly that any contact with local offices should

be avoided to maintain the integrity of the QC review process.  

Languages Other Than English. Interviews were occasionally conducted in languages other than English,

and QC staff did not find language barriers to be a problem for completing reviews. For non‐English

interviews, reviewers reported using the “Language Line” (a language translation phone service

provided by the State), a bilingual reviewer or an interpreter provided by the household. A large

majority of managers surveyed (80 percent) felt their reviewers had sufficient resources to conduct

reviews in languages other than English.

Variation in Household Interviews by State Completion Rate Group

Reviewers in States with high completion rates were more likely to report making home visits to clients

than reviewers in other States.39

A slightly larger proportion of reviewers in States with high completion rates reported at least occasional

safety concerns: 56 percent, compared to 46 and 51 percent of reviewers in States with low and average

completion rates (figure 3.3). This is consistent with the finding that States with high completion rates

were also more likely to conduct home visits.  

   

                                                            

38 Reviewers in all site visit States reported conducting interviews over the phone in cases where the benefits were less than

$100.

39 This pattern is based on data collected during interviews in site visit and pretest States and from some survey respondents.

The survey did not ask specifically about location of interviews, although some survey respondents discussed interview location

in the open‐ended comment field at the end of the survey.  
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 21

Figure 3.3. Percentage of SQCRs That Report Safety Concerns at Least Occasionally Affect Ability To

Contact or Locate a Household by State Completion Rate Group

Source: Survey of State Quality Control Reviewers

4. Nonresponse Follow‐Up Strategies  

Clients frequently are difficult to reach and even once located may miss interview appointments. In

these cases, additional actions may be necessary to complete the review. This section describes the

mode of contact and methods to ensure client cooperation.  

Reaching Clients. Mail and phone were the primary methods reviewers used to contact clients; these

methods were used by 99 and 96 percent of surveyed SQCRs, respectively. About half of reviewers

surveyed used certified mail at least sometimes (49 percent).  

Reviewers in site visit States varied in the frequency of using certified mail. Reviewers in two States

(including one State with a low completion rate and one State with a high completion rate) used

certified mail whenever a household missed an appointment. SQCRs in two other States occasionally

sent letters by certified mail, but the practice was not standard. Two States no longer permitted the use

of certified mail during the review process because of the cost. Some review staff in these States noted

it would be helpful to go back to using certified mail.  

Sixty‐two percent of SQCRs surveyed reported reaching out to neighbors to contact difficult‐to‐reach

clients. Among those who did not seek information from neighbors, reasons included safety concerns

(40 percent), lack of cooperation by neighbors (38 percent), and “other” reasons (54 percent). In States

where most interviews were conducted in local SNAP offices or other public locations, “other” reasons

may have included the lack of visits to clients’ homes where reviewers would have had an opportunity

to speak to neighbors.  

Text messaging was reported by only 9 percent of SQCRs surveyed. The reasons most often given for not

using text messages were SQCRs’ inability to receive messages (42 percent) and lack of State or Federal

approval (39 percent). Not all States provided cell phones to reviewers, which may account for some of

those who reported an inability to receive messages.

46% 51% 56%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 22

Our profession is civil servant. 

We serve [people] in the State 

of [State name]. They’re the 

ones who need the help and 

need the food. If we didn’t 

care, we wouldn’t be doing this 

job ... Our job is to check to 

make sure everything’s being 

done correctly. The bottom line 

is that we want make sure the 

client has enough food for the 

month. 

—State SNAP QC Interview 

Respondent

Ensuring Client Cooperation. Once contact with the client was

established, reviewers reported relative ease in obtaining

household cooperation. Many SQCRs emphasized to clients that

the purpose of the review was to ensure the clients received the

correct amount of benefits they were entitled to receive, and that

the review served to double‐check the work done by the State

agency.  

Survey respondents report that three of the most effective

strategies for obtaining household cooperation included notifying

the client that noncooperation results in termination of benefits

(reported by 48 percent of SQCRs surveyed), offering alternative

interview locations (27 percent), and offering flexible interview

times (18 percent).  

SNAP benefits may be terminated if a household can be shown to

have deliberately refused to cooperate with the SNAP QC process.

For example, if a reviewer shows that a client who missed an appointment knew the appointment had

been scheduled (e.g., by confirming the appointment with the client verbally or with a signed certified

mail receipt), reviewers typically classified the client as refusing to cooperate and notified the local

office that the client’s benefits should be terminated.40 However, benefits cannot be terminated if the

SQCR is not able to contact the client successfully. In these cases where the reviewer cannot confirm the

client was aware of an interview appointment, the household is typically classified as failing to

cooperate.  

Practices appear to vary somewhat by State, however. Reviewers in one State classified cases as refusing

to cooperate only if they explicitly refuse to participate. Clients who miss an interview in this State were

considered as failing to cooperate, even if they spoke with the SQCR and were aware of the

appointment.41  

Variation in Nonresponse Follow‐Up Strategies by State Completion Rate Group

Reviewer efforts to follow up with clients varied across States: Reviewers in States with high completion

rates tended to use a wider array of strategies and greater persistence to reach clients than did

reviewers in States with low completion rates. They were, for example, more likely than reviewers in

other States to reach out to neighbors and to use certified mail as strategies to reach clients (figure 3.4).

Use of other strategies, such as phone and text messaging, was relatively more similar across reviewers

from the three groups of States.

   

                                                            

40 In such instances, clients often contacted their local offices and/or QC reviewers following the loss of benefits and offered to

cooperate with the review to get their benefits reinstated. 41 The likelihood of submitting a case as complete in these situations depends on how much time remains in the review period

between benefit termination (and subsequent willingness to cooperate by the client) and the deadline for the State to submit

the QC case to FNS. Termination of benefits near the end of the State’s review period, for example, is unlikely to result in the

client cooperating with the review in time for the State to submit the findings to FNS within their deadline. States, however,

may complete cases previously submitted as incomplete if the client cooperates before the end of the review year.  
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 23

Figure 3.4. Percentage of Reviewers Reporting Various Strategies for Contacting Clients by State

Completion Rate Group

Source: Survey of State Quality Control Reviewers

While 71 percent of all surveyed reviewers reported they are strongly encouraged to make more than

two attempts to contact clients, those in States with high completion rates were more likely to report

such encouragement. About 84 percent of these reviewers reported strong encouragement compared

to 70 percent and 65 percent of those from States with low and average completion rates, respectively

(figure 3.5).

Figure 3.5. Percentage of SQCRs Reporting Strong Encouragement for More Than Two Attempts To

Contact a Client by State Completion Rate Group

Source: Survey of State Quality Control Reviewers

   

96% 97% 95%

50%

64%

80%

46% 45%

59%

6% 11% 9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate

Phone Neighbors Certified Mail Text Messaging

70% 65%

84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 24

Similarly, reviewers surveyed in States with high completion rates were more likely to report they could

almost always turn missed appointments into completed reviews: 44 percent did so, compared to 29

percent and 21 percent of reviewers in States with low and average completion rates, respectively

(figure 3.6).

Figure 3.6. Perceived Frequency of Turning Missed Appointments Into Completed Reviews by State

Completion Rate Group  

Source: Survey of State Quality Control Reviewers

Consistent with these results, efforts to contact households varied dramatically across—and sometimes

within42—the six site visit States. Reviewers in the three States with low completion rates, for example,

typically made fewer attempts to contact clients. Relative to reviewers in States with high completion

rates, reviewers in States with low completion rates were more likely to submit a case as incomplete

when unable to locate the client (e.g., failing to cooperate), rather than to make additional contact

attempts. For example, reviewers in one State with a low completion rate cited the FNS 310 Handbook’s

requirement of making at least two contact attempts and not needing to do more.  

Table 3.1 compares the typical steps taken to contact a client in one State with a high completion rate

and one with a low completion rate. In State A, procedures included mailing two letters and making two

phone calls to the client, followed by a contact attempt by a supervisor and the FNS Regional Office. In

State B, SQCRs reported making 10–15 attempts to reach a client using various means, including making

several phone calls, mailing up to 4 letters (including some by certified mail), and making unannounced

home visits.

   

                                                            

42 Within one State, for example, one reviewer reported “hounding” clients and making “as many calls as it takes” to reach

them, while another person reported making no phone calls to clients at all. 

29% 21%

44%

43% 50%

38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate

Almost always Often
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 25

Selected Innovative Strategies Used by Reviewers In 

States with High Completion Rates to Locate Clients 

 Look up the client’s mother using birth certificate data and

contact her to find out how to reach the client

 Look for alternate contact information in arrest records

 Look up old phone numbers in library phone books

 Call other States for information in their client records

 Call former employers and ask for clients’ emergency contacts

 Call children’s schools

 Search under bridges for homeless clients

 Call retailers frequented by the client, as identified by EBT

records

Table 3.1. Comparison of Typical Approaches To Contacting Clients Across Two States  

State A: Low Completion Rate State B: High Completion Rate 

1. Send an initial appointment letter and make two

attempts to reach the client by phone (e.g., to confirm

the interview prior to interview, to reach the client

following a missed appointment)

2. Send a second appointment letter if the client misses

the first appointment

3. A QC supervisor calls the client

4. The QC supervisor requests the FNS Regional Office

send the client a letter

5. The case is coded as incomplete (if the client was aware

of the missed appointment, the household’s benefits

are terminated)

1. Mail letter to the client notifying that his or her case has

been selected for QC review and that a reviewer will

contact him or her

2. SQCR calls the household to set up an appointment

(usually several phone attempts)

3. If unable to reach the client by phone, mail a second

letter requesting the client call the reviewer

4. If the client does not respond to the letter or calls, make

an unannounced home visit

5. If the client is not home, mail two letters—one by regular

mail and one by certified mail—informing the client of

the penalties for not cooperating with the QC process

6. If the client does not respond within 15 days, the case is

coded as incomplete (if the client was aware of the

missed appointment, the household’s benefits are

terminated)

Reviewers in States with high

completion rates frequently reported

searching for contact information

online (e.g., through a search engine

such as Google, Web sites such as

411.com, whitepages.com), contacting

the U.S. Post Office to confirm the

address of clients, visiting the

household, and/or contacting

neighbors to try to reach the clients.43

Reviewers in States with high

completion rates also used creative

ways to identify new contact

information for households (see text

box).  

5. Obtaining Documentation From Collateral Contacts

Following the interview, reviewers frequently needed to obtain additional documentation; for example,

to verify household composition from a collateral contact such as a landlord, or in some cases a

neighbor or other source. Several reviewers reported verifying income from employers at this stage,

while others requested that clients obtain and provide the documentation themselves. In some cases,

reviewers used collateral contacts to gather all the information necessary to complete reviews even

when the client did not participate in an interview.

   

                                                            

43 A minority of reviewers in States with low completion rates also reported using these methods, although these practices

were less uniform across reviewers within these States.  
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 26

Variation in Collateral Contact Practices by State Completion Rate Group

Similar to patterns in contacting clients, reviewers’ efforts to reach collateral contacts were typically

greater in States with high completion rates. This was most apparent with respect to when and how

such efforts were made. For example, reviewers interviewed in one State with a high completion rate

reported contacting collateral contacts by phone or email as soon as the household interview was

conducted (or missed), rather than waiting for the client to collect the information. Some reviewers in

States with high completion rates encouraged households to contact employers, landlords, or others

during the interview itself to obtain information more quickly and convey the client’s permission to

release the information, if needed. Reviewers noted that when they received information verbally, they

typically requested the collateral contacts to follow up in writing.   

In contrast, reviewers in two States with low completion rates typically relied on clients to collect and

deliver information from collateral contacts. Respondents in one State reported State law prohibited

reviewers from collecting information from third parties without an explicit consent form signed by the

household. Such a constraint seriously limited their ability to verify case information independently,

particularly in cases where clients did not show up for the interviews.

6. Case Processing

This section describes the steps SQCRs take when a case has either been completed or all steps have

been exhausted in trying to locate or interview the household.  

Documentation of Findings and Error Determination. Once all the information has been gathered,

reviewers document all findings in the FNS‐380 form and analyze the information, a process which some

reviewers reported could be time‐consuming. For each element on the FNS‐380 form, reviewers must

determine whether information for the certification month and the review month matches or whether a

variance is present. Based on the review information for each element, the SQCR calculates the benefit

amount the household is eligible for in the sample month (referred to as “Comp 1”) and compares that

amount to the actual amount authorized by the eligibility worker. If the difference between these two

amounts is $37 or less, the case is found to be correct (or not in error). This finding applies even if

differences in individual elements are larger than the $37 threshold.44  

If the overall difference is greater than $37, a second computation is calculated. This computation

removes from consideration any differences between the certification month and the review month

that are acceptable under the State’s policies (referred to as “Comp 2”). For example, if a household

with a simplified reporting requirement has a change in income that does not increase the household

income above 130 percent of the poverty guideline, the new income can be excluded from the

calculation of the appropriate benefit level in Comp 2. If the new calculation also results in an overall

difference of more than $37, the case is considered to be in error. The lower of the two calculated

difference amounts is treated as the final payment error amount.

Until a few years ago, one strategy used by some States to complete cases without full documentation

was to make error determinations based only on the certification month (Comp 2) in cases where some

information was missing for the review month (Comp 1). However, respondents noted recent FNS

                                                            

44 A variance in one element may produce a difference larger than $37, but be offset by a variance in another element that

results in a net difference of less than $37.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 27

guidance called for completing both Comp 1 and Comp 2 to submit the case as complete.45 Comp 1,

however, may be completed using the likely conclusion standard, if applicable. Still, reviewers in

multiple States noted this change increased their number of incomplete cases.  

Use of Likely Conclusion. In cases where full documentation of eligibility criteria is unavailable but a

reasonable assumption can be made based on other verified information, the reviewer is authorized to

draw a “likely conclusion” to complete the review. Slightly more than half of SQCRs surveyed reported

using likely conclusion for 1–5 percent of their cases. Ten percent reported never using likely conclusion,

while 17 percent reported using it for more than 10 percent of their cases.46  

Disposition of Incomplete Cases. If the reviewer is unable to collect the necessary documentation and is

unable to complete the case using likely conclusion, the case is designated as incomplete. For these

cases, reviewers typically documented their efforts to complete the case (e.g., dates, means of each

contact attempt) under relevant elements in the 380 worksheet, separately in a narrative format, or in a

workflow management system,47 and described why the case is being designated as incomplete.

Types of FNS‐380 Tools Used by Reviewers. The type of FNS‐380 worksheet used by reviewers varied

across States, with some using an electronic version (including the automated FNS‐380 developed by

FNS) and others using manual versions (i.e., entering information by hand). Approximately two‐thirds of

reviewers surveyed (69 percent) reported using the automated FNS‐380. Among them, approximately

half (51 percent) reported no change in the ease of the SNAP QC process, while 40 percent thought it

made the process easier.  

Reviewers interviewed in one State reported the recent transition to the automated FNS‐380 improved

their review process substantially; the previous system had been riddled with technical problems and

would occasionally stop working and/or lose data, requiring reviewers to spend time reentering lost

information. Reviewers interviewed in another State reported using a State‐developed tool rather than

the automated FNS‐380 form; benefits of the internal tool included greater automatic population of

fields from the State’s integrated systems.

Variation in Case Processing by State Completion Rate Group

A somewhat higher proportion of reviewers in States with high completion rates (83 percent) used the

automated FNS‐380 form compared to reviewers in States with average and low completion rates (58

and 72 percent, respectively).

7. Secondary Reviews of QC Findings

Second‐Party Reviews. Once the reviewer completed work on a given QC case, a second party typically

reviewed the case before it was submitted to FNS. In some States, case files are submitted to the

supervisor for review electronically, but in other States, the paper file is mailed to the supervisor. A large

                                                            

45 Communications with FNS staff indicated this guidance was issued verbally during meetings with States in the early‐ to mid‐

2000s requiring that, in accordance with the FNS 310 Handbook, both Comp 1 and Comp 2 be completed to submit a case as

complete.

46 Forty‐one percent of FQCRs surveyed reported that States in their caseload used likely conclusion to complete cases at least

once a month. 47 A workflow management system allows users to store, manage, and review files associated with that case review, similar to a

SharePoint system. A supervisor located in a different part of the State, for example, can at any given time track a reviewer’s

progress on a given case, access associated files (e.g., case record, verification documents collected, FNS 380 worksheet), and

provide a secondary review of findings.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 28

majority of managers surveyed (86 percent) and staff in each site visit State reported all cases received a

second‐party review. This typically was conducted by a QC supervisor or coordinator.48 In some States,

the QC directors also reviewed a subset of cases, following the supervisor or coordinator review.  

QC managers interviewed in three States reported all incomplete and NSTR cases received an additional

level of review beyond the SQCR and supervisor’s reviews. In two of these States, a supervisor or the QC

director provided the additional review, while the third State convened a weekly teleconference to

discuss possible ways to complete the cases.49

Error Review Conference Calls. Staff in five of the six site visit States reported convening a group of

individuals weekly, biweekly, or monthly to discuss cases found to have errors. Typically, the QC

director, supervisors, and a representative from the policy office participated in the conference calls.

The calls included reviewers, representatives from local or State regional SNAP offices, and/or

consultants hired by the States for assistance in improving error rates.

The focus of these discussions varied somewhat across the States. Topics in one State included the

previous month’s error rate, trends observed by QC staff in errors, and/or corrective actions for

preventing future errors. The other four States focused on errors in individual cases under review at the

time of the call.  

State staff also used the discussions to provide quality assurance of the error findings and to brainstorm

ways to mitigate the errors within the bounds of current policies. One example of the latter was to

incorporate nonreimbursed medical expenses for elderly cases that then offset the observed error. The

strategy potentially eliminated or reduced the error below the reportable threshold. Respondents

indicated, however, that these discussions seldom led to changes in error findings.  

Local Office Review. Prior to submitting QC review findings to FNS, all six site visit States provided

relevant local offices an opportunity to rebut the findings of error cases (or all cases in some States). The

State’s QC staff then upheld or overturned the error based on the local office response and any new

information.

Variation in Secondary Reviews of QC Findings by State Completion Rate Group

States with low completion rates more commonly held error review calls than States with high

completion rates.

8. Transmittal to FNS

The last step in the State QC Review Process was to transmit the final case review findings to FNS

through the online SNAP QCS. States must submit review findings within the allotted 115 days, or they

lose the opportunity to arbitrate cases, should their findings conflict with those from Federal re‐reviews.

Among the six site visit States, the SNAP QC director typically provided the final approval of case findings

before they were transmitted.  

   

                                                            

48 No reviewer reported providing second‐party reviews of another reviewer’s case.   49 Note that incomplete cases could still be completed throughout the review year if, for example, nonresponsive clients

contacted the QC reviewer after the case had already been submitted to FNS.  
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 29

B. Incomplete Cases

State SNAP QC staff were asked specifically about the reasons for incomplete cases (section 1) and their

perceptions of whether and how those reasons had changed over time (section 2). Survey results for this

section appear in appendix tables B.2a and B.2b.

1. Reasons for Incomplete Cases

The most common reason reported for recent incomplete cases was failure to cooperate (52 percent),

followed closely by refusal to cooperate (48 percent; figure 3.7). The vast majority of incomplete cases

stemmed from lack of cooperation by SNAP households rather than collateral contacts; for example, 45

percent of recent incomplete cases stemmed from client refusal to cooperate, compared to only 3

percent from a collateral contact refusal to cooperate.50 Incomplete reviews may also have resulted

from an inability to locate the case record, but this was rare. These results were consistent across

completion rate groups.

Figure 3.7. SQCR Reported Reasons for Most Recent Incomplete Cases

Source: Survey of State Quality Control Reviewers

2. Change Over Time in Incomplete Cases  

State QC staff reported whether and how lack of client cooperation had changed over time. Their

perceptions are summarized in this section.

Types of Incomplete Cases. Close to two‐thirds of SQCRs (64 percent) observed no change over time in

the frequency of either type of noncooperation associated with incomplete reviews (see figure 3.8).

However, among those reporting a change, most indicated an increase in both failures to cooperate and

refusals to cooperate. Results are similar across the three categories of State completion rates.

   

                                                            

50 A case may be incomplete if the client cooperates with the review, but a collateral contact does not cooperate with providing

necessary documentation.

52% 48% Refusal to cooperate Failure to cooperate
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 30

Figure 3.8. SQCR Perceptions of Change Over Time in Types of Incomplete Cases Among SQCRs With at

Least 5 Years of Experience With SNAP QC

Source: Survey of State Quality Control Reviewers

Challenges Locating Clients. Changes over time in the ease or means of reaching clients may also affect

the likelihood of case completion. About 33 percent of surveyed SQCRs reported increasing difficulty in

locating clients. The most common reasons reported were more disconnected phone numbers (88

percent) and a larger homeless population (55 percent; figure 3.9). SQCRs also noted more returned

mail (49 percent), less cooperation from collateral contacts (41 percent), and an increase in incorrect

addresses (37 percent) contributed to a growing number of clients who could not be located.

Figure 3.9. SQCR Perceived Reasons for Increased Difficulty Locating Clients

Source: Survey of State Quality Control Reviewers

33% 29%

64% 64%

3% 7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Failure to Cooperate Refusal to Cooperate

Increase No change Decrease

88%

55%

49%

41% 37% 39%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

More

disconnected

phone numbers

More homeless More returned

mail

Less cooperation

from collateral

contacts

More incorrect

addresses

Other
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 31

Number of Contact Attempts Necessary To Complete Cases. Increases over time in the number of

contacts necessary to successfully reach a client and collect sufficient information to complete a case

may also have affected overall completion rates. Although the majority of SQCRs (60 percent) reported

no such change over time, 49 percent reported seeing an increase. Reviewers in States with low

completion rates were slightly less likely to report an increase in the number of contact attempts

necessary to complete a case than those in States with average and high completion rates (figure 3.10).

Figure 3.10. SQCR Perceptions of Change Over Time in the Number of Contact Attempts Necessary To

Complete a Case Review by State Completion Rate Group Among SQCRs With at Least 5 Years of

Experience With SNAP QC  

Source: Survey of State Quality Control Reviewers

C. State SNAP QC Staff  

Both the quantity and quality of staff resources may influence the frequency of incomplete reviews. This

section provides an overview of the tenure, workloads, training, and oversight of State SNAP QC

reviewers. Detailed survey results for this section appear in appendix tables B.3 and B.4.

1. Staff Size

State QC directors reported a mean of 13.1 SNAP QC reviewers on staff. Although the QC sample sizes

across States were somewhat similar, staff sizes varied considerably. Roughly one‐quarter of directors

(27 percent) reported 10 or fewer SQCRs in their State, while nearly one‐third reported staff of 15 or

more SQCRs. Overall, a large majority of directors and supervisors (83 percent) felt their staff size was

sufficient to produce quality results; this was similar across completion rate groups.

Variation in Staff Size by State Completion Rate Group

Almost 43 percent of directors in States with high completion rates cited an increase in the size of their

QC staff over the previous 5 years, while the percentage of directors in States with low and average

completion rates that reported increases was measurably smaller: 23 and 7 percent, respectively (figure

3.11).  

   

45% 51% 48%

49% 46% 48%

7% 3% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate

Increase No change Decrease
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 32

Figure 3.11. SNAP QC Directors’ Perceptions of Change in Number of SQCRs in Previous 5 Years by

State Completion Rate Group  

Source: Survey of State Quality Control Managers

2. Staff Experience

Experience With SNAP QC. SNAP QC managers had an average of 13.1 years of experience in SNAP QC.

Approximately one‐quarter had 5 or fewer years of experience, while approximately one‐third had more

than 15 years of experience. As expected, SQCRs had fewer years of QC experience—an average of 7.8

years. Nearly one‐half of reviewers (47 percent) had 5 or fewer years of experience, while only 13

percent had more than 15 years of experience.  

Prior SNAP Experience. A large majority of SNAP QC staff had experience working with SNAP prior to

their position in QC, including 84 percent of SQCRs and 85 percent of SNAP QC managers. Managers in

site visit States reported that previous SNAP experience, typically as an eligibility worker, was a

requirement for being hired as a QC reviewer. Similarly, many reported that familiarity with SNAP policy

was a critical prerequisite to working in SNAP QC.

Variation in Staff Experience by State Completion Rate Group

SNAP QC staff in States with high completion rates had more years of SNAP QC experience on average

than those in States with low or average completion rates (figure 3.12). Nearly half (48 percent) of

managers in States with high completion rates had more than 15 years of experience, compared to one‐

third (33 percent) of those in States with low completion rates and one‐quarter (25 percent) in States

with average completion rates. Similarly, all managers (100 percent) in States with high completion rates

worked in SNAP prior to QC, compared to 82 percent of managers in other States.  

Approximately 21 percent of SQCRs in States with high completion rates had more than 15 years of

SNAP QC experience, compared to 9 and 13 percent in States with average and low completion rates,

respectively.

23% 7%

43% 8% 29%

14%

69% 64%

43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate

Increase No change Decrease
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 33

Figure 3.12. Mean Years of SNAP QC Experience by State Completion Rate Group

Source: Surveys of State Quality Control Reviewers and Managers

3. Staff Workload

SNAP QC Caseload. SNAP QC reviewers surveyed reported monthly assignments of 7.4 active cases and

5.6 negative cases on average. Caseload size varied across States, however; nearly one‐third of

reviewers (31 percent) reported five or fewer active cases the previous month, compared to 37 percent

of reviewers with 9 or more cases. Among reviewers who had worked in SNAP QC for at least 5 years, 43

percent of reviewers reported no change over time in the size of their caseloads, while 40 percent

reported caseloads had increased over time.

Additional Duties. Staff in some States had additional job duties outside of SNAP QC, including 42

percent of reviewers and 55 percent of managers. Reviewers in some States conducted QC reviews for

programs other than SNAP, such as child care or TANF, while reviewers in other States specialized in

SNAP QC only. Reviewers in some States also reported working on tasks other than QC reviews,

including meeting with county offices, conducting various program review tasks, and working on special

projects.

Variation in Staff Workload by State Completion Rate Group

SNAP QC Caseload. Average QC caseload sizes were somewhat consistent across SQCRs surveyed from

States with low and high completion rates (7.0 active reviews and 7.8 active reviews, respectively).

Results from site visit States, however, suggested higher SNAP QC caseloads among States with low

completion rates and smaller caseloads in States with high completion rates. The difference between

results from interviews and surveys may underscore the variation across States in QC caseload sizes.

Additional Job Duties. Staff in States with high completion rates were more likely than staff in States

with average and low completion rates to have job duties in addition to their SNAP QC responsibilities.

For example, 78 percent of State managers with high completion rates had additional job duties,

compared to 53 percent of State managers with low completion rates (figure 3.13). Similarly, 57 percent

of SQCRs in States with high completion rates had additional duties, compared to 34 percent of

reviewers in States with low completion rates. This pattern makes it difficult to compare the overall

workloads for staff in different State completion rate groups.

6.9 7.6

9.3

13.5

10.7

17.4

0

4

8

12

16

20

Low Average High

Number of Years' Experience

State Completion Rate

Reviewers Managers
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 34

Figure 3.13. Percentage of Managers and Reviewers With Job Duties Outside of SNAP QC by State

Completion Rate Group

Source: Surveys of State Quality Control Reviewers and Managers

The opposite trend was found among SQCRs interviewed in site visit States, where overall workloads in

States with low completion rates were generally higher than those in States with high completion rates.

In one State with a low completion rate, for example, a reviewer reported an average monthly SNAP QC

caseload of 10–13 active cases and 8–15 negative cases, along with 5–10 reviews for another State

program.

In a second State with a low completion rate with a similar number of SNAP QC cases per reviewer,

SQCRs were also responsible for conducting reviews each month for one to two other State programs,

for meeting with county offices to follow up on corrective action plans, and/or for participating in

special projects as requested by upper management. In the third State with a low completion rate,

SQCRs conducted reviews only for SNAP, with no additional duties. Typical monthly caseloads included

approximately 9–12 active cases and 7–10 negative cases.

In contrast, SNAP QC caseloads in the three States with higher completion rates tended to be lower, and

reviewers were less likely to have other duties. Staff in two of the three States, for example, reported

SNAP QC caseloads of 6–8 active cases and 3–5 or 4–7 negative cases. In each of these three States,

SQCRs conducted reviews only for SNAP, and respondents in one State reported having an additional

two staff members responsible for county management evaluations who were able to take on partial

SNAP QC caseloads as needed.

Change in Caseload Over Time. Among SQCRs with at least 5 years of experience in SNAP QC, reviewers

in States with low and average completion rates were somewhat more likely to report their SNAP QC

caseload had increased over time: 40 and 43 percent, respectively, compared to 33 percent among

SQCRs in States with high completion rates (figure 3.14). In contrast, SQCRs in States with high

completion rates were most likely to report their caseloads had decreased in recent years: 26 percent,

compared to 19 percent among SQCRs in States with low completion rates and 12 percent among SQCRs

in States with average completion rates.

34% 40%

57% 53%

45%

78%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate

Reviewers Managers
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 35

Figure 3.14. SQCR Perceptions of Change in SNAP QC Caseload Over Time by State Completion Rate

Group Among SQCRs With at Least 5 Years of Experience With SNAP QC

Source: Surveys of State Quality Control Reviewers

4. Training Provided to SNAP QC Staff

New SQCRs typically received an initial one‐on‐one training with a supervisor and then on‐the‐job

training. Some States used a structured format with materials developed specifically for training new

SQCRs, while others informally trained reviewers. The duration of training for new reviewers varied; for

example, SQCRs in one State attended a 1.5‐day training, compared to a 2‐week intensive program of

instruction in another State.  

Because reviewers typically came in with prior SNAP experience, training focused on QC review

procedures, with relatively less attention to SNAP policy. Each State reported covering the FNS 310

Handbook and procedures during training. Following training, new reviewers in some States

accompanied an experienced reviewer on interviews and/or had another reviewer accompany them on

their first reviews. In some States, new reviewers were assigned a lighter caseload in the first month(s),

either fewer active cases or only negative cases.

SQCRs received ongoing instruction on policy changes or other emergent issues, typically in the form of

an email from the QC director or supervisors. Reviewers in one State reported their State policy office

broadcasted policy change notifications agency‐wide by email. In‐person or phone conferences were

also used by QC management to share new information with reviewers.

Overall, SNAP QC staff received training on a wide variety of topics related to SNAP policy and SNAP QC

review procedures, including the use of likely conclusion (reported by 73 percent of SQCRs), interview

techniques (60 percent), and methods for locating households (52 percent). Some reviewers reported,

however, that additional training would be helpful, particularly on complex issues outlined in the FNS

310 Handbook (reported by 50 percent), the use of likely conclusion (40 percent), State‐specific policies

(36 percent), and procedural components of QC reviews (34 percent).

The majority of reviewers (84 percent) reported receiving training from a QC supervisor or coordinator;

42 percent reported also receiving training from a QC director. One‐quarter of reviewers (26 percent)

received training from a third‐party contractor.  

40% 43% 33%

41% 46%

40%

19% 12%

26%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate

Increase No Change Decrease
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 36

Variation in Training by State Completion Rate Group

Eighty‐two percent of reviewers from States with low completion rates reported that the frequency of

training had stayed the same or decreased over time, compared to notably smaller percentages of

reviewers from States with average or high completion rates. In contrast, 30–49 percent of reviewers

from States with high and average completion rates, respectively, cited increases in the frequency of

training (figure 3.15).

Figure 3.15. SQCR Perceptions of Change in Training Frequency by State Completion Rate Group

Among SQCRs With at Least 5 Years of Experience With SNAP QC

Source: Surveys of State Quality Control Reviewers

A larger proportion of reviewers from States with low and average completion rates received training

from third‐party contractors (33 and 26 percent, respectively) than those from States with high

completion rates (13 percent; figure 3.16).

Figure 3.16. Percentage of SQCRs Who Received Training From a Third‐Party Contractor by State

Completion Rate Group

Source: Surveys of State Quality Control Reviewers

18%

49%

30%

52%

31% 56%

30% 20% 15%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate

Increased No change Decreased

33%

26%

13%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 37

5. Oversight of SQCRs

Because supervisors, like SQCRs, are typically located throughout their State, ongoing communication

between supervisors and staff often involved email, phone, and/or instant messaging. Reviewers

reported relying on these methods to obtain feedback and troubleshoot cases as needed.  

The extent of communication varied across States, however. At one extreme, reviewers in one site visit

State reported biweekly videoconferences, semiannual in‐person meetings, routine in‐person visits by

supervisors, and frequent contact by phone, email, and instant messaging. At the other extreme,

reviewers in another site visit State reported very little ongoing communication, no regular phone calls,

and one annual in‐person meeting.  

In five of six States visited, supervisors’ roles included reviewing SQCRs’ work on QC cases, training new

reviewers, and providing general personnel oversight, such as monitoring staff performance. Three‐

quarters of surveyed managers (77 percent) monitored SNAP QC completion rates by reviewer.

Interviews indicated that managers typically used this information to identify issues with individual

reviewers and to troubleshoot accordingly as needed.  

The majority of State SNAP QC managers reported confidence in the supervisory capacity of their SNAP

QC staff. Three‐quarters of managers (77 percent), for example, reported they had an adequate number

of supervisors, and 92 percent reported supervisors had the resources needed to do their jobs

effectively.  

Variation in SQCR Oversight by State Completion Rate Group

Several reviewers in two of the three site visit States with low completion rates reported very little

ongoing communication either between reviewers or with their supervisors. Reviewers in the remaining

four States reported more regular communication with other staff or supervisors and/or regular

meetings of all staff.

Slightly higher proportions of managers in States with high completion rates monitored completion

rates by reviewer than did managers in States with low completion rates (figure 3.17).  

Figure 3.17. Percentage of Managers Who Monitor Completion Rates by Reviewer

Source: Survey of State Quality Control Managers

75% 78% 83%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 38

Managers from States with high completion rates were somewhat more likely to report that reviewers

in their States followed the same procedures to conduct reviews: 100 percent, as compared to 84 and

94 percent of managers from States with low and average completion rates, respectively (figure 3.18).

Figure 3.18. Percentage of Managers Reporting Reviewers All Follow the Same Procedures When

Conducting Reviews by State Completion Rate Group

Source: Survey of State Quality Control Managers

   

84%

94% 100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Low Average High

State Completion Rate
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 39

Chapter 4. Federal SNAP QC Review Process

he Federal portion of the SNAP QC review process begins when a State transmits data to FNS

through SNAP QCS. FNS’s Regional Offices review all incomplete cases and NSTR cases, and a

subsample of each State’s complete active cases. This chapter examines the Regional Office review

process from the time the office receives the cases from the States through the time FNS makes a final

determination about each case.

Findings are based on semi‐structured interviews with SNAP QC managers51 and FQCRs from two

Regional Offices and a survey of FQCRs from the other five Regional Offices. Percentages presented in

the text and figures refer to survey results. Unless otherwise noted, results from qualitative interviews

and the surveys were consistent. Section A of this chapter describes the Regional Office procedures for

conducting SNAP QC reviews. Section B describes the experience, workload, and training of Federal

SNAP QC staff. Detailed tabulations of survey results appear in appendix C.

A. Regional Office SNAP QC Review Process

Federal reviews are designed to ensure States are reviewing cases and applying SNAP policy accurately.

This section discusses the steps involved in the Regional Office QC review process: case sampling and

assignment to FQCRs (section 1), preparations for case review (section 2), the review process for active

complete cases (section 3), the review process for active incomplete cases (section 4), secondary

reviews of findings (section 5), and the resolution of disagreements between State and Federal reviews

(section 6).

1. Case Sampling and Assignment to FQCRs

Sampling. Each month, FQCRs review all QC cases designated as incomplete or NSTR plus a subsample of

active complete and negative cases for each State. This representative subsample is based on the size of

the monthly QC sample of the State. The sample size typically ranges from 150 to 400 active complete

cases per year and 75 to 160 negative cases per year per State, with each Regional Office reviewing

cases for 5‐10 States. The number of NSTR and incomplete cases varies substantially between States. In

FY 2013, the annual number of NSTR cases ranged from 14 to 129 per State, and the number of

incomplete cases ranged from 0 to 143.  

Once review cases have been selected, the Regional Office requests the case files from the States. Most

States provide an electronic case file, such as a PDF, but a few States mail paper case files to the

Regional Office.

Case Assignment. The Regional Offices vary in how cases are assigned to FQCRs. One of the site visit

Regional Offices assigns each FQCR to a single State, so the FQCR focuses exclusively on that specific

State. This strategy makes case distribution straightforward and limits the amount of policy knowledge

FQCRs must have across States. The other site visit Regional Office assigns multiple States to each FQCR

so that individual States are reviewed by multiple FQCRs. The advantage of this strategy is that each

FQCR can use at least one peer as a resource when questions or difficulties with State policy or QC

practices occur. The second strategy is more common across the other Regional Offices; 79 percent of

FQCRs conduct reviews for two or more States (see figure 4.1).  

                                                            

51 Branch chiefs and coordinators

T
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 40

One of the site visit Regional Offices assigns all incomplete cases to a single staff member with less

experience than the FQCRs. Incomplete cases are thought to be relatively easy to review because it is

not necessary to know the nuances of State policy or to recalculate benefit amounts. However, this

strategy is relatively uncommon across Regional Offices: the vast majority of FQCRs surveyed (96

percent) reviewed incomplete cases in the past year, and more than four‐fifths (83 percent) reviewed at

least one incomplete case in a typical month.

Figure 4.1. Number of States in a Typical FQCR Caseload

Source: Survey of Federal Quality Control Reviewers

Review Timeline. The Regional Office review period is 70 days per case. The actual time it takes to

conduct a review varies from 30 minutes to a full workday, depending on the complexity of the case and

whether all materials are initially available in the case record. Once all documents are available,

however, most cases can be reviewed in less than 3 hours. Incomplete and negative cases typically take

less time to review (less than an hour each) because they require fewer steps than active complete

cases.  

Surveyed FQCRs were almost evenly divided as to whether the amount of time available to complete all

their reviews was sufficient (52 percent regarded the amount of time available as insufficient). Similarly,

about half of FQCRs indicated the amount of time necessary to review a case had increased over the

past 5 years. This may be in part because of the changes in steps and tools used to conduct reviews, as

discussed in section 3.

2. Preparations for Case Review

The review process at the Regional Office level consists of a desk review, in contrast to the face‐to‐face

interviews and field work conducted during the State reviews. The first step for FQCRs is to review the

case file provided by the State to make sure it contains all the necessary documents. FQCRs rarely have

access to State information systems and databases, so if documents are missing, the Regional Office

must request them from the State.52 FQCRs in one site visit Regional Office funnel all such

communications through the Regional QC coordinator; at the other, FQCRs reach out directly to the

main point of contact in each State. About two‐thirds of FQCRs reported direct access to State systems

                                                            

52 Only one FQCR reported having access to State systems.

21%

48%

31%

1 State 2 States 3 or more States
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 41

and databases would be helpful as it would speed the review process and ensure that FQCRs have all

relevant information for their review.

Most FQCRs (74 percent) reported the State files they receive for incomplete cases almost always or

often contain all the necessary materials. Similarly, most FQCRs (81 percent) reported the cases files

almost always or often included thorough documentation on the review procedure. Fifty‐two percent of

FQCRs, however, reported at least occasionally requesting additional information from the State for

incomplete cases. These informal requests are made with the intent of completing the cases, if the

missing information is available and sufficient to do so. Some FQCRs noted States are more cooperative

about providing information when it appears the incomplete cases would be correct rather than when

they would be deemed to have errors.

3. Case Review Process for Active Complete Cases

The goal of the Federal review is to determine whether the FQCR agrees or disagrees with the findings

of the State. The desk review of complete active cases generally consists of an examination of the FNS‐

380 elements, the computation sheets, and the verification documents. The steps for conducting

reviews have changed in recent years, with one‐third of FQCRs reporting the steps have changed to

some extent and one‐half reporting the steps have changed a lot. These changes were commonly

attributed to new guidance and additional tasks from the FNS National Office. For example, one recently

added task was the evaluation of the timeliness of application processing by the State.53

Changes were also attributed to the introduction of the automated FNS‐380 system. This online tool is

based on an MS Access database and allows users to simultaneously review and document their findings

directly in the system. The automated FNS‐380 is a substitute for the paper FNS‐380 form. The structure

of the automated 380 requires FQCRs to review every element, not just those relevant to a particular

case. Almost three‐quarters of FQCRs always or often used the automated FNS‐380 in their reviews.

Two‐thirds of FQCRs reported the automated system did not affect the ease of conducting reviews,

although some indicated the requirement to navigate through every field made conducting reviews

more time‐consuming.  

FQCRs were asked about other materials used in the review process. Most stated they often use the FNS

310 Handbook and State‐specific QC materials during the review process, but they rarely use the FNS

315 Handbook.

Once the review is complete, findings are entered into SNAP QCS. If the FQCR agrees with State findings,

the review is considered complete, either at this point or after a secondary review (see section 5). If the

FQCR disagrees with State findings, the case (referred to as a “disagree” case) is likely to receive a

secondary review, and the Regional Office and State work formally or informally to resolve the

differences (see section 6).

   

                                                            

53 This timeliness measure refers to the initial processing of the application for certification or recertification; it does not refer

to the timeliness of the State’s QC process.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 42

On Completing Incomplete Cases 

at the Federal Level

It takes a lot of time. The clients are 

even more reluctant to talk to some 

stranger calling from [the Regional 

Office] about something they don’t 

really understand than they would 

have been with someone from their 

own State. ... It’s not easy for us to 

complete a case. 

—FQCR Interview Respondent

4. Case Review Process for Active Incomplete Cases

Reviewers use the same set of tools for incomplete cases

as for complete cases, but reviews follow a slightly

different process than reviews of complete cases. Rather

than examining the individual data elements and the

benefit calculations, reviewers focus on the narrative

description of the process used by the SQCR and the

available information in the case. The purpose of these

reviews is to assess whether the case was correctly

disposed of as incomplete.  

The FNS 315 Handbook specifies that FQCRs “may take

actions to complete the case and if the review is

completed will report it to the State as a completed

case” (section 230, pp. 2–5). However, it was uncommon

for FQCRs to attempt to complete cases. In one of the site visit Regional Offices, FQCRs were

discouraged from making phone calls to clients or collateral contacts in an effort to attempt to complete

cases. In the other site visit Regional Office, FQCRs occasionally made phone calls to employers or

landlords, but limited time and resources frequently precluded this type of effort. FQCRs in both site

visit Regional Offices occasionally completed cases if they could do so without collecting additional

information.  

Federal QC staff viewed completing cases as a time‐intensive activity. Almost half of FQCRs (48 percent)

reported no attempts to complete a case during the past year and an additional 11 percent reported

one or fewer attempts per year (see figure 4.2). The primary reasons cited were a lack of time and the

absence of any requirement. Eleven percent of FQCRs, however, reported attempting to complete a

case at least once a month. When FQCRs did take steps to complete cases, the most common methods

were phone calls to collateral contacts or to the household. However, these efforts were seldom

successful. More than three‐quarters of FQCRs who made at least one attempt to complete a case

during the previous year (79 percent) estimated that attempts to complete cases were successful less

than one‐quarter of the time.

FQCRs rarely formally disagreed with State dispositions of cases as incomplete and returned them for

additional work. Instead, FQCRs were more likely to request additional case information informally

during their review because formal disagreements tended to take substantially more time for the FQCR,

QC coordinator, and branch chief. Some FQCRs reported it was more common to change the disposition

of a case from incomplete to NSTR than it was to complete the case. Furthermore, some FQCRs who

reviewed cases for States with relatively high completion rates indicated they believed that incomplete

cases in those States could not be completed.

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 43

Figure 4.2. Frequency of FQCRs Attempting To Complete Incomplete Cases

Source: Survey of Federal Quality Control Reviewers

5. Secondary Reviews of Findings

Once the FQCR finishes a review, a second party may review the case. This second‐party review is most

often performed by the QC coordinator; 73 percent of FQCRs reported their QC coordinator does these

reviews, but FQCRs in one Regional Office (19 percent) reported another FQCR does so (figure 4.3).

The number and types of cases getting a secondary review varies across Regional Offices. The QC

coordinator in one of the site visit Regional Offices reviewed all cases, while the coordinator in the other

site visit Regional Office reviewed cases only where there was a disagreement (disagree cases) between

Federal and State findings, citing a lack of time as the primary reason for limiting the number of

secondary reviews. Most FQCRs in other Regional Offices (90 percent) reported that at least some cases

received a secondary review. Cases subject to a secondary review often included disagree cases (62

percent) or a sample of all cases (69 percent).

Figure 4.3. Federal QC Staff Member Who Conducts Secondary Reviews

Source: Survey of Federal Quality Control Reviewers

48%

11%

11%

19%

11%

No attempts

Less than once a year

At least every 4–6 months

At least every 2–3 months

At least once a month

4%

73%

19%

4%

QC director QC coordinator

Another FQCR Other
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 44

6. Resolution of Differences Between State and Federal Findings

The Regional Offices convey their findings on all cases to the States through SNAP QCS. For cases where

there is a disagreement, this system contains a few standard fields that inform the State which element

or elements are the source of the disagreement. Typically, the Regional Offices also sends a letter to the

State explaining the reason for the disagreement. Although the QC coordinator at the Regional Office is

generally responsible for overseeing this communication, the FQCR who reviewed the case often drafts

the letter. This letter typically includes a detailed description of the reason for the disagreement

between Federal and State QC and references to documents in the case file and citations to the relevant

policies.

The State then has 20 days to respond and to request formal arbitration if an agreement cannot be

reached informally. Often, disagreements can be resolved informally over the telephone between the

Regional Office QC coordinator and the State representative, and the resolution is documented in SNAP

QCS. If the informal arbitration process is unsuccessful, the case moves to formal arbitration. FNS’s

Federal arbitrator has the final judgment on cases where the State and Regional Office disagree.

B. Federal SNAP QC Staff

Federal QC staff generally consist of a branch chief (or QC director), a QC coordinator, and 5–7 QC

reviewers. QC staff usually work in the Regional Office, but a few work out of their homes or other

locations. This section describes the experience, workload, and training of FQCRs. 54

1. Staff Experience

About two‐thirds of FQCRs surveyed had more than 5 years of experience in SNAP QC at the Federal

level. A majority of the FQCRs had worked only at the Federal level, but 31 percent also had experience

with SNAP QC at the State level. The FQCRs who participated in the survey generally had more

experience than those at site visit Regional Offices, where 60 percent of FQCRs had fewer than 5 years’

experience and none had experience in State SNAP QC.

2. SNAP QC Staff Workload

Each FQCR reviewed an average of 48 active cases and 28 negative cases each month. A majority of

FQCRs (62 percent) indicated this represented an increase in caseload over the past 5 years.

Additionally, FQCRs typically reviewed about 12 incomplete cases each month. About 40 percent of

FQCRs described their current caseload of incomplete cases as an increase over the past 5 years, but 17

percent reported a decrease.

About one‐third of FQCRs focus exclusively on SNAP QC reviews (figure 4.4). For the other two‐thirds,

additional duties typically include training, policy, and management evaluations for specific States, or QC

reviews for programs other than SNAP.  

   

                                                            

54 The focus was on FQCRs; coordinators or directors were not included in the survey.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 45

Figure 4.4. Percentage of FQCRs’ Work Time Spent on SNAP QC Reviews

Source: Survey of Federal Quality Control Reviewers

FQCRs occasionally took on additional reviews to cover the workload of other reviewers on vacation or

medical leave. Almost three‐quarters of surveyed FQCRs reported this happened at least once per year.

Otherwise, QC coordinators cover for absent reviewers, or the FQCR may accumulate a backlog.

3. Training Provided to Federal SNAP QC Staff

QC coordinators or other senior QC staff typically trained new QC reviewers, either individually or in

small groups. Some FQCRs (45 percent) reported receiving regular, ongoing training or as needed.

However, 17 percent of surveyed FQCRs reported not receiving training on how to conduct a SNAP QC

review.

Training techniques included PowerPoint presentations, peer mentoring, and regular group discussions

on policy changes and other developments related to QC. Some training consisted of self‐directed

review of handbooks and other policy materials and regulations. FQCRs most commonly received

training on the FNS 310 Handbook, SNAP eligibility and certification policy, QC review procedures, and

the use of likely conclusion to complete a case. Although three‐quarters of FQCRs surveyed viewed the

training they received as effective, 52 percent indicated the amount of training had decreased in recent

years.

Changes in State policies often affect QC reviews for that particular State, so FQCRs need to keep up to

date on the current State policies that pertain to their caseloads. FQCRs reported they received

information from the Regional Office policy branch, the QC branch chief, and online resources. Some

FQCRs at site visit Regional Offices indicated these sources were not always effective, and new policies

sometimes came to light during the arbitration process.

   

17%

24%

28%

31%

0–49% of time 50–74% of time

75–99% of time 100% of time
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 46

Chapter 5. Characteristics of Incomplete Cases

he data collected during SNAP QC reviews and submitted to FNS form the basis of a national data file

used internally by SNAP QC staff in the National Office for monitoring program integrity, including

establishing the State and national error rates. An edited version of the data file is developed for public

use. This public use SNAP QC database is a probability‐based, national‐level data file used for conducting

research on the characteristics of the participant population. It contains only complete cases, and the

data are not weighted to compensate for missing incomplete cases. This chapter explores how

differences between complete and incomplete cases may or may not bias the QC research database due

to under‐ or overrepresentation of cases with certain economic, demographic, or administrative

characteristics.  

This analysis uses administrative case file data for incomplete and complete active QC cases for a period

of 3 years (from FY 2010 to FY 2012) from five States: Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, and Oklahoma.

These States represent a mix of those with high and low completion rates (see chapter 2 for details).

This analysis compares the characteristics of incomplete SNAP QC cases to those of complete cases

across all five States over this 3‐year period to assess whether there are any systematic differences.

Results were consistent across States unless otherwise stated. Section A describes the differences in the

distribution of characteristics of complete and incomplete cases. Section B describes the potential

influence of these differences on the distribution of characteristics in the overall QC database. Detailed

results, including State‐level results, appear in appendix D tables.

A. Differences in the Characteristics of Complete and Incomplete Cases

This section summarizes differences in the demographic, economic, and administrative characteristics of

households between complete and incomplete SNAP QC cases across the five States. Brief discussion of

trends consistent with qualitative study findings is included where available. The analyses focused on

the characteristics listed in table 5.1.  

Table 5.1. Variables Collected for Complete and Incomplete SNAP QC Cases

Demographic Information Economic Information Administrative Information 

 Household size

 Household composition, including

presence of elderly and children  

 Age of household head

 Metropolitan, micropolitan, or

rural household

 Gross household income as

percentage of poverty guideline

 Presence and sources of earned

and unearned income

 Whether the maximum allotment

was received

 Benefit amount

 Type of most recent action that

occurred prior to or during review

month (i.e., new certification or

recertification)

 Date of most recent action

 Whether the case review was

completed

Source: Administrative data from five States

Notes: The following variables were requested from States but not included in this analysis because of difficulty across the

States in providing complete information: race/ethnicity of household head, disability and ABAWD status, receipt of General

Assistance, and State reporting requirements.

Key results are presented below for characteristics where the difference between complete and

incomplete cases was greater than 5 percentage points. Characteristics with smaller differences are

included in appendix D tables D.1–D.3.  

T
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 47

1. Incomplete cases are less likely to have unearned income and more likely to have

earned income  

Overall, incomplete cases were much less likely to have unearned income and somewhat more likely to

have earned income than complete cases (figure 5.1).55 This may reflect the relative difficulty of

verifying earned income during the SNAP QC process (e.g., obtaining paystubs from a client or

confirmation from an employer). Interview data with SQCRs, for example, indicated that verifying

earned income is more difficult because it requires the cooperation of the client (e.g. providing a

paystub) or an employer (e.g., providing confirmation of the clients employment and earnings), while

verification of unearned income is more readily available in State and Federal databases that reviewers

can access directly.  

Figure 5.1. Percentage of Households With Earned and Unearned Income by Review Completion Status

Source: Administrative data from five States

2. Incomplete cases include more households with zero income and receiving the

maximum benefit level

Incomplete cases were much more likely than complete cases to have zero income: 37 percent of

households among the incomplete cases had no gross countable income, relative to 20 percent of

households in complete cases (figure 5.2). This may reflect relatively higher mobility among zero‐income

households, making it more challenging to locate and contact them for a QC review. Interviews with

SQCRs, for example, indicated it can be difficult to locate a client without a permanent address (e.g.

individuals who are living with friends or family on a short‐term basis) or whose phone numbers have

been disconnected.  

Similarly, incomplete cases were more likely to receive the maximum benefit level: 43 percent as

compared to 33 percent (figure 5.2). Substantial overlap exists between households with zero income

and households receiving the maximum benefit level.  

                                                            

55 Iowa was not included in the analyses of levels or types of income because data on household income were not available for

incomplete cases.

27%

34%

62%

38%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Complete Incomplete

Percent of Cases

Earned Income Unearned Income
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 48

Figure 5.2. Percentage of Households With Zero Income and Receiving the Maximum Benefit Level by

Review Completion Status

Source: Administrative data from five States

3. Incomplete cases include fewer households with elderly members and more

households headed by individuals younger than 25

While differences in household composition were typically small or absent, incomplete cases were much

less likely than complete cases to have an elderly individual within the household (6 percent as

compared to 15 percent, figure 5.3). This pattern may reflect the nature of income among the elderly.

SQCRs interviewed, for example, reported that this group is more likely to have fairly stable levels of

unearned income that can be more readily verified and is relatively less mobile, making it easier to

locate them.  

Figure 5.3. Percentage of Households With Elderly by Review Completion Status

Source: Administrative data from five States

Similarly, incomplete cases tended to have younger heads of household than complete cases;

incomplete cases were nearly twice as likely to have a head of household younger than age 25 (figure

5.4). Further research would be needed to better understand this trend.

20%

37% 33%

43%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Complete Incomplete

Zero Income Maximum Benefit Received

15%

6%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Complete Incomplete
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 49

Figure 5.4. Age of Household Head by Review Completion Status

Source: Administrative data from five States

Note: Figures may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

4. Incomplete cases are more likely to be newly certified and to have shorter intervals

since the most recent administrative action

For almost half of incomplete cases, a new certification was the most recent administrative action. In

contrast, a certification was the most recent action for two‐fifths of complete cases (figure 5.5). This

suggests there may be more long‐term SNAP households among the completed cases. Long‐term SNAP

participants tend to be those with low but stable incomes who are likely to participate in other

assistance programs (e.g., TANF, SSI, Social Security; USDA FNS, Office of Policy Support, 2014). Further

research would be needed to better understand the higher prevalence of new certifications among

incomplete cases.

Figure 5.5. Percentage of Households for Whom the Most Recent Administrative Action Was Initial

Certification by Review Completion Status  

Source: Administrative data from five States

   

13% 24%

47%

53%

26%

17%

14% 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Complete Incomplete

<25 25–44 45–49 60+

40%

48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Complete Incomplete
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 50

On average, more time elapsed between the last eligibility determination (i.e., certification or

recertification) and the QC sample month for complete cases than for incomplete cases (see figure 5.6).

This is consistent with the observation that there are higher percentages of households with an elderly

person and unearned income among the complete than the incomplete cases. In general, certification

periods tend to be longer for households whose circumstances are less likely to change. Specifically,

many States take the option to certify households that consist solely of elderly or disabled individuals for

longer periods, namely 24 months instead of 12. Of the four States included in this analysis, Iowa,

Mississippi, and Oklahoma exercised this option.56

Figure 5.6. Mean Number of Months Between Most Recent Administrative Action and Sample Month

by Review Completion Status

Source: Administrative data from five States

5. Incomplete cases are more likely to be in metropolitan areas and less likely to be in

micropolitan areas

Incomplete cases were more likely than complete cases to be located in a metropolitan (or urban) area

with a population of 50,000 or more (figure 5.7). Incomplete cases were less likely than complete cases

to be located in micropolitan areas; these areas are around an urban area with a population of 10,000 to

49,999. All remaining areas are considered rural (U.S. Census, 2013). The proportion of households that

were rural was similar among incomplete and complete cases; rural cases made up one‐third of both

complete and incomplete cases.

   

                                                            

56 Data on most recent administrative action of incomplete cases were not available in Ohio; as a result, Ohio was not included

in the estimates of the most recent administrative action.

4.8

3.4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Complete Incomplete

Number of Months
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 51

Figure 5.7. Distribution of Metropolitan Status by Review Completion Status

Source: Administrative data from five States

Possible explanations offered by State reviewers during site visits included relatively higher mobility

among urban households and more employment opportunities. Mobility increases the difficulty of

locating and contacting SNAP clients, while employment introduces the challenge of verifying earned

income.  

B. Potential Effect of Incomplete Cases on the Distribution of Characteristics

in the National QC  Research Database

Although these results suggest some systematic differences between complete and incomplete QC

cases, they may not substantially affect the representativeness of national estimates generated from the

QC research database. This is because the proportion of incomplete cases is relatively small (e.g., 7

percent nationally in FY 2012 and 6 percent of cases in these five States in FY 2010–FY 2012).

Consequently, the effect on the characteristics of SNAP cases overall is modest. For example, although in

percentage terms 1.5 times as many incomplete as complete cases have zero income in the four States

where income information was available, the proportion of zero‐income households overall increases by

less than 1 percent when the incomplete and complete cases are combined (table 5.2). Similarly, the

estimate of households with unearned income across the same four States decreases by 1.5 percent

when the two groups of cases are combined.

It is important to note, however, that this analysis examines selected characteristics from a small subset

of States—five or fewer57—and conclusions therefore may not be generalizable to the national SNAP

population. Analyses of households with zero income, earned income, and unearned income, for

example, were based on data from four States, including three with high completion rates and one with

a low completion rate; estimates may be different using data from other States, particularly those with

lower average completion rates. In addition, this analysis cannot assess whether bias exists in estimates

at the State level or among subgroups of the SNAP population (e.g., estimates within the zero‐income

SNAP population).  

                                                            

57 Analyses of households with zero income, earned income, and unearned income were based on data from four States

(Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, and Oklahoma). Analyses of households where the most recent action was certification were

based on data from only three States with those data available (Kentucky, Mississippi, and Oklahoma). Analyses of all other

characteristics were based on data from all five States.

39% 51%

27% 16%

33% 33%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Complete Incomplete

Metropolitan Micropolitan Rural
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 52

Table 5.2. Distribution of Selected Characteristics Among SNAP QC Cases in Five States, Calculated

With and Without Incomplete Cases, FY 2010–FY 2012

Complete 

Cases 

(N = 17,679)

Incomplete 

Cases 

(N = 1,129)

Combined 

(Complete + 

Incomplete 

N = 18,808) 

Percentage 

Point 

Difference 

(C minus A) A B C 

Households with elderly 14.5% 6.5% 14.1%  ‐0.4

Household heads younger than 25 13.4% 24.2% 14.1% 0.7

Households with zero incomea 20.2% 37.3% 21.1% 0.9

Households with earned incomea 27.3% 34.3% 27.7% 0.4

Households with unearned incomea 62.0% 37.8% 60.8%  ‐1.2

Households receiving maximum benefit 33.0% 42.5% 33.5% 0.5

Most recent action was certificationb 40.3% 48.5% 40.6% 0.3

Mean months since most recent administrative

action 4.8    3.4    4.7  ‐0.1

Metropolitan households 39.2% 51.1% 39.9% 0.7

Micropolitan households 27.4% 15.5% 26.7%  ‐0.7

Total   94.0% 6.0% 100%   

Source: Administrative data from five States a Analysis based on data provided by Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Ohio as data were not available for Iowa. b Analysis based on data provided by Kentucky, Mississippi, and Oklahoma as data were not available for Iowa and Ohio.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 53

Chapter 6. Findings From QC Re‐Reviews  

of Incomplete Cases

n important component of this study is to determine whether a group of SNAP QC cases deemed

incomplete after State and Federal review could be completed with an additional, independent

round of reviews. This chapter presents results of re‐reviews of incomplete cases from three States with

relatively low completion rates: Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

Results are presented both for cases that were completed by the study team and those that remained

incomplete. For completed cases, the analysis compares the steps taken by the SQCR and study team

field interviewers to identify potential strategies that might help increase completion rates. For cases

that remain incomplete, a description of issues common to both rounds of review is presented. The

analysis also determined whether the newly completed case reviews contained payment errors.

The field interviewer process for conducting the QC re‐reviews is consistent with the general guidance

provided by the FNS 310 Handbook, including reviewing the case file, contacting the client to schedule

an in‐person interview, conducting the interview, verifying eligibility criteria, and documenting findings.

The study team provided field interviewers additional instruction specific to the re‐reviews, such as how

and when to contact the clients, to standardize procedures across field staff. Field interviewers informed

clients that their participation in the study was completely voluntary, no information would be shared

with the State, and they had no authority to terminate (or reinstate) benefits. Chapter 2 describes the

field data collection process and any differences between the study procedures and State review

procedures.

Section A of this chapter describes the outcomes of the re‐reviews. The strategies used by field

interviewers to successfully complete re‐reviews are presented in section B, and the challenges

encountered by field interviewers are discussed in section C.

A. QC Re‐Review Outcomes  

This section presents the outcomes of the QC re‐reviews, including the number of completed re‐reviews,

the outcomes of the remaining re‐reviews, and whether any errors were found.

Number and percentage of completed and incomplete re‐reviews. A sample of 75 incomplete cases

was initially selected for re‐review; however, about 15 percent of these were subsequently eliminated

or reclassified as NSTR.58 Among the remaining 64 incomplete cases in this sample, field interviewers

completed 11, or just over 17 percent (see table 6.1).59  

                                                            

58 Six of the 75 cases were removed from the initial re‐review caseload because they were under investigation or had been

completed since the Federal review. Five cases were reclassified as NSTR because of changes in household circumstances since

the time of the SQCR review as follows: (1) all household members had moved out of State (three cases), (2) the client (in a

single‐person unit) had become incarcerated (one case), and (3) the client (in a single‐person unit) had become hospitalized

(one case). These five cases were removed from additional analyses. 59 The rate among re‐reviews where field interviewers successfully made contact with the client was higher, at 26 percent. The

completion rate among contacted clients, referred to as the cooperation rate, is based on the number of completed reviews

out of all re‐reviews where clients were contacted (42), including those who refused.

A
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 54

Table 6.1. Outcomes of Field Interviewer Re‐Reviews

 Number Percent 

Initial Sample 75 NA

Total Cases Re‐Reviewed 64 100%

Complete 11 17%

Incomplete 53 83%

Source: Field interviewer case files for 11 completed re‐reviews

The 11 re‐reviews were completed despite a number of additional challenges:

 Having already been deemed incomplete by State and Federal reviewers  

 Having a substantially longer period between the sample month and review period than for

SQCRs  

 Client participation was voluntary and without the possibility of penalty for non‐cooperation  

 Lack of access to government databases for verifications  

 Requirement for a signed client release prior to all collateral contacts  

The completed re‐reviews may imply States could potentially complete a larger proportion of their QC

reviews than currently being completed. However, it is difficult to generalize about incomplete cases in

the overall SNAP QC caseload based on so few cases.

Number and percent of errors among completed re‐reviews. Among the 11 completed re‐reviews,

three were found to be in error.60 The resulting case error rate (the number of completed re‐reviews

with errors divided by the total number of completed reviews) was 27 percent (see table 6.2). The

payment error rate (the total amount of benefits issued in error divided by the total amount of benefits

issued) was 13 percent. In comparison, the national average case error rate for the most recent fiscal

year (FY 2013) was 5 percent, and the national combined payment error rate was 3 percent (USDA,

2015b).61

   

                                                            

60 A QC reviewer external to the research team reviewed and validated all findings and error analyses. 61 The national payment error rate is based on the sum of the annual overpayment and underpayment error rate. It also

includes an adjustment to the error calculation to account for the unknown error among the incomplete cases.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 55

Table 6.2. Case and Payment Error Rates for 11 Completed Re‐Reviews

 Number/Dollars Percent 

Total Completed Re‐Reviews (Number) 11 100%

Cases in error (case error rate) 3 27%

Total Monthly Benefits Issued (Dollars) $3,891 100%

Monthly benefits in error (payment error rate) $523 13%

Source: Analysis of FNS‐380 form for 11 completed re‐reviews

As shown in table 6.3, errors in all three cases were a result of overissuances. Two of the overissuance

errors resulted from unreported earned income, and one was the result of incorrectly reported shelter

costs. The reasons SQCRs were unable to complete the three original reviews varied. In one case, the

SQCR was unable to establish contact with the client and there was no evidence the client was aware of

the QC review (failure to cooperate). In another, the client did not show up for two scheduled interviews

after establishing contact and did not reply to any phone messages (refusal to cooperate). In the third,

the client refused to provide needed verifications (refusal to cooperate). The field interviewers were

able to contact the clients, conduct interviews, and obtain all necessary verifications to complete these

cases.62,63

In these three cases with payment errors, it is likely the errors would have been identified if SQCR

reviews were completed. The overpayments subsequently would have been included in the State’s error

rate. However, based on such a small number of completed cases (11), and errors among those

completed cases (3 out of 11), the findings do not support drawing conclusions about the potential bias

in national error rates due to errors in incomplete cases.64

Table 6.3. Circumstances of Errors Among Completed Re‐Reviews

 Characteristics 

of SNAP Unit 

Income 

Sources 

Reason SQCR Could Not 

Complete Review Reason for Error 

Case

Error 1  

Two‐person unit;

father and child

Earned

income

No contact with client (failure to

cooperate because no evidence that

client received any messages)

Attempted to complete without client

cooperation but couldn't obtain all

verifications

Unable to contact client, so SQCR was

unable to verify client's sample month

earnings

Re‐review determined the client had

unreported earned income for the

sample month (and for the 3 prior

consecutive months under

Simplified Reporting) that pushed

the household above the gross and

net income limits. The final error

determination for this case was a

$175 overissuance error for the QC

sample month

                                                            

62 As discussed in chapter 3, SNAP benefits may be terminated if a household can be shown to have refused to cooperate with

the SNAP QC process. In two of the three cases with payment errors, the SQCR case was incomplete due to the client’s refusal

to cooperate, and benefits were terminated. While it is possible that the termination of benefits may have increased the

client’s likelihood of cooperation in these and other completed re‐reviews, there is no clear evidence of this. Field staff

informed clients that their participation in the study was completely voluntary, no information would be shared with the State,

and they had no authority to reinstate or terminate benefits. 63 Of the other eight re‐reviews that field interviewers were able to complete, five were classified by SQCRs as refusals and the

State terminated the clients’ benefits for refusing to cooperate. SQCR case files do not always include definitive information on

whether benefits were terminated for refusals, but given State practices, it is likely that benefits were terminated for most or

all of the incomplete SQCR cases due to refusals. Client benefits are not terminated for failure to cooperate (see chapter 3).   64 That is, based on the results of only three cases, the study cannot determine whether incomplete cases are generally subject

to greater error than complete cases and cannot estimate the impact of incomplete cases on overall error rates.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 56

 Characteristics 

of SNAP Unit 

Income 

Sources 

Reason SQCR Could Not 

Complete Review Reason for Error 

Case

Error 2  

Four‐person unit;

mother and 3

children

Child

support;

SSI

Client was contacted but refused to

cooperate (failed to attend agreed‐

upon interview and failed to reply to

any more phone messages left for her)

Because of client's refusal to cooperate,

SQCR could not verify household

composition, earned income, child

support, shelter expenses, and medical

expenses

The State terminated the client’s

benefits because of refusal to

cooperate

Re‐review determined the client's

rental expense used at

recertification and for the sample

month was incorrect (the actual

rental expense was much lower than

the amount reported). The final

error determination for this case

was a $114 overissuance error for

the QC sample month

Case

Error 3  

Four‐person unit;

mother and three

children

Earned

income;

child

support

Client was contacted and interviewed

but refused to cooperate in providing

needed verifications

Because of client's refusal to cooperate

in providing verifications, SQCR was

unable to verify earned income and

shelter expenses for the sample month

The State terminated the client’s

benefits because of refusal to

cooperate

Re‐review determined the client had

unreported earned income at the

time of recertification that covered

the authorization of the sample

month's benefits. The final error

determination for this case was a

$234 overissuance error for the QC

sample month  

Source: Analysis of the FNS‐380 forms, documentation, and case files for 11 completed re‐reviews as validated by QC reviewer

external to the research team

B. Field Interviewer Strategies for Completing Cases Previously Coded as

Incomplete

To identify potential strategies for improving completion rates, this section first describes why SQCRs

were unable to complete the 11 reviews subsequently completed by field interviewers. It then discusses

what the field interviewers did differently than SQCRs.  

1. Reasons SQCRs Were Unable To Complete the 11 Re‐Reviews Field Interviewers

Completed

The initial incomplete status of these 11 cases was the result of some form of refusal or noncontact. The

client refused to cooperate in seven cases (64 percent), and the client or collateral contact could not be

reached (failed to cooperate) in the other four (36 percent, see table 6.4). In all cases, the SQCR

attempted to complete the review without the cooperation of the client or collateral contact but was

unable to do so.

In four of the seven refusals, clients did not show up for scheduled interviews; in the remaining three,

clients refused to provide verifications. Among the four failures to cooperate, three resulted from the

SQCR’s inability to contact the client. The fourth involved a collateral contact who could not be reached.  

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 57

Table 6.4. Reasons SQCRs Could Not Complete 11 Re‐Reviews Completed by Field Interviewers

Outcomes of 11 SQCR Reviews Number Percent 

Total   11 100%

Refusal To Cooperate 7 64%

Client verbally refused to conduct interview 0 0%

Client did not show up for scheduled interviews 4 36%

Client refused to provide verifications   3 27%

Failure To Cooperate 4 36%

Unable to establish contact with client 3 27%

Unable to reach collateral contact for needed verifications despite

cooperation from client 1 9%

Source: SQCR case files for 11 QC cases completed by field interviewers

2. Field Interview Strategies for Successfully Completing Cases Coded as Incomplete  

This section describes strategies to establish contact with clients, schedule and conduct interviews, and

collect needed verifications.  

a. Contacting Clients

Field interviewers generally were more persistent in contacting clients and used a greater variety of

contact methods than those documented by SQCRs. This persistence may have improved the likelihood

of successfully reaching clients and completing re‐reviews.  

Field interviewers made more contact attempts to reach clients. Both SQCRs and field interviewers

sent an initial and follow‐up letter to each client at some point during their respective reviews. However,

the number of telephone calls and home visits differed. On average, SQCRs made four contact attempts

to reach clients when scheduling interviews, while field interviewers made an average of eight (including

phone calls, letters, and home visits).

One effective strategy field interviewers reported is calling all numbers in the client’s file multiple times

and at different times of the day. While many numbers were disconnected or out of service, sometimes

one of them worked. In one case, for example, the field interviewer reached the client at the fifth phone

number tried.

Field interviewers used a greater variety of contact methods. In addition to making more contact

attempts, field interviewers also used a wider variety of contact methods. In all but 1 of the 11

completed re‐reviews, SQCRs used only letters and telephone calls to communicate with clients.65 Field

interviewers, however, used text messaging, email, social media, and home and neighborhood visits in

addition to calling and sending letters to clients. For example, a free text messaging service was used to

confirm and finalize appointments.66 Field interviewers also used social media and other online services

such as Facebook, Spokeo, and Whitepages to identify new or confirm existing information.67  

                                                            

65 The exception is one case in which the SQCR visited the home but still did not connect with the client. 66 Field interviewers were provided and trained in using a free Web‐based text messaging application from Google Voice.   67 Facebook.com, a social media service, and Whitepages.com, an online service to look up phone numbers, are free.

Spokeo.com, an online search engine that organizes White Pages, public records, and social network information to find
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 58

Field interviewers noted that text messaging was particularly useful because it allowed clients to make

last‐minute changes and to reschedule appointments easily and quickly. For clients who otherwise were

difficult to reach, home visits seemed to make a difference.  

Table 6.5 provides an illustrative comparison of the steps taken by an SQCR and field interviewer to

review a case. In this example, the SQCR made five contact attempts by letter and telephone. In

contrast, the field interviewer made 12 attempts by letter, telephone, and text and also used social

media to confirm the client’s location. Overall, it took the field interviewer 41 days to complete the

entire review (32 days to schedule and conduct the interview). In contrast, the SQCR spent 8 days

attempting to contact the client before dropping the case as incomplete. The comparison illustrates how

the greater number and variety of attempts by the field interviewer to contact the client proved

successful.

Table 6.5. Case Example: Comparison of Contact Strategies Employed by SQCR and Field Interviewer

SQCR Review Field Interviewer Re-Review 

1. The SQCR sent a letter to the client’s address listed in the

case file with an interview date and time at the SNAP

office.  

2. The client failed to show up for the interview.

3. The SQCR called the client and left a voice message

asking to reschedule the appointment.  

4. The SQCR sent an address verification form to USPS,

which verified the client’s address.  

5. The SQCR coordinator then sent a second letter asking

the client to contact the coordinator by a specified date.

6. The SQCR sent a failure to cooperate notice to the client,

and the case was coded as incomplete because of failure

to cooperate.  

1. The field interviewer called the client and left a voice

message.  

2. The field interviewer called again later that day, 3 days

later, then 3 days after that and left a voice message

saying she would be sending a letter with an

appointment date and time and to please call back to

confirm (or cancel/reschedule) the appointment.  

3. The field interviewer then checked Facebook, Spokeo,

and the White Pages and found the client on Facebook,

which confirmed the client’s town (but no specific

address).  

4. The field interviewer sent a letter to the client’s address

listed in the case file with an appointment date and time

at the client’s home and a list of verifications needed.  

5. The field interviewer called the client several days before

the interview and left a voice message reminding the

client of the interview.  

6. The client called the field interviewer back and said he

did not receive the letter because he had moved.  

7. The field interviewer rescheduled the interview for a

more convenient time, obtained the new address, and

sent a second letter with the agreed‐upon new

appointment date and time.  

8. The field interviewer called the client the day before the

scheduled interview to remind him of the interview.  

9. The client sent a text message to the field interviewer

saying he could not make the scheduled appointment,

and they rescheduled for several days later.  

10. The interview was then successfully conducted.

Source: SQCR and field interviewer case files for 11 QC cases completed by field interviewers

   

                                                                                                                                                                                               

information such as addresses and phone numbers, is $4.95 per month for a 3‐month membership and $3.95 for a 6‐month

membership.  
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 59

b. Scheduling and Conducting Interviews

This section describes how SQCRs and field interviewers contacted clients prior to interview dates and

offered a selection of interview locations. These contacts may have helped to build rapport and trust,

thus improving client willingness to cooperate in the reviews. Scheduling interviews in the client’s home

may also have improved cooperation by reducing the need for the client to travel to a SNAP office or

other location.

Field interviewers attempted to make verbal contact before scheduling and conducting interviews.

Field interviewers spoke with clients (either by phone or in‐person) prior to the interview in seven of the

11 completed re‐reviews. This contact allowed field interviewers to explain the review process up front,

to schedule (or reschedule) the interview for a convenient date and time, to remind clients of the

scheduled interview, and to inform them of the verification documents needed. In contrast, SQCRs

relied primarily on mail to schedule the appointment and attempted to phone the client in only 3 of the

11 cases to confirm the interview date after sending the letter. Instead, SQCRs advised clients in the

appointment letters to initiate a call if needed.  

Field interviewers conducted interviews in clients’ homes. Field interviewers scheduled all interviews in

the clients’ homes and made home (or neighborhood) visits when unable to reach the client. In contrast,

SQCRs scheduled 10 of the 11 initial interviews in a local SNAP or government assistance office and

scheduled 1 in a local library. Scheduling and holding interviews in clients’ homes or neighborhoods may

have increased cooperation by alleviating the burden and cost of traveling to a local office. To attend an

interview in the SNAP office, those without a car may need to purchase bus or train fare or find

someone to provide a ride.  

Field interviewers traveled to the address listed in the client’s case file on the date and time of the

interview even when they were unable to make verbal contact with the client. If the client was home,

the field interviewer could introduce the study and conduct the interview. If the client was not home,

the field interviewer could leave a note on the door, ask neighbors about the client’s whereabouts, and

come back another time. In two cases, field interviewers were able to complete the review because they

went to the address listed in the client’s case file even though they had not been able to reach the client

by phone or receive a response to letters sent.

Table 6.6 illustrates a case where the field interviewer’s visit to the client’s home led to a successful

interview. The field interviewer was able to find and interview the client in 7 days after he made a home

visit to the client’s address. The field interviewer was able to talk to the client’s grandmother about the

study, gain her trust, and ultimately locate and interview the client.

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 60

Table 6.6. Case Example: Comparison of Steps Taken To Schedule an Interview

SQCR Review Field Interviewer Re-Review 

1. The SQCR sent a letter to the client’s address listed in the

case file with the date and time of the appointment at

the SNAP office.

2. The client failed to show up for the interview.

3. The SQCR called the client but received no answer and

was not able to leave a voice message.

4. The SQCR sent a certified letter to the client’s address.

5. The SQCR called the client; a male answered but did not

know the client’s location.

6. The SQCR sent a letter to the county agency asking to

have the client contact the SQCR if the client came into

the office.

7. The certified letter was returned as unclaimed.

1. The field interviewer called the client’s telephone

number listed on the SNAP application; a male answered

and was evasive about the client’s location.  

2. The field interviewer called back, but no one answered;

he left a voice message asking the client to contact the

field interviewer at his cell phone number.  

3. The field interviewer sent an appointment letter to the

client’s address listed in the case file with an

appointment date and time at the client’s home.  

4. On the day of the scheduled interview, the field

interviewer went to the client’s home; his grandmother

answered the door and said the client did live with her

off and on during 2013 but was no longer living there.  

5. The grandmother then provided information on where to

find the client (and gave the location).  

6. The field interviewer then went to the location provided

by the grandmother and found the client there.

7. The interview was then successfully conducted.  

Source: SQCR and field interviewer case files for 11 QC cases completed by field interviewers

c. Obtaining Verifications To Complete Reviews

Both field interviewers and SQCRs faced the challenge of obtaining documentation from collateral

contacts when required verifications were not available in the case file or from the client. Field

interviewers took additional steps to obtain missing verification.

Field interviewers worked directly with collateral contacts to obtain missing documentation. While

SQCRs often relied on clients to obtain necessary verifications, field interviewers more often contacted

collateral contacts directly to obtain needed information. In 7 of the 11 cases, the field interviewer

worked directly with the collateral contact (by phone and/or in person) compared with only 3 of these

cases when under SQCR review. For example—

 In one case, the SQCR was unable to contact the client’s former employer to obtain verification

of earnings the client received for sporadic work. This was the only missing verification in the

SQCR review. The field interviewer, however, called the employer repeatedly. After several

attempts, along with additional calls and text messages, the field interviewer convinced the

employer to email verification of the sporadic earnings.  

 In another case, the SQCR was unable to confirm shelter expenses with the client’s landlord. The

field interviewer went to the landlord’s former office address, obtained his current phone

number, called the landlord for his new address, and went directly to his new office. The field

interviewer then met with the landlord, explained what he needed, and obtained the signed

verification of the client’s shelter expenses.  
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 61

 In two cases, the SQCR was unable to complete the review without the client’s cooperation.68 In

both cases, the field interviewer pursued collateral contacts directly, obtained the necessary

verification and completed the case re‐review.  

C. Field Interviewer Challenges That Commonly Prevent Completion of Cases

Previously Coded as Incomplete

Although field interviewers successfully completed 11 re‐reviews, they were unable to complete the

remaining 53 re‐reviews. This section describes key challenges faced by SQCRs and field interviewers

that prevented completion of their reviews.

Overall, the incomplete reviews for both sets of reviewers resulted more often from failure to cooperate

than refusal to cooperate (see table 6.7). For field interviewers and SQCRs, most failures to cooperate

stemmed from being unable to establish contact with the client (42 percent and 40 percent of all

incompletes, respectively). The remaining failures to cooperate were the result of not being able to

reach the collateral contact for needed verifications. Field interviewers may have had more difficulty

obtaining collateral verifications because they did not have access to all relevant databases, more time

had elapsed between the sample month and review period, and they required written consent from the

client to contact collaterals.

Clients not showing up for scheduled interviews was the circumstance that was most often associated

with a refusal to cooperate. This was true both for field interviewers and SQCRs. Outright verbal refusals

occurred somewhat more often among field interviewers than among SQCRs. This pattern is consistent

with the fact that client participation in the re‐reviews, compared to State QC reviews, was voluntary

and refusal carried no penalty.  

Table 6.7. Reasons for Incomplete Reviews for Field Interviewers and SQCRs Incomplete

Reasons

Field Interviewer 

Re-Reviews SQCR Reviews 

Number Percent Number Percent

Total   53 100% 53 100%

Refusal To Cooperate 18 34% 25 47%

Client verbally refused to conduct interview 7 13% 4 8%

Client did not show up for scheduled interviews 9 17% 12 23%

Client refused to provide verifications   2 4% 9 17%

Failure To Cooperate 35 66% 28 53%

Unable to establish contact with client 22 42% 21 40%

Unable to reach collateral contact for needed verifications

despite cooperation from client   13 25% 7 13%

Source: SQCR and field interviewer case files for 53 incomplete reviews

                                                            

68 A previously reported source of self‐employment earned income was missing in one case, and rental expense was missing in

the other case.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 62

1. Difficulties Finding Reliable Contact Information

Contacting clients who were no longer at the same phone numbers or addresses recorded in the case

files was particularly challenging for both field interviewers and SQCRs. As shown in table 6.8, this

occurred in 40 percent of the reviews and 42 percent of the re‐reviews. This challenge occurred even

though field interviewers made more contact attempts and used a wider variety of contact methods.

The reasons were often related to the lack of a working telephone number for clients; by the time of a

review, many phone numbers had been disconnected or no longer worked.69 The widespread use of cell

phones has exacerbated this problem. When clients rely on cell phones rather than landlines, there is no

common place to look for updated cell phone numbers or cross‐reference addresses. Frequent changes

in cell phone numbers (particularly common for pay‐as‐you‐go‐plans) also make it more difficult to find

reliable contact information. In about half of the cases where both the field interviewers and SQCRs

were unable to contact the client, it was the same client they were unable to contact in both cases.70

These results suggest that some clients may be very difficult to contact regardless of the persistence or

variety of attempts made.

Table 6.8. Extent of Client Contact for Incomplete Reviews  

 Field Interviewer 

 Re-Reviews SQCR Reviews 

Number Percent Number Percent

Total   53 100% 53 100%

Unable to establish contact with client 22 42% 21 40%

Established contact with client but could not interview (and could

not obtain all verifications) 16 30% 16 30%

Conducted interview (and could not obtain all verifications) 15 28% 16 30%

Source: SQCR and field interviewer case files for 53 incomplete reviews

2. Frequently Missed Appointments

Even after establishing client contact, SQCRs and field interviewers failed to conduct an interview in

almost a third of their reviews. Most often this happened because the client did not show up for the

interview. Even after agreeing to an interview date and time, clients frequently did not show up at the

SNAP office (for SQCR reviews) or were not at home (for field interviewer reviews). As described earlier,

SQCRs typically made some additional efforts to reschedule missed appointments, and field interviewers

were even more persistent in their efforts. While field interviewers’ persistence and willingness to

connect with clients at their homes helped convert some incompletes, a majority of cases remained

incomplete after the re‐review.  

   

                                                            

69 The study team received updated contact information from the State SNAP offices in the month before re‐reviews began. 70 In only about a third of the cases shown in table 6.8 where the outcome for both the field interviewers and SQCRs were (1)

established contact with client but could not interview or (2) conducted interview (and could not obtain all verifications), it was

the same client in both cases.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 63

3. Difficulties Obtaining Verifications

Clients often did not have all paystubs, cancelled checks, bills, and other documents required to verify

income and expenses for the sample month. This occurred for both SQCR reviews, which took place 1–3

months later, and for re‐reviews, which occurred 6–12 months beyond the sample month. As a result,

not only did clients have difficulty providing the required documentation, but field interviewers found

collateral contacts difficult to reach and with little incentive to provide the needed information.  

In 15 of 53 cases, field interviewers were able to complete all other aspects of the re‐review (contacted

client, conducted interview, and obtained some verifications) but could not complete the review

because of missing verifications. The most common verification field interviewers and SQCRs were

unable to obtain was wage and salary information, followed by shelter costs.

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 64

The ever-changing eligibility 

process and business model in 

our State makes it more difficult 

to complete cases. 

—SQCR Survey Respondent

Chapter 7. Challenges and Recommendations Related to  

SNAP QC Review Completion  

his chapter summarizes challenges encountered by State and Federal SNAP QC staff when

conducting SNAP QC reviews and how these challenges contribute to low completion rates. The

chapter also describes promising practices, including those implemented or recommended by States, for

addressing those challenges. The findings in this chapter synthesize results from each component of the

study, including interviews and surveys of State and Federal SNAP QC staff, administrative data, and

field re‐reviews of incomplete cases. Sections A and B describe challenges and recommendations related

to the SNAP certification process and SNAP QC process, respectively. Section C highlights additional

recommendations for improving the SNAP QC process.  

Similarities among States with high or low completion rates are highlighted where present. It is

important to note, however, that States varied both within and across completion rate groups on many

relevant factors, such as reviewer workload, State certification policy, and modernization of tools and

processes. This variation and complexity obscures the relationship between specific challenges and QC

completion rates. For example, one State with a low completion rate reported substantial

improvements in the efficiency and quality of its QC review process with the introduction of an

integrated, electronic case review management information system. However, the benefits of the

system were offset by other challenges, such as high reviewer workloads and a State policy that requires

explicit client consent to collect verifications from collateral contacts. Similarly, two other States with

high completion rates used more time‐consuming, paper‐based processes but attained higher

completion rates, in part because of smaller reviewer workloads.  

A. Challenges and Recommendations Related to SNAP Certification

Process

Results suggest efforts to modernize or streamline SNAP application and recertification procedures may

have had unintended consequences for QC procedures. Challenges related to SNAP certification

processes included—

 Increased use of phone and online application procedures (section 1)

 Reduced familiarity of eligibility workers with individual clients (section 2)

 Limited verification of eligibility criteria (section 3)

 Inadequate awareness of the SNAP QC process among clients and eligibility workers (section 4)  

Each of these challenges is described briefly below.  

1. Increased Phone/Online Application Procedures

QC reviewers surveyed and interviewed reported challenges

related to an increasing number of SNAP applications being

submitted online and/or more application interviews being

conducted by phone rather than in person. QC staff reported

these changes “train” clients that they no longer need to appear

in person to receive benefits. As a result, clients do not

T
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 65

Since most SNAP applications accept selfdeclaration, it makes it more difficult when 

QC comes in and is asking for all types of 

verifications. Clients often don't 

understand why QC needs all this extra 

[documentation] when the [local] office 

just accepted their statement. 

—SQCR Survey Respondent

understand or take seriously the need for in‐person QC interviews. This experience and implicit message

may contribute to the high rate of missed appointments for QC interviews.  

2. Reduced Familiarity of Eligibility Workers With Clients

QC reviewers reported that eligibility workers have weaker ties to individual households than previously

as a result of multiple modernization strategies. These include more phone and online applications;

increased use of call centers; and “case‐banking” structures in local offices, where several eligibility

workers, rather than just one, handle any given case. Reviewers noted these trends:

 Reduced likelihood that eligibility workers could assist the SQCRs with locating or contacting a

household selected for QC review or could provide additional information on a case

 Decreased likelihood that household changes or notifications (e.g., updates to contact

information or household composition) were documented in a given case  

 Decreased likelihood that clients would have a familiar person to call with questions about the

QC process

3. Reduced Verification Requirements at SNAP Application

Some reviewers noted that fewer elements of eligibility are verified at certification than in previous

years. States have the option to verify certain expenses (housing and child care, for instance), household

composition, and the identification of household members. Client self‐declaration may be sufficient in

some instances. While these changes have increased

the efficiency of certification processes, they have

increased the challenge of verifying those elements

during the QC process by reducing the documentation

available in the case file.  

Reviewers in one State, for example, noted shelter and

utility costs were not verified during the application

process and were particularly challenging for QC

reviewers to verify. Similarly, reviewers in some States

noted that mortgage company information is seldom

noted in the case file because it is not necessary for the application. If the information is not in the case

file and the client cannot be located or contacted, reviewers do not know where to send a verification

form and consequently are unable to complete the case.  

4. Inadequate Awareness of QC Requirements

Many QC reviewers and managers reported the lack of client awareness about the QC process presents

a challenge. Some suggested eligibility workers may not have time or opportunity to explain to clients

the possibility of being selected for QC review and the clients’ responsibilities in that process.

Respondents suggested these trends might be related to the large caseloads and high turnover among

local offices. This finding may also be related to changing certification processes described above that

reduce the interaction between certification staff and participant households.

While reviewers in some States reported SNAP local office staff were generally familiar with QC,

reviewers in several States reported challenges stemming from eligibility workers not understanding the
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 66

QC process. QC respondents in two States reported that eligibility workers sometimes told clients it was

unnecessary to comply with a QC request to appear for an in‐person interview.  

5. Promising Practices and Recommendations for Addressing Challenges Related to SNAP

Certification Processes

State and Federal SNAP QC staff offered the following recommendations to address recent SNAP

certification practices that impede the completion of QC reviews:

Increase awareness among clients about the QC process. Increasing awareness of the QC process may

increase client cooperation with QC reviews. For example, eligibility workers might increase their efforts

to inform clients of—

 The possibility their case may be sampled for QC review

 The requirement to participate in a face‐to‐face interview

 The penalties for noncooperation

 The importance of retaining documentation to verify eligibility criteria

Additionally, more information could be provided about the SNAP QC process on State SNAP Web sites.

Such efforts may reduce the incidence of missed interviews and missing documentation. Some

respondents recognized, however, that limited time and resources among local office staff may preclude

such efforts by eligibility workers.71 These limited resources must be weighed against the very small

likelihood of a case being selected for QC review in any given month.

Educate eligibility workers about the SNAP QC process. Informing eligibility workers about the QC

process may also be helpful, particularly in local offices with less exposure to QC or with greater staff

turnover. In one State, QC respondents reported favorable results conducting presentations for local

SNAP offices aimed at increasing their understanding of the QC process and its requirements.

Train eligibility workers to provide thorough documentation in the case file. Several QC reviewers

noted it would be helpful if eligibility workers provided more thorough documentation in the case file,

even if verification from these sources was not required for certification. For example, entering the

name and contact information for child care providers and mortgage companies in the case record

would aid the SQCRs in identifying the relevant collateral contacts. Without even a name of the

company or individual, the SQCRs are unable to verify the relevant information in the absence of a

successful client interview.

   

                                                            

71 Several respondents had observed, for example, diminished staff sizes, greater turnover, and increased caseloads among

State local office staff in recent years.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 67

Most clients now are very mobile and when

they do move, they seldom if ever report a 

change of address to the [local] office. 

Case records no longer contain collateral 

or landlord names, phone numbers, or 

addresses. An increased number of people

now have no paper trails—no personal 

property, no real estate, no address or 

telephone number in their names, no work 

history, no utilities in their names, and no 

current driver’s license. [There is] no way to 

locate or confirm where these people are 

living. Even the post office is no longer a 

good source of information... [because] 

they no longer keep names of the people 

living at that address... Neighbors do not 

want to get involved. 

—SQCR Survey Respondent

B. Challenges and Recommendations Related to SNAP QC Process

Study findings identified several challenges related to the SNAP QC processes that may contribute to low

QC completion rates, including the following factors described below:

 Obtaining household cooperation (section 1)

 Obtaining enough information to make a determination (section 2)

 The amount of time required to complete cases (section 3)

 Potential tradeoffs between case completion and error findings (section 4)

 Use of external consultants (section 5)

1. Obtaining Household Cooperation

Reviewers across the United States consistently reported that obtaining household cooperation was a

significant challenge, particularly in a timely manner.

Although gaining cooperation was often easier once

reviewers spoke with the client, initially locating and

persuading clients to show up for interviews posed a

substantial challenge. Reviewers reported that over

time clients have been increasingly difficult to locate

as a result of—

 Greater mobility (i.e., more frequent change

of residence)

 Frequently disconnected or out‐of‐service

phones

 Lack of a permanent address (e.g.,

individuals living with others temporarily)

 Failure to update contact information, which

is not required for clients under simplified

reporting

 Diminished cooperation of collateral

contacts over time

Most respondents did not observe patterns or trends in the types of cases that are less likely to be

located and to cooperate with the review. However, some suggested the following characteristics may

be associated with ease or difficulty of case completion:

Employment. Some respondents indicated employed individuals might be particularly likely to miss

appointments because of challenges around work schedules. Even after successfully interviewing

employed participants, the challenge to document income remained when clients did not have
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 68

appropriate employment/earnings documentation available.72 This was particularly true for reviewers in

States without access to The Work Number subscription service.  

Urban/Rural Location. Several respondents reported fewer challenges gaining cooperation from clients

in small towns or rural areas. These households may be easier to locate and contact for several reasons:

(1) there may be less mobility, (2) the communities may be places where “everyone knows everyone,”

and (3) there may be a general sense among reviewers that individuals in these areas are more

responsive and forthcoming.

Conversely, some respondents perceived that urban cases may be more challenging because of greater

mobility and higher rates of employment. There was also a general sense that urban clients are less

trusting or cooperative.73,74

Homelessness. Reviewers had mixed perspectives on the ease of interviewing individuals who were

homeless. Some reported these individuals were more difficult to locate; others reported that once

reached, they were particularly responsive because of their more critical need for the benefits. Some

reviewers reported that cases of participants who are homeless could often be completed without an

interview or by using likely conclusion because their income and expenses are usually straightforward.

Evasive Clients. Some reviewers reported some clients “don’t want to be found,” either because they

have something to hide (such as a new job) or because they are unfamiliar with the QC process and

think they are in trouble. Often more extensive methods for locating individuals and obtaining

interviews are needed in these cases.  

Promising Practices and Recommendations for Obtaining Household Cooperation  

Be Persistent and Use a Variety of Contact Modes, Including Text Messaging. Persistence in efforts to

contact clients appeared to be the most successful strategy for securing a household interview;

reviewers in States with high completion rates tended to report doing “whatever it takes to complete a

case.” SQCRs in these States, along with study field interviewers, typically made more attempts to reach

clients (including at various times of day), used a greater variety of contact methods (e.g., phone, mail,

certified mail), and used more creative ways to locate clients. In particular, study field interviewers and

some SQCRs found text messaging to be a useful means of reaching clients.  

Schedule and Confirm Appointments By Phone. Rather than mailing an appointment letter first, SQCRs

interviewed in one State with a high completion rate, as well as study field interviewers, scheduled

appointments by phone with clients to ensure interviews were held at a mutually convenient time and

place. Several SQCRs and study field interviewers noted that calling clients in advance of appointments

to confirm and/or remind them of their upcoming interviews also seemed to decrease the likelihood of

missed appointments.  

                                                            

72 Administrative data corroborate these findings, showing incomplete cases were more likely to have earned income than

complete cases.   73 A few respondents conversely perceived that, once reached, urban cases were more likely to keep appointments, while rural

clients were more likely to miss appointments. These respondents indicated rural clients were less trusting of outsiders or the

government and less forthcoming with information.   74 Administrative data corroborate these findings, showing incomplete cases were more likely to be in metropolitan areas and

less likely to be in micropolitan areas.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 69

I think it would be helpful if it was not a 

requirement to do a face-to-face 

interview. A lot of times, we are able to 

reach a client by phone and could do 

an interview over the phone, but the 

client doesn't follow through with the 

face-to-face. 

—State QC Manager Survey

Respondent

I believe that our recent policy of 

meeting clients in the local offices... as 

opposed to going to their homes to 

interview has negatively affected my 

cooperation and my completion rates.

—State Survey Respondent

Allow Flexible Interview Times. QC staff and study field interviewers consistently reported that making

efforts to accommodate clients’ work schedules helped ensure household cooperation.

Accommodations included lunchtime or after‐shift appointments. Additional flexibility with evening or

weekend interviews may enhance completion as well.

Consider Using Home Visits for Both Locating and

Interviewing Clients. Scheduling interviews in the clients’

homes worked well for study field interviewers and

SQCRs in some States with high completion rates.

Respondents suggested interviewing in the clients’ homes

reduced clients’ transportation barriers to traveling to a

local SNAP office or other location and increased access

to documents needed for verifications. Home visits were

also useful for establishing contact with clients whose phone numbers had been disconnected and who

were otherwise difficult to contact. Study field interviewers reported this practice was successful in

completing cases previously coded as incomplete.

This recommendation, however, must be balanced against safety concerns. Several study respondents

noted concerns about safety of reviewers when traveling (typically alone) to clients’ homes. Concerns

included high‐crime neighborhoods, criminal history of clients or members of their household, and

presence of dogs. For this reason, some States had encouraged all QC interviews to be held in local SNAP

offices or other mutually agreed‐upon locations.  

Assess the Effect of Conducting More Interviews by Phone. QC staff held mixed opinions about

conducting interviews by phone. SNAP QC staff in several

States felt that conducting more QC interviews by phone

would enhance QC completion rates.75 Phone interviews

may be more convenient for clients and would save time

and resources reviewers spend traveling to missed

appointments. Such savings are significant for cases

located long distances from reviewers. Other respondents,

however, noted that phone interviews would not obviate

the challenge of obtaining the necessary verification

documentation. In other words, if the documentation is

not obtained from the client in person, QC staff have to

rely on clients to submit it by mail or other means. This may offset the advantages of conducting phone

interviews and not result in a higher completion rate.  

Look for Ways To Increase Efficiency. States with high completion rates emphasized efficient review

procedures. Reviewers in these States routinely called clients to confirm or schedule appointments and

acted more proactively in connecting with collateral contacts than their counterparts in States with low

completion rates. These States also emphasized getting reviewers into the field as soon as possible after

case assignment to allow time for appointments to be rescheduled if necessary—or as a last resort, for

terminating the client’s SNAP benefits in time for them to comply with QC within review deadlines.  

                                                            

75 Most States currently exercise an option to conduct phone interviews for QC cases where households receive $100 or less in

monthly benefits.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 70

As an example of efficiencies, reviewers and study field interviewers in one State scheduled

appointments with clients by phone and conducted the interviews in the client’s home. This approach

minimized lost time from missed appointments by eliminating transportation barriers for the client and

made it easier to obtain documentation.

Another State emphasized collecting as much information over the phone as possible when a client is

initially reached, such as by requesting all collateral contact information when the client called to

confirm or reschedule an appointment. This practice gives the reviewer a head start on collecting

necessary verifications and may prevent an incomplete case status if the interview is not successfully

conducted. Study field interviewers also collected critical information from clients over the phone that

facilitated completing reviews even in the absence of an interview.  

Enhance Ability To Terminate SNAP Benefits Within the QC Review Period. State SNAP QC staff

consistently cited benefit termination for noncooperation as an effective means of obtaining clients’

cooperation. However, in some States, reviewers reported challenges for meeting State deadlines for

case completion because of the need for local office staff to process case terminations prior to the QC

deadline.76 To address this challenge, some reviewers recommended QC staff have the authority to

terminate a household’s benefits directly when clients refuse to cooperate. Several reviewers also

recommended that QC staff be given authority to terminate benefits for clients who fail to cooperate,

instead of only those who refuse to cooperate. These respondents perceived that some clients were

aware that noncontact would not result in loss of benefits and purposefully evaded reviewers; for

example, by not answering the phone or responding to letters.  

2. Obtaining Enough Information To Complete a Review

Missing or unavailable documentation can prevent case completion. If the client does not provide the

necessary documentation for some reason (e.g., inability to schedule interview with the client, inability

of the client to provide a document), a case may still be completed if the reviewer obtains all the

necessary documentation directly from collateral contacts and/or available databases. Depending on

the complexity of the case, it may be completed relatively easily with minimal verifications required, or

it may be challenging, involving a wide array of documentation collected from various sources. For

example, reviewers noted that cases involving self‐employment were particularly difficult because self‐

employment cannot be verified externally and requires the clients to maintain and provide detailed

documentation on income. Other methods for data verification and associated challenges are illustrated

below.  

Access to Electronic Databases. Limited access to electronic databases presented a challenge to QC

reviewers. In particular, access to The Work Number service allows users to verify employment and

income information but is costly to States. Reviewers in a few States reported their States had recently

stopped using this service because of the financial burden incurred.77  

Limited access to electronic databases also presented a challenge for Federal reviewers. Staff in Regional

Offices reported that in recent years several States had limited FQCR access to State certification

                                                            

76 In many States, only local SNAP office staff have the ability to terminate a household’s SNAP benefits, and some States

reported difficulty gaining cooperation from local offices in a timely manner. 77 The QC director in one State that had recently ended its subscription to The Work Number indicated the service had cost the

State approximately $40,000 per month.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 71

systems and other relevant databases used by SQCRs. This hampers FQCRs’ ability to verify information

that could be used to complete cases.

Cooperation of Collateral Contacts. For information that could not be verified through client‐provided

documents or access to electronic databases, review completion often required cooperation from

collateral contacts. Challenges with collateral contacts arose when QC reviewers needed to obtain client

consent to release information. In some States, the release included in a signed SNAP application was

typically sufficient for obtaining cooperation from collateral contacts, while in other States, employers

and other collateral contacts more frequently requested a separate release form. In one State, a State

policy prohibited QC reviewers from collecting information from third parties without the client’s

signature on a consent form. This limited the ability to verify case information independently,

particularly in cases where clients did not show up for the interviews.  

Use of “Likely Conclusion” Technique. As described earlier, the likely conclusion option is intended to

allow reviewers to make reasonable assumptions about missing case information based on other

available data. However, both State and Federal SNAP QC staff noted the FNS 310 Handbook

instructions around its use are vague, leading to uncertainty as to its appropriate use.

Promising Practices and Recommendations for Obtaining Enough Information To Make a

Determination  

Expand Efforts To Use Collateral Contacts in Absence of Client Interviews. In general, reviewers in

States with high completion rates tended to make greater efforts to complete cases without client

cooperation by pursuing collateral contacts, regardless of whether they had a signed release.78 For

example, reviewers in one State reported more responsiveness from collateral contacts, by posing

questions in a yes/no format, rather than posing open‐ended questions. A reviewer might ask, for

example, “You recently verified this information about <client name>. Is this still correct?” Even without

a signed client release, this approach was perceived to be more successful.

Provide More Guidance and Expand the Use of Likely Conclusion. Expanded training from FNS on the

use of likely conclusion may be helpful for increasing its use in some States. Staff in one State had

received training from the Regional Office on appropriate uses of the technique, and reviewers reported

it was helpful in understanding how and when to apply the strategy. Reviewers in other States

recommended FNS provide additional training on likely conclusion. Similarly, some recommended

expanded guidance in the FNS 310 Handbook on the use of likely conclusion, including examples of cases

when the technique should and should not be used. A few reviewers recommended allowing the use of

likely conclusion for more elements of the FNS‐380 worksheet to help increase completion rates.

Expanded use of likely conclusion may enhance completion rates in States where the technique is

underused. Two QC directors from States with both high and low completion rates agreed increased use

of likely conclusion had reduced the number of incomplete cases in their States.  

Expanded Access by FQCRs to Electronic Databases Accessed by States. Federal SNAP QC review staff

noted that expanded access to State databases would enhance their ability to conduct reviews.

                                                            

78 Reviewers in these States, however, were also more likely than reviewers in States with low completion rates to make

multiple attempts to contact households to secure interviews (and hence were less likely to need the cooperation of collateral

contacts).  
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 72

3. Time Needed To Complete Cases

Reviewers reported that completing some cases was relatively easy, while others were challenging and

time‐consuming, particularly those requiring participation of collateral contacts or involving clients who

were highly mobile or otherwise difficult to locate. Some reviewers noted that elderly, disabled, and/or

single‐person adult cases tended to be easier to complete. These cases typically had less information to

verify, and verification of unearned income from Social Security and disability benefits was readily

available to reviewers through State data systems. In contrast, employment could be difficult to verify,

particularly if reviewers were unable to interview the household and if employers were not

cooperative.79

The time available for reviewers to spend on any given case, however, varied across States, based on

reviewers’ workloads both for QC and other responsibilities. Reviewers interviewed in States with low

completion rates generally had both larger QC caseloads and more duties outside of QC compared to

reviewers in States with high completion rates. A supervisor in one State with a low completion rate

reported that review staff in that State had insufficient time to exceed two attempts to contact a case,

which was described as the FNS 310 Handbook’s minimum requirement. Similarly, one State QC director

reported that other job duties assigned by higher management outside the QC division made it more

difficult to complete QC reviews with recent staff losses. In contrast, reviewers in other States with

smaller workloads were more likely to report they had sufficient time to complete their cases despite

making relatively more extensive efforts to locate and contact cases.80

Limited time and competing priorities also presented challenges for the Federal SNAP QC review

process. Several FQCRs reported it is time‐consuming to complete cases submitted by States as

incomplete and to formally disagree with cases. Similar to SQCRs, FQCRs in each of the Regional Offices

reported having assignments outside of QC reviews (e.g., policy work, management evaluations,

training) and filling in for reviewers who are unavailable (e.g., new position, illness‐related absences,

other non‐QC assignments). Together, these factors constrained the ability of Federal staff to complete

their reviews in the allotted timeframes and may have inhibited efforts to complete incomplete cases or

return incomplete cases to States for additional work.

Promising Practices and Recommendations Related to Time Needed To Complete Cases

Decrease QC Sample Size. The QC director in one State with a high completion rate reported the State’s

completion rate had improved after it changed its approach to sampling QC cases. This director reported

the State had been sampling a larger number of cases than necessary in anticipation of dropping a

substantial percentage of cases as incomplete. The director attributed higher completion rates in recent

years in part to decreasing the sample sizes and spending more time completing a smaller number of

cases. This approach may only apply, however, in limited circumstances and in States with larger‐than‐

average QC sample sizes.

Reduce Workloads of State and Federal Reviewers. In States and regions with large workloads,

reducing workloads, or otherwise allowing more time to work on cases, may increase case completion.

                                                            

79 These findings are consistent with administrative data analyses showing incomplete cases are more likely to have earned

income than complete cases. 80 Several staff members at the Regional Offices also perceived that States’ limited resources presented challenges for

conducting SNAP QC reviews, including insufficient staffing and large workloads.  
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 73

Since there are financial rewards and 

penalties associated with State error rates, 

it is not at all in reviewers' best interests to 

find errors. This places reviewers between 

a rock and a hard place—as State 

employees, it is obviously not to the 

benefit of the State if we discover errors 

leading to financial sanctions, and yet to 

do the work as we are meant to by the 

spirit of the QC program, it is inevitable 

that errors will be found. 

—SQCR Survey Respondent

Management strongly encourages 

reviewers to go to all lengths to complete 

a case (especially difficult to locate, 

homeless individuals). This includes, but is 

not limited to, calling and visiting area 

shelters, contacting family members, using 

the internet as a means to find client. 

—SQCR Survey Respondent (State With

High Completion Rate)

Additional time may increase the level of effort SQCRs invest in locating and contacting clients and

collateral contacts, or FQCR efforts to attempt to complete incomplete cases.

4. Potential Tradeoff Between Case Completion and Error Rates

Both State and Federal review staff described a

potential tradeoff between QC case completion and

error rates. Federal reviewers, for example, expressed

there may be insufficient incentive for States to raise

their case completion rates. To the contrary, States may

have more incentive to lower their completion rate by

coding cases with possible errors as incomplete. This is

because States receive bonus funds for low or

improving error rates and may be assessed financial

penalties for error rates that are high relative to other

States.81 Although completion rates figure into the

calculation of the error rate, the effect of classifying

error cases as incomplete may still effectively lower the

error rate.  

FNS may assign an error rate based on the best information available and use that assigned error rate

for liability determination. This action is possible if FNS determines States’ QC practices are deficient in

some way, but is rarely used.  

Several State SNAP QC staff similarly noted potentially competing priorities of lowering error rates and

completing cases, with strong financial incentives for one and not the other. Some SQCRs described

feeling pressure by management to minimize efforts to complete cases because of the risk of uncovering

information that may contribute to error. Similarly, SNAP QC managers in some States reported

pressure from higher levels of management to discourage unnecessary efforts by reviewers (i.e., efforts

exceeding minimum requirements) that may lead to identifying errors. Both reviewers and managers

perceived threats to the integrity of the QC review process. As described by one survey respondent, “We

reviewers are ... toeing the line of unethical practices in order to reduce errors. Short of plunging

straight into unethical and immoral means, I do not believe it is possible to further lower errors.”

Promising Practices and Recommendations Related to the Potential Tradeoff Between Case

Completion and Error Rates

Prioritize Case Completion. Strong emphasis by State

QC management on QC case completion,

independent of payment accuracy, may play a role in

ensuring high completion rates. Managers in States

with high completion rates more often reported case

completion was a top priority for SNAP QC in their

State. Consistent with this emphasis, these managers

more frequently required reviewers to make

additional efforts to attempt to complete cases,

                                                            

81 States with error rates above a certain threshold are classified as being in liability status in the first year that occurs and are

assessed penalties if they do not move out of liability status in the second consecutive year.  
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 74

Prior to being affiliated with private 

consultants, we took whatever steps 

needed to complete cases. Once we 

became affiliated with contractors, we 

were instructed that when a case 

appeared to be in error, that we should not 

pursue all avenues to obtain necessary 

verifications in order to complete the case, 

but to drop the case for failure or refusal to 

cooperate. 

— State QC Manager Survey Respondent

I feel QC management in our State [has] 

a negative impact on our State’s 

completion rate because of a conflict of 

interest. [Our State] has a high error rate 

and our eligibility managers put pressure 

on our [QC management] to call cases 

correct when they are not or to find 

reasons to submit cases as incomplete 

when those cases are clearly errors. QC 

reviewers should be allowed to do their 

job as written in the 310 manual and not 

have to go back and change cases that 

are clearly errors to make the error rate 

look better than it really is. 

—SQCR Survey Respondent

rather than dropping cases after a missed appointment. One State QC director described the importance

of maintaining independence between SNAP QC and general program management to preserve the

integrity of QC. This director emphasized case completion, even if it led to a higher error rate, but also

reported a high degree of pressure from higher agency management challenging these practices.  

Reevaluate Incentives Provided to States for Low Error Rates. Some QC respondents recommended

revising the system of incentives for States with low or improving error rates. Alternatively, higher

penalties for incomplete cases may reduce the disincentive for error identification during the QC

process.  

5. Use of External Consultants

Interview and survey respondents in several States—

including States with low completion rates and some

with higher completion rates—reported using

external consultants currently or in the past to reduce

error rates. One commonly used consulting company,

for example, identified 27 States as current or former

clients on its Web site. Some States began using a

consultant upon entering liability status or when

sanctioned in an effort to improve program

performance; one State reported hiring a consultant

recommended by FNS. Consultants reviewed SNAP

QC procedures and policies, conducted trainings for

QC staff, participated in meetings (including error

review calls), and/or consulted on individual cases as

needed.  

The use of consultants to reduce errors in some States appeared to reduce reviewer efforts to complete

individual cases. Although less effort may be related to a variety of other factors (e.g., constraints on

time and resources resulting from large workloads), reviewers reported that consultants advised them

to reduce efforts to complete cases beyond the

minimum standards explicitly required by the FNS 310

Handbook. These reviewers described feeling

discouraged from “being investigators” to avoid

unnecessarily uncovering information that might lead

to increased error. Specifically, QC staff reported that

the consultants discouraged reviewers from making

more than two contact attempts and from making

home visits to clients.  

Some reviewers reported the consultants advised QC

staff on both broad strategies to avoid errors and on

individual case errors themselves. One such broad

strategy, for example, was to incorporate medical

expenses that might offset an error found for cases

entitled to deductions for medical expenses (e.g.,

elderly, disabled) but where such expenses had not

been reported. Review staff in some States reported
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 75

consultants also participated in routine error review calls to consult on individual cases and recommend

ways to avoid error by interpreting “gray areas” of policy differently. For example, one gray area was the

extent of effort reviewers must make to obtain cooperation from clients or collateral contacts before

classifying the case as incomplete owing to failure to cooperate.  

A few reviewers reported the consultants explicitly encouraged reviewers to drop error‐prone cases.82

One reported strategy, for example, was to send an employment verification form to the client to

forward to the employer and return to the QC reviewer, rather than sending the form directly to the

employer despite the presence of a release form. The extra steps in this process were understood to

decrease the likelihood of the reviewer collecting the information, which would allow the reviewer to

drop the case as incomplete.

Federal Perspectives. Federal QC staff reported an increasingly adversarial relationship between States

and Regional Offices among States that had hired consultants along with the perception that consultants

encouraged States to provide as little information as possible to the Regions on each case. This practice,

in combination with reduced access to State systems by Federal staff, prompted FQCRs to make more

requests for additional information. FQCRs noted that States using consultants tended to resist these

requests and were reluctant to cooperate.

Regional Office staff also expressed concern that consultants instructed some State reviewers to

manipulate data and to take advantage of vague language in the FNS 310 Handbook to minimize error

rates. While visiting a State, one FQCR sat in on a training by a consultant and described how the

consultant provided inserts in the FNS 310 Handbook, illustrating how to circumvent steps, resulting in

more cases being dropped.  

Reviewers provided several examples of how this might occur. For example, in a case where error is

suspected, a reviewer might send out verification forms that are not strictly necessary and drop the case

when all forms are not returned. Similarly, in a case where actual household composition appears to be

either larger or smaller than the case record indicates—which might introduce an error—the reviewer

might drop the case, claiming an inability to verify household composition. When States are unable to

find loopholes to exploit in a case, they might send the case to the consultant for additional assistance.

Regional Office staff, particularly those who had substantial experience in QC, noted not all SQCRs

seemed to adopt the strategies promoted by the consultants. Regional staff elaborated that some

SQCRs felt the consultants’ techniques compromised their autonomy; others objected to what they

viewed as a lack of integrity.

Promising Practices and Recommendations Related to the Use of External Consultants

Clarify Guidance in the FNS 310 Handbook. Some reviewers and managers suggested FNS could provide

additional written guidance to clarify the level of effort required prior to disposing of cases as

incomplete. These reviewers indicated the FNS 310 Handbook needed to be more explicit about the

effort required prior to designating a case as incomplete. This might include defining what “counts” as a

contact attempt and exactly how many attempts should be made before designating a case as

                                                            

82 These are cases where preliminary review of available documentation indicates that errors in certain elements, such as

income, may result in an overall error for the case, or where some information collected during the review is at odds with what

is in the case file, but is insufficient to make a determination about which is correct.  
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 76

incomplete.83 At the same time, several cited the FNS 310 Handbook guidelines as requiring a minimum

of two attempts to reach clients and felt other factors (e.g., workload) precluded additional efforts.  

Another strategy may be to specify expected protocols for QC review procedures in a step‐by‐step

format. One State with a high completion rate, for example, developed and disseminated detailed

training materials for new reviewers, including a flow chart specifying expected protocols for conducting

QC reviews in their State (e.g., how and when to contact clients, what steps to take following a missed

appointment; see figure 7.1). Another State provided detailed written documentation of step‐by‐step

procedures for conducting a SNAP QC review. Developing a standard process for reviewers and

illustrating it in such a tool likely reduced ambiguity for reviewers as to what steps to take during a

review and when sufficient efforts had been made to designate a case as incomplete. Similar efforts by

FNS may clarify expectations of reviewer efforts and improve consistency across States in QC review

procedures.

Figure 7.1. One State’s SNAP Interview Review Process Flow Chart

C. Additional Recommendations To Improve the Overall QC Review

Process

In addition to the solutions offered above to individual challenges, study findings highlighted several

recommendations for improving the QC review process overall:

 Technology to enhance the SNAP QC review process (section 1)

 Enhanced guidance from FNS on SNAP QC review procedures and policies (section 2)

                                                            

83 Several reviewers also felt the FNS 310 Handbook was difficult to navigate in general; these reviewers recommended that an

online searchable format would be helpful, including keyword searches that would direct the user to relevant sections.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 77

We recently were issued smartphones, 

which enable us to text a household 

when we have been unable to reach 

them by calling. The households seem to 

respond a little more often to a text 

instead of the phone call. The 

smartphones are also allowing us to take 

a photo of the verifications and email it 

back to our work instead of spending the 

time to write all the information down. 

—SQCR Survey Respondent

 Expanded Federal efforts to complete incomplete cases (section 3)

 Additional data collection on incomplete cases (section 4)  

1. Technology To Enhance the SNAP QC Review Process

Some States used technology to improve the efficiency of the QC process. Supervisors in one State with

a high completion rate, for example, monitored reviewer progress on a case‐by‐case basis using an

online workflow management system that stores all cases and files and documents all work on a given

review. Because the system was accessible by all review staff in the State, supervisors could monitor and

review cases without waiting for the reviewer to mail the paper file. The system also populated and

generated all necessary forms and letters for the reviewer. The director in this State partially attributed

the State’s high completion rate to this online, paperless system, citing how effectively it had

streamlined the State’s QC process and provided additional time to QC staff to work on cases. In

contrast, reviewers in other States printed paper copies of QC cases—despite the availability of

electronic versions of documents in some of these States—and mailed them to their supervisors, who

typically were located in a different part of the State.  

Cell Phones. Some reviewers suggested State‐issued

cell phones might improve completion rates and

other aspects of the QC process. They noted cell

phones would provide a way for clients to reach

reviewers more easily while they are in the field, an

important consideration when reviewers are

travelling hours each day. Many reviewers have

personal cell phones but cited safety concerns

related to using those phones to contact clients

because the approach provides clients with

reviewers’ personal contact information.  

Smartphones could also be used, as they were in one State, for collecting copies of documentation using

the camera function. The phones also facilitate text messages to clients who may not have minutes on

their phones to take calls but can receive and send text messages. Text messages can also help reach a

client who is reluctant to answer the phone when caller identification shows the call is from a State

government office.  

Videoconferencing. Some State QC staff suggested increased use of videoconferencing to facilitate

greater case completion. Like phone interviews, videoconferencing may be more convenient for clients

by eliminating the need to travel to a QC interview. Similarly, videoconferencing may free up limited

time and resources for SQCRs by reducing travel time. Others voiced reservations, citing security

concerns related to personally identifiable information or constrained State resources as barriers. Some

reviewers also observed that videoconferencing does not address the challenge of getting clients to mail

the required documentation.

2. Enhanced Communication on Policies that Affect SNAP QC Reviews  

Enhanced Federal Guidance. Both State and Federal QC review staff perceived weaknesses in the

communication of policy changes from the National Office. Regional Office staff suggested disseminating

guidance about Federal policy from the National Office more widely throughout the Regions and to the

States. One Regional respondent described the usefulness of informal opinions obtained from the
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 78

National Office regarding interpretations of unclear regulations and the challenge of not being

permitted to cite these opinions in communications with States; this respondent suggested that greater

transparency about National Office policy guidance and interpretation would improve the QC process.

Enhanced Communication about State Policy. Federal QC review staff indicated that changes in State

policies that affect certification and QC were not always communicated to Regional Office QC staff

before cases affected by those policies were reviewed by the Regional Offices. Improved communication

between QC and policy staff within the Regional Offices would make the Federal QC process more

efficient.

3. Expanded Federal Efforts To Complete Incomplete Cases  

One strategy for increasing completion rates may be to expand FQCR efforts regarding incomplete

cases. Regional QC review staff reported they infrequently returned incomplete cases to the States for

additional work, such as additional attempts to reach a client or to obtain needed verifications directly

from collateral contacts without client cooperation. Similarly, FQCRs seldom attempted to complete

incomplete cases themselves. Although field investigations by FQCRs may not be feasible because of

greater geographic distances and constrained resources, additional efforts by FQCRs by phone, email, or

mail may increase the number of case completions. These efforts in turn may encourage State QC staff

to invest additional efforts to complete cases prior to submitting them to FNS.  

4. Additional Data Collection on Incomplete SNAP QC Cases From Program Files

States currently report minimal information on incomplete cases in SNAP QCS relative to what is

reported for complete cases. SQCRs have access, however, to information on the demographic,

economic, and administrative characteristics of incomplete cases based on data in State certification IT

systems. Providing this information to FNS through the routine QC reporting process would enhance

understanding of these cases and any patterns over time or across States. More specifically, this

information would further FNS’s knowledge of the bias in the distribution of cases in the QC database

and the potential bias in payment error rates. Collection of information on the reasons for designating a

case as incomplete could ultimately help target efforts to improve completion rates.  

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates 79

Abbreviations and Acronyms

FNS Food and Nutrition Service

FQCR Federal Quality Control Reviewer  

FY fiscal year

MARO Mid‐Atlantic Regional Office  

NSTR   not subject to review

QC Quality Control

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SNAP QCS SNAP Quality Control System

SQCR State Quality Control Reviewer

SWRO Southwest Regional Office

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 80

Glossary of Terms

Active case A household certified prior to or during the sample month that was issued SNAP

benefits for the sample month. This includes households certified for benefits in

the sample month and issued benefits in the next month  

Case error rate    Percentage of cases with errors

Case record    The record establishing a household’s eligibility or ineligibility, and in  

active cases, authorizing the issuance of a SNAP allotment. Included

    are records referred to as the case file or certification record

Certification action The action taken on a case prior to or on the review date that authorized the

sample month’s issuance. Includes initial certifications, recertifications, interim

changes, changes prior to issuance, and authorizations of supplemental

issuances

Certification month The month in which the case was most recently certified or recertified, prior to

the sample month

Collateral contact A source of information that can be used to verify household circumstances.

Collateral contacts are generally individuals such as landlords and employers,

but they may also be documents such as those maintained in government

offices. A collateral contact cannot be a person who was in the SNAP household

under review or a person or office within the State agency administering the

program for purposes of primary or secondary evidence  

Eligibility Worker State SNAP personnel who interviews, certifies, and recertifies clients.

Error In an active case, an error occurs when a Quality Control reviewer determines a

household that received SNAP benefits during the sample month is ineligible or

received an incorrect allotment. Errors in active cases involve dollar loss to

either the participant or the government  

For negative cases, an error signifies the reviewer determined the decision to

deny, suspend, or terminate a household was incorrect   

Field interviewer A member of the research team for this study who conducted re‐reviews of

incomplete cases in three States.

FNS 310 Handbook FNS 310 SNAP Quality Control Review Handbook provides the requirements and

guidance for States to conduct SNAP QC reviews and determine errors

FNS 311 Handbook FNS 311 Quality Control Sampling Handbook explains requirements concerning

sampling, estimation, data management for State agencies QC systems

FNS 315 Handbook FNS 315 Validation Review Handbook provides FNS Regional Offices with

procedures and guidelines for monitoring State agencies’ QC systems, including

the procedures necessary to validate error rates and to assess States’ sampling

procedures, estimation procedures, and systems for data management

National Office FNS headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia; works with the Regional Offices in the

administration of SNAP and other nutrition programs
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 81

Negative case    A household whose application for SNAP benefits was denied or  

    whose SNAP benefits were suspended or terminated by an action in the  

    sample month or by an action effective for the sample month

Overissuance The amount of the SNAP benefits exceeds the allotment the household is

eligible to receive

Payment error rate The combined payment error rate; the sum of the overpayment and

underpayment error rates. The payment error rate is based on the total amount

of benefits issued in error divided by the total amount of benefits issued,

adjusted for differences between State and Federal findings and for unknown

level of error among incomplete cases

Recertification    A certification action taken to authorize benefits for an additional  

    period of time immediately following the expiring certification period

Review date For QC active cases, refers to a day within the sample month—either the first

day of the fiscal or calendar month or the day a certification action was taken to

authorize the issuance—whichever is later. The review date is never the day the

quality control review is conducted

The review date for negative cases, depending on the characteristics of

individual State systems, can be the date the eligibility worker makes the

decision to suspend, deny, or terminate the case; the date the decision is

entered into the computer system; the date of the notice to the client; or the

date the negative action becomes effective

Sample month    The month of the sample frame from which a case is selected  

SNAP QCS SNAP Quality Control System, the online system for States and FNS Regions to

document and submit findings from SNAP QC case reviews

Underissuance The amount of the allotment is less than the amount the household is eligible to

receive

Variance The incorrect application of policy and/or a deviation between the

information used and the information that should have been used to authorize

the sample month’s issuance

Verification    The establishment of the accuracy of specific elements of eligibility and

       allotment by securing documentary evidence and/or by making collateral

       contacts with individuals other than members of the household under review.  

    Households under review can provide verification for some elements
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 82

References

GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). (1986). Food Stamp Program: Refinements needed to improve

accuracy of quality control error rates. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/150/144637.pdf  

Rosenbaum, D. (2014). SNAP error rates at all‐time lows: Steady improvement in payment accuracy

reflects program’s extensive quality control system. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved

from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=4159

U.S. Census. (2013). Metropolitan and micropolitan. Core‐Based Statistical Areas. Retrieved from

http://www.census.gov/population/metro/data/def.html

USDA (U.S Department of Agriculture), FNS (Food and Nutrition Service). (2015a). Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program participation and costs. Retrieved from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf

USDA FNS. (2015b). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Quality Control, annual report, fiscal

year 2013. Food and Nutrition Service, Program Accountability and Administration Division, Quality

Control Branch. Retrieved from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/SNAP_QC_2013.pdf

USDA, FNS, Office of Research and Analysis (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service,

Office of Research and Analysis). Leftin, J., Wemmerus, N., Mabli, J., Godfrey, T, & Tordella, S.

(2014). Dynamics of Supplemental Food Assistance Program participation from 2008 to 2012.

Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Dynamics2008‐2012.pdf.

Alexandria, VA.

USDA, FNS, Program Accountability and Administrative Division, Quality Control Branch. (2014).

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program quality control annual report, fiscal year 2013.

Alexandria, VA.

USDA, FNS, Program Accountability and Administrative Division, Quality Control Branch (U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Program Accountability and Administrative

Division, Quality Control Branch). (2013). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program quality control

annual report, fiscal year 2012. Alexandria, VA.

USDA, FNS. (n.d.). Code of Federal Regulations 275, 11, p. 925. Retrieved from

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR‐2012‐title7‐vol4/pdf/CFR‐2012‐title7‐vol4‐part275‐subpartC.pdf

USDA, FNS. (2010). [Re‐review of a sample of incomplete SNAP QC cases]. Unpublished internal study in

Enhancing completion rates for SNAP Quality Control reviews [Statement of work].
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 

Appendix A. QC Completion Rate for Active Cases by State, 1980 

Table A.1. QC Completion Rate for Active Cases by State: 1980 to 2014

Oct 1980–Mar 1981 

Apr 1981–Sept 1981 

Oct 1981–Mar 1982 

Apr 1982–Sept 1982 

FY 1983 

FY 1984 

FY 1985 

FY 1986 

FY 1987 

FY 1988 

FY 1989 

FY 1990 

FY 1991 

FY 1992 

FY 1993 

FY 1994 

FY 1995 

FY 1996 

FY 1997 

FY 1998 

FY 1999 

FY 2000 

FY 2001 

FY 2002 

FY 2003 

FY 2004 

FY 2005 

FY 2006 

Connecticut 96.5 95.8 92.9 96.4 97.2 97.9 98.5 98.6 99.2 98.0 97.9 98.5 98.4 97.0 96.8 97.0 98.0 96.9 97.1 96.1 91.1 89.0 92.9 90.0 91.9 91.2 93.5 90.5 Maine 94.9 94.1 95.3 96.4 97.0 99.9 100.0 99.7 99.7 100.0 99.7 99.9 99.6 94.1 95.5 95.0 95.0 91.2 91.8 91.5 91.3 91.4 92.8 90.5 89.9 89.2 89.7 89.5 

Massachusetts 85.9 87.7 89.0 88.5 93.0 96.9 93.4 93.5 95.4 94.3 95.8 93.4 95.3 95.9 94.3 95.0 94.3 94.8 91.7 89.9 89.3 90.1 90.6 90.2 89.3 89.1 88.2 89.6 

New Hampshire 97.2 92.0 96.5 96.9 95.2 99.5 99.1 99.8 100.0 99.6 98.5 98.2 99.6 97.9 98.1 97.4 97.2 98.2 97.7 96.0 96.8 96.4 98.1 97.8 96.0 96.2 96.9 95.9 

New York 89.8 84.2 94.1 95.2 95.8 96.4 97.2 97.6 95.4 93.7 94.2 94.2 91.9 90.2 90.0 92.1 93.7 94.3 85.4 90.2 92.9 92.1 91.6 91.4 90.8 91.1 89.1 87.5 

Rhode Island 85.3 94.1 94.7 94.7 94.7 95.1 95.2 95.6 97.3 97.5 97.3 96.3 95.8 94.6 95.4 91.6 92.8 92.7 91.1 92.9 88.5 86.9 88.5 86.3 85.0 84.9 87.5 88.0 

Vermont 98.3 95.3 95.2 95.3 97.3 97.1 98.5 98.5 99.5 99.2 99.3 100.0 99.6 98.1 97.9 95.9 97.6 97.5 93.9 96.8 94.9 93.7 96.2 93.4 92.6 93.6 94.7 92.4 

Delaware 95.1 95.1 98.2 95.0 95.8 98.3 97.4 97.8 98.5 97.2 98.0 98.4 99.4 97.0 97.2 94.8 93.0 95.8 93.1 95.0 93.5 96.4 95.3 97.2 95.6 96.6 94.9 98.0 District of Columbia 85.2 89.6 89.6 89.4 92.9 94.8 96.2 95.4 98.7 96.0 95.8 95.7 93.7 91.8 89.4 81.2 88.6 92.2 85.8 97.6 97.9 96.4 96.8 96.7 96.9 97.1 94.8 

Maryland 97.5 97.8 97.0 95.2 98.3 99.0 98.4 97.4 94.7 95.1 93.2 92.0 93.8 91.4 89.3 87.1 83.0 83.2 94.5 89.3 89.8 84.3 81.6 88.3 88.8 87.8 85.5 86.5 

New Jersey 91.9 92.7 91.9 92.3 91.7 92.5 94.7 94.2 93.3 93.7 94.7 95.6 95.3 95.1 96.1 93.4 90.0 91.8 88.2 83.9 86.0 90.3 90.7 88.4 92.7 95.3 93.8 92.1 

Pennsylvania 92.6 92.6 64.9 94.0 94.4 96.9 96.6 96.9 97.3 98.0 97.8 96.9 96.9 96.4 97.3 96.4 96.5 95.4 94.7 95.5 96.1 95.7 95.5 95.1 95.7 94.9 93.2 92.5 

Virginia 93.4 93.2 95.9 92.9 92.6 93.3 96.3 96.0 98.1 98.0 97.4 98.9 98.1 98.1 96.6 94.2 94.2 91.2 90.3 92.2 92.2 90.9 91.5 91.3 91.3 91.3 91.0 87.7 

Virgin Islands 48.5 31.3 48.7 92.4 92.9 97.7 99.0 98.4 98.6 99.7 99.3 98.1 98.5 99.2 99.3 100.0 97.7 96.0 95.3 98.3 99.3 99.0 98.4 98.8 99.7 98.8 99.1 99.1 

West Virginia 97.1 96.0 96.3 97.1 97.0 94.7 96.5 96.9 97.3 95.9 95.3 95.5 95.7 94.4 94.8 93.9 93.4 90.4 88.3 88.8 89.6 90.5 90.3 89.1 92.7 88.3 89.2 88.9 Alabama 97.5 96.2 95.5 96.0 96.1 99.0 97.9 99.1 98.9 98.8 98.7 99.2 97.4 95.7 96.4 95.6 98.3 97.1 97.1 97.1 96.3 95.3 92.5 94.3 94.1 92.4 91.3 90.4 Florida 96.5 97.4 95.3 96.0 96.5 98.0 98.7 98.1 97.7 97.9 97.2 97.2 95.6 87.6 95.6 93.1 94.3 94.9 94.5 92.3 93.7 93.9 94.6 96.3 94.8 94.1 92.8 91.2 

Georgia 95.6 94.6 88.1 73.8 94.7 96.8 97.4 97.4 98.4 98.0 97.9 97.7 97.6 96.4 96.3 95.5 96.9 95.6 94.6 93.7 92.8 95.4 92.7 91.7 89.3 89.7 87.2 92.6 

Kentucky 96.1 95.0 94.2 93.9 94.4 97.3 96.4 96.9 96.4 96.4 96.8 97.7 96.2 96.4 96.3 95.0 93.5 91.3 89.8 89.3 91.7 90.3 89.8 88.8 85.2 86.2 84.2 82.4 

Mississippi 97.6 78.2 97.6 98.5 98.0 99.1 99.5 98.8 99.0 99.4 98.6 98.7 98.8 98.7 97.6 97.2 94.9 94.2 91.6 92.6 93.8 93.4 94.2 93.3 94.1 93.9 71.9 92.5 

North Carolina 95.7 78.1 94.5 94.7 96.3 98.7 98.5 97.4 96.9 95.2 94.6 93.8 94.0 97.0 97.3 97.7 98.6 96.3 95.2 93.9 95.9 94.6 94.8 95.0 93.6 92.7 94.3 94.4 

South Carolina 96.1 95.4 95.6 96.1 96.9 97.0 98.4 97.3 97.4 96.0 96.2 95.1 95.6 93.7 94.2 90.6 90.6 91.6 91.9 88.4 87.2 93.9 94.4 96.6 95.6 95.4 93.7 92.7 

Tennessee 97.6 93.9 95.3 97.2 97.1 98.6 98.7 98.2 97.6 98.5 98.1 97.2 96.7 95.6 95.3 93.0 92.5 92.9 92.7 91.6 87.6 85.7 88.1 89.9 87.4 86.4 86.5 85.2 Illinois 95.7 93.8 96.0 93.4 95.5 97.2 96.0 97.7 96.8 97.7 97.9 97.7 97.0 96.4 95.9 95.0 95.2 92.9 91.5 91.3 82.3 92.3 91.1 90.5 90.6 89.5 85.2 86.4 Indiana 95.0 95.9 95.4 95.8 95.8 97.9 99.2 98.0 98.7 98.9 98.6 99.0 98.9 98.0 97.0 95.9 95.1 96.6 96.0 94.7 94.7 94.5 94.7 95.0 94.6 94.8 95.6 94.0 

Michigan 94.4 94.7 93.9 94.6 94.0 91.9 96.7 94.6 95.2 96.2 97.8 97.8 97.1 96.7 97.4 97.2 96.7 95.7 96.4 94.1 95.3 93.3 94.2 94.0 94.7 91.8 90.4 87.7 

Minnesota 95.1 89.4 92.7 96.0 94.8 94.0 95.3 95.5 96.0 96.2 94.3 95.2 95.6 93.5 95.1 93.6 94.1 93.6 94.5 95.8 94.3 93.5 93.1 93.1 91.9 90.5 91.5 91.5 

Ohio 94.0 93.2 96.2 96.3 96.3 97.8 96.6 96.4 95.9 94.1 90.9 92.9 93.3 92.3 92.6 90.3 91.3 88.8 90.6 87.4 87.9 90.0 87.6 86.0 85.6 87.8 89.6 86.4 

Wisconsin 95.2 95.0 95.1 94.5 94.5 95.6 95.8 97.7 97.5 97.0 97.7 98.3 97.9 97.8 97.5 97.8 98.3 98.1 97.5 93.3 96.9 94.5 92.3 92.7 91.6 94.8 95.5 93.9 Arkansas 94.5 96.9 95.5 94.6 94.7 97.2 99.5 99.3 98.5 98.6 98.7 98.2 97.8 97.7 97.5 97.1 94.6 96.9 95.9 95.2 96.5 98.1 98.4 99.0 98.2 96.8 96.0 96.6 Louisiana 97.8 97.5 96.7 97.2 97.5 99.6 98.5 98.4 98.2 97.9 97.8 98.6 98.2 97.3 98.4 97.6 97.8 97.6 94.6 94.7 93.3 96.1 95.0 97.1 95.7 94.8 72.8 66.9 

New Mexico 89.1 90.3 92.7 89.0 85.1 97.2 95.9 96.5 97.4 97.5 96.9 97.1 97.9 96.2 97.4 95.7 95.0 94.1 90.4 90.8 90.0 93.9 92.2 94.7 95.3 93.7 92.8 95.4 

Oklahoma 97.1 96.6 97.2 95.7 97.0 98.2 99.8 98.7 99.0 98.8 99.4 98.9 98.9 98.1 97.9 96.7 98.4 97.5 96.3 95.0 96.7 94.6 95.0 95.6 95.8 96.4 96.2 

Texas 97.2 95.5 95.1 97.2 96.5 98.7 98.9 99.6 .2 94.7 91.7 97.6 96.7 96.4 95.7 95.3 95.9 94.6 95.3 95.3 96.2 97.6 96.4 95.7 95.6 95.8 96.4 94.2 
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 

Table A.1. QC Completion Rate for Active Cases by State: 1980 to 2014, continued

Oct 1980–Mar 1981 

Apr 1981–Sept 1981 

Oct 1981–Mar 1982 

Apr 1982–Sept 1982 

FY 1983 

FY 1984 

FY 1985 

FY 1986 

FY 1987 

FY 1988 

FY 1989 

FY 1990 

FY 1991 

FY 1992 

FY 1993 

FY 1994 

FY 1995 

FY 1996 

FY 1997 

FY 1998 

FY 1999 

FY 2000 

FY 2001 

FY 2002 

FY 2003 

FY 2004 

FY 2005 

FY 2006 

Colorado 95.9 89.2 78.5 70.5 93.9 95.4 94.9 98.3 97.3 95.5 94.4 96.2 97.4 96.6 94.4 96.3 95.8 95.0 95.5 91.4 92.7 93.6 94.4 93.9 95.4 95.2 92.2 95.3 Iowa 93.1 93.3 94.9 93.1 94.6 97.1 97.0 96.3 95.4 96.6 96.0 96.1 95.5 94.8 95.3 92.8 91.8 89.9 90.2 92.0 90.4 90.3 88.9 89.3 88.8 89.4 87.1 88.8 

Kansas 93.0 94.1 95.0 95.5 94.5 96.7 97.7 98.4 99.6 99.6 98.9 98.1 97.6 97.8 96.1 97.0 95.1 95.3 95.5 96.3 96.1 95.0 94.3 93.2 93.6 91.9 90.3 95.3 

Missouri 97.5 95.5 96.9 97.6 98.1 96.3 96.5 99.1 99.0 98.9 98.5 98.4 98.0 97.3 97.0 96.5 96.0 96.1 95.6 94.3 93.3 95.0 93.1 92.9 89.9 81.1 81.5 82.4 

Montana 90.7 91.1 96.9 93.7 95.7 96.8 99.6 99.2 95.4 95.8 96.3 94.9 94.8 94.3 93.5 92.8 94.1 92.7 91.6 90.3 91.7 93.5 89.5 87.3 90.5 86.6 83.8 86.2 

Nebraska 95.0 95.0 97.2 95.0 74.0 92.6 99.0 98.1 97.3 98.5 98.5 97.2 97.4 97.4 94.1 94.1 94.3 93.4 92.7 93.7 94.1 95.6 96.9 96.0 95.7 93.7 93.7 93.8 

North Dakota 96.9 98.1 89.2 96.1 98.2 98.2 99.0 90.6 99.5 99.5 99.7 99.5 99.3 99.3 99.0 98.7 98.6 97.7 86.9 98.5 99.0 98.3 95.9 96.0 96.7 97.3 97.1 96.3 

South Dakota 98.3 100.0 98.9 99.0 98.7 98.4 98.3 97.9 97.0 99.6 99.5 99.8 99.8 99.3 99.3 99.8 99.7 99.7 99.7 99.7 98.9 98.0 97.8 96.6 98.1 97.2 97.8 97.7 

Utah 95.6 93.5 97.7 94.7 95.7 99.8 100.0 99.8 99.2 98.9 99.1 97.7 98.3 96.2 98.5 98.1 96.6 97.8 97.7 97.6 97.4 98.2 96.1 94.6 96.1 93.7 93.6 90.9 

Wyoming 94.9 94.6 96.0 97.3 95.1 99.1 98.8 97.9 94.5 96.1 98.4 98.2 99.7 98.9 99.5 98.2 97.5 97.0 97.6 97.0 95.8 99.4 97.7 96.3 97.8 97.9 98.0 98.5 Alaska 94.5 87.2 93.1 88.2 92.5 89.4 96.9 96.1 98.2 97.3 95.6 95.4 97.1 93.7 94.0 96.7 91.8 90.1 89.9 90.7 92.3 98.4 96.2 95.9 94.1 94.6 93.2 Arizona 88.0 91.9 93.8 96.1 92.9 97.2 94.8 94.0 95.7 94.9 93.8 94.9 92.9 93.6 91.8 91.9 95.3 94.6 93.0 94.8 93.4 93.2 95.1 93.9 94.6 92.7 93.5 92.2 

California 90.9 88.3 93.1 92.9 91.0 86.4 95.2 94.8 95.5 95.6 94.4 89.8 91.4 91.8 91.3 90.8 88.9 87.2 82.4 80.1 85.9 87.8 86.8 86.5 90.1 86.8 85.4 86.2 

Guam 97.5 94.2 97.5 95.7 94.5 94.8 99.3 99.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.4 98.7 98.8 99.7 99.7 98.8 100.0 97.7 100.0 99.4 99.1 99.7 99.1 98.0 100.0 100.0 99.3 

Hawaii 95.9 96.0 94.9 95.1 95.8 98.1 98.5 98.9 99.1 98.7 99.6 99.6 99.5 99.4 99.0 99.8 99.0 99.7 98.2 98.0 97.3 97.9 97.5 95.7 92.9 94.4 94.8 94.9 

Idaho 90.7 87.9 96.3 95.5 94.9 94.7 92.0 92.0 90.7 89.1 92.9 95.4 95.5 95.3 94.3 93.0 94.2 94.6 93.5 93.9 93.9 96.2 97.9 93.9 99.3 96.7 95.4 97.8 

Nevada 97.3 98.2 96.3 97.5 96.4 100.0 98.4 98.7 98.4 98.6 99.2 98.1 96.9 95.0 97.2 98.7 98.9 95.9 98.3 97.2 94.9 97.7 95.0 94.7 95.0 91.4 90.6 94.3 

Oregon 96.2 95.7 93.9 89.0 94.4 93.3 94.6 95.3 95.8 94.8 93.6 94.7 95.9 96.9 97.4 91.4 89.4 91.2 94.2 97.0 97.2 99.1 99.2 97.3 96.9 94.9 94.5 92.0 

Washington 92.7 91.3 93.3 95.1 95.8 99.6 98.6 98.1 98.0 97.9 96.6 96.3 95.2 95.7 95.5 93.5 93.3 90.4 89.0 86.6 87.8 91.5 96.3 96.6 96.6 97.5 97.6 96.3 

United States 94.2 92.8 93.5 93.8 94.8 96.4 97.1 97.1 96.9 96.6 95.8 95.0 95.6 94.7 94.9 94.1 94.0 93.2 91.6 91.1 91.8 92.9 92.6 92.5 92.5 91.7 90.3 89.8 Error Rate 13.1 11.9 12.2 11.7 10.8 10.9 10.5 10.4 10.3 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.3 10.7 10.8 10.3 9.7 9.2 9.8 10.7 9.9 8.9 8.7 8.3 6.6 5.9 5.8 6.0 
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐1

Appendix B. State Survey Results

Table B.1a. State Reviewer Survey: Review Procedures

State Completion Rate

Total

Low Average High

Number of respondents 160 182 103 445

Review Period 

Time given to complete reviews 

Less than 60 days 44.4 30.8 34.7 36.6 

60–75 days 40.6 39.6 31.7 38.2 

75 days or more 15.0 29.7 33.7 25.3 

Required to meet interim deadlines 50.6 66.1 60.8 59.3 

"I have sufficient time to complete the SNAP QC reviews assigned to me.” 

Strongly agree 25.0 31.3 35.3 30.0 

Agree 66.3 55.0 54.9 59.0 

Disagree 8.1 11.0 9.8 9.7 

Strongly disagree 0.6 2.8 0.0 1.4

Interview Preparation 

Review Period 

"The case files I receive from the local SNAP office typically have all of the case

records and certification information I need to conduct the review." 

Strongly agree 8.2 5.5 5.9 6.6 

Agree 49.1 53.9 61.8 54.0 

Disagree 35.9 33.5 25.5 32.5 

Strongly disagree 6.9 7.1 6.9 7.0

Contacting Clients 

Send a letter to contact 99.4 98.4 100.0 99.1 

Use certified mail 45.9 45.3 59.2 48.8 

Use phone calls to contact 95.6 96.7 95.2 96.0 

Use text messaging to contact 5.6 11.1 8.7 8.6 

Reason for not using text messages 

Discouraged by manager 8.0 11.2 10.6 9.9 

Too time-consuming 3.3 3.7 2.1 3.2 

Too many resources 9.3 4.4 12.8 8.1 

Inability to receive messages 42.4 44.1 38.3 42.1 

Not approved by State/Federal 39.1 44.1 29.8 38.9 

Do not have/want to use cell phone 29.8 28.6 20.2 27.1 

Other 35.8 30.4 39.4 34.5 

Reach out to neighbors of contact 49.7 63.9 79.6 62.4 

Reason for not reaching out to neighbors 

Discouraged by manager 6.3 9.2 0.0 6.6 

Too time-consuming 6.3 4.6 9.5 6.0 

Too many resources 6.3 4.6 4.8 5.4 

Lack of cooperation by neighbors 42.5 27.7 52.4 38.0 

Safety concerns 40.0 38.5 47.6 40.4 

Other 57.5 53.9 38.1 53.6 

Used the internet to contact clients 78.1 75.7 73.8 76.1 

Reason for not using the internet 

Discouraged by manager 8.6 18.2 11.1 13.2 

Too time-consuming 2.9 9.1 3.7 5.7 

Too many resources 5.7 4.6 7.4 5.7 

Unreliability of internet 22.9 52.3 37.0 38.7 

Not approved by State/Federal 37.1 36.4 33.3 35.9 

Other 34.3 31.8 51.9 37.7 

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐2

Table B.1a. State Reviewer Survey: Review Procedures, continued

   State Completion RateTotal

Low Average High

Frequency that concerns for reviewer safety affect ability to contact or locate a household 

Very rarely 54.4 48.6 44.1 49.7 

Occasionally 31.9 35.2 45.1 36.3 

Often 9.4 10.1 9.8 9.8 

Almost always 4.4 6.2 1.0 4.3 

Most effective strategy to obtain household cooperation 

Offer flexible times to meet 16.9 18.8 18.5 18.0 

Offer alternative locations to meet 23.1 33.7 22.3 27.3 

Notifying failure to cooperate results in change of benefits 53.1 40.9 53.4 48.2 

Enlisting help from caseworker 1.3 1.7 3.9 2.0 

Offering to help with childcare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Other 5.6 5.0 1.9 4.5 

Frequency of turning missed appointments into completed reviews 

Very rarely 3.8 5.0 6.9 5.0 

Occasionally 24.5 23.5 10.8 20.9 

Often 42.8 50.3 38.2 44.8 

Almost always 28.9 21.2 44.1 29.3 

More than 2 contact attempts are... 

strongly encouraged 70.4 64.8 83.5 71.2 

mildly encouraged 23.9 29.6 10.7 23.1 

not encouraged 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.7 

Conducting Interviews 

Spends overnights away from home when conducting reviews 27.7 32.4 23.8 28.7 

Typical workweek schedule 

Weekdays only 84.4 94.0 80.4 87.4 

Some weekends 15.6 6.0 19.6 12.6 

Typical workday schedule 

Normal business hours (9am–5pm) 79.9 80.8 78.2 79.9 

Other 20.1 19.2 21.8 20.1 

Completing Cases 

Proportion of cases where "likely conclusion" used 

Never 11.4 7.7 10.8 9.8 

1–5% 51.3 49.7 56.9 51.9 

6–10% 21.5 21.0 20.6 21.1 

More than 10% 15.8 21.6 11.8 17.2 

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐3

Table B.1b. State Director and Supervisor Survey: QC Review Procedures

   State Completion Rate Total

Low Average High

Number of respondents 51 49 23 123 

Conducting Reviews 

"My SNAP QC staff typically receives from the local SNAP office all the information they

need to conduct their reviews, including all of the case records and certification 

information." 

 

Strongly agree 21.6 14.3 22.7 18.9 

Agree 54.9 59.2 63.6 58.2 

Disagree 21.6 26.5 4.6 20.5 

Strongly disagree 2.0 0.0 9.1 2.5 

"My SNAP QC reviewers have sufficient resources to conduct reviews in languages other

than English." 

Strongly agree 13.7 24.5 13.6 18.0 

Agree 62.8 57.1 68.2 61.5 

Disagree 21.6 16.3 13.6 18.0 

Strongly disagree 2.0 2.0 4.6 2.5 

More than two contact attempts are... 

strongly encouraged 65.3 55.1 59.1 60.0 

mildly encouraged 26.5 32.7 27.3 29.2 

not encouraged 8.2 12.2 13.6 10.8 

Most effective strategy to obtain household cooperation 

Offer flexible times to meet 21.6 16.3 13.6 18.0 

Offer alternative locations to meet 25.5 36.7 36.4 32.0 

Notifying failure to cooperate results in change of benefits 43.1 46.9 40.9 44.3 

Enlisting help from caseworker 2.0 0.0 4.6 1.6 

Offering to help with childcare 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Other 7.8 0.0 4.6 4.1 

Management of SNAP QC 

Reviewers follow the same procedures to conduct reviews 84.3 93.9 100.0 91.0 

All cases receive secondary review 84.3 87.8 86.4 86.1 

Some cases receive secondary review 7.8 8.2 9.1 8.2 

Provider of secondary review 

QC Director 10.6 10.6 38.1 15.7 

QC Supervisor or Coordinator 97.9 93.6 90.5 94.8 

Another reviewer 10.6 25.5 19.1 18.3 

Other 10.6 8.5 4.8 8.7 

No cases receive secondary review 7.8 4.1 4.6 5.7 

Managers monitor completion rates by reviewer 74.5 77.6 82.6 77.2 

"There are an adequate number of supervisors to manage the SNAP QC staff in my State." 

Strongly agree 10.0 8.3 18.2 10.8 

Agree 66.0 72.9 50.0 65.8 

Disagree 20.0 16.7 31.8 20.8 

Strongly disagree 4.0 2.1 0.0 2.5 

"Supervisors in my State have the support and tools they need to do their jobs effectively." 

Strongly agree 15.7 18.8 27.3 19.0 

Agree 78.4 72.9 59.1 72.7 

Disagree 3.9 6.3 13.6 6.6 

Strongly disagree 2.0 2.1 0.0 1.7 

State has used consultants/contractors to review QC policies and procedures and

recommend changes 44.0 55.1 27.3 45.5 

Effect of consultants/contractors on completion rates 

Increase 22.7 15.4 0.0 16.7 

No change 45.5 61.5 50.0 53.7 

Decrease 31.8 23.1 50.0 29.6 

Effect of consultants/contractors on error rates 

Increase 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

No change 4.6 18.5 33.3 14.6 

Decrease 95.5 81.5 66.7 85.5 

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐4

Table B.2a. State Reviewer Survey: Incomplete Cases

State Completion Rate Total

Low Average High

Number of respondents 160 182 103 445

Number of incomplete cases last month 

0 61.9 50.8 68.0 58.8

1 26.5 36.5 14.6 27.8

2+ 11.6 12.7 17.5 13.4

Change in incomplete cases over time a, b

Increase 31.0 30.8 22.8 28.9

No change 53.5 61.7 49.1 56.2

Decrease 15.5 7.5 28.1 14.9

Reason for most recent incomplete case a

Failure to cooperate 48.0 55.1 51.9 51.8

 Record not found 0.7 0.0 1.2 0.5

 Household not located 23.3 27.0 28.4 25.9

Household failed to cooperate 19.3 21.6 16.1 19.6

Collateral contact failed to cooperate 4.7 6.6 6.2 5.8

Refusal to cooperate 52.0 44.9 48.2 48.2

Household refused to cooperate 49.3 43.1 40.7 45.0

Collateral contact refused to cooperate 2.7 1.8 7.4 3.3

Number of households not located in a review period 

0 24.4 11.9 16.7 17.5

1 47.4 54.2 49.0 50.6

2 21.8 22.0 26.5 23.0

3+ 6.4 11.3 7.8 8.7

Change over time in unable to locate households b

Increase 25.0 38.5 32.1 32.9

No change 69.4 59.6 55.4 61.6

Decrease 5.6 1.8 12.5 5.5

Reason for increase in unable to locate 

More homeless 54.6 56.9 52.2 55.3

More disconnected phone numbers 81.8 86.2 100.0 87.7

More incorrect addresses 42.4 34.5 34.8 36.8

More returned mail 39.4 55.2 47.8 49.1

Less cooperation from collateral contacts 42.4 36.2 52.2 41.2

Other 39.4 32.8 56.5 39.5

Change in refusal to cooperate over time b 

Increase 24.7 31.8 28.1 28.7

No change 65.8 66.4 57.9 64.1

Decrease 9.6 1.9 14.0 7.2

Change in failure to cooperate over time b 

Increase 27.4 38.0 29.8 32.8

No change 67.1 61.1 64.9 63.9

Decrease 5.5 0.9 5.3 3.4

Change over time in the number of contact attempts necessary to complete a case b

Increase 44.6 51.4 48.3 48.6

No change 48.7 45.9 48.3 47.3

Decrease 6.8 2.8 3.5 4.2

Case characteristics that may be associated with ease of completion

Population type most often in caseload

Urban 68.8 68.1 60.2 66.5

Rural 56.9 72.0 56.3 62.9

Suburban 47.5 54.4 34.0 47.2

Number of homeless households in typical month 

0 39.0 9.9 26.5 24.2

1 41.5 47.0 47.1 45.0

2 or more 19.5 43.1 26.5 30.8

"Most clients interviewed during the SNAP QC process are honest with information

needed for their case reviews." 

Strongly agree 14.4 15.6 11.7 14.2

Agree 77.5 77.8 80.6 78.3

Disagree 5.6 5.0 7.8 5.9

Strongly disagree 2.5 1.7 0.0 1.6

a Universe includes only reviewers who had at least one incomplete case in the last year. b Universe includes only reviewers who had at least 5 years of experience with SNAP QC. 
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐5

Table B.2b. State Director and Supervisor Survey: Incomplete Cases

 State Completion Rate Total

Low Average High

Number of respondents 51 49 23 123 

Percent of incomplete cases in a typical month 

0–4 21.6 23.9 55.0 28.2 

5–8 49.0 43.5 30.0 43.6 

9+ 29.4 32.6 15.0 28.2 

Change in incomplete cases over time 

Increase 39.2 56.3 45.5 47.1 

No change 43.1 33.3 31.8 37.2 

Decrease 17.7 10.4 22.7 15.7 

Primary reason for incomplete cases 

Failure to cooperate 60.8 65.3 40.9 59.0 

Record not found 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Household not located 19.6 18.4 22.7 19.7 

Household failed to cooperate 27.5 34.7 9.1 27.1 

Collateral contact failed to cooperate 13.7 12.2 9.1 12.3 

Refusal to cooperate 35.3 30.6 59.1 37.7 

Household refused to cooperate 35.3 30.6 59.1 37.7 

Collateral contact refused to cooperate 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Other 3.9 4.1 0.0 3.3 

Change in refusal to cooperate over time 

Increase 41.2 32.7 45.5 38.5 

No change 54.9 61.2 45.5 55.7 

Decrease 3.9 6.1 9.1 5.7 

Change in failure to cooperate over time 

Increase 45.1 40.8 50.0 44.3 

No change 49.0 57.1 36.4 50.0 

Decrease 5.9 2.0 13.6 5.7 

"Completing SNAP QC review cases in my State is more challenging than in most other 

States." 

Strongly agree 22.5 2.4 13.6 13.3 

Agree 40.8 50.0 27.3 41.6 

Disagree 36.7 47.6 50.0 43.4 

Strongly disagree 0.0 0.0 9.1 1.8 

"There are more clients in my State who cannot be found during the SNAP QC process than in 

most other States." 

Strongly agree 12.5 0.0 4.8 6.3 

Agree 47.9 44.2 23.8 42.0 

Disagree 39.6 55.8 66.7 50.9 

Strongly disagree 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.9 

"Most clients interviewed during the SNAP QC process are honest with information needed for 

their case review." 

Strongly agree 4.0 6.1 31.8 9.9 

Agree 88.0 89.8 63.6 84.3 

Disagree 8.0 2.0 4.6 5.0 

Strongly disagree 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.8 

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐6

Table B.3a. State Reviewer Survey: Staff Experience and Caseload  

State Completion Rate Total Low Average High

Number of respondents 160 182 103 445

Years of Experience in SNAP QC 

5 years or fewer 55.6 40.1 46.6 47.2

6–10 years 22.5 36.8 26.2 29.2

11–15 years 9.4 13.7 5.8 10.3

More than 15 years 12.5 9.3 21.4 13.3

Mean 6.9 7.6 9.3 7.8

SNAP experience prior to SNAP QC 81.3 83.5 87.4 83.6

Has job duties other than SNAP QC 34.4 40.1 57.3 42.0

Number of active reviews last month 

0–5 41.5 19.7 36.0 31.3

6–8 23.7 41.6 26.0 31.5

9+ 34.9 38.7 38.0 37.2

Number of negative reviews last month 

0 6.5 13.8 16.1 11.7

1–4 37.4 31.9 44.4 36.8

5+ 56.1 54.4 39.5 51.5

Mean number of reviews last month 

Active 7.0 7.6 7.8 7.4

Negative 5.4 6.1 5.0 5.6

Other 1.7 5.0 1.2 2.8

Change in SNAP QC caseload over time a 

Increase 39.7 42.7 33.3 39.6

No change 41.1 45.5 40.4 42.9

Decrease 19.2 11.8 26.3 17.5

Ever assigned additional reviews to assist backlogged reviewers or reviewers on extended 

leave 69.4 80.1 74.5 75.0 

About once a year 43.6 25.2 44.7 35.9

More than once a year 19.1 13.3 15.8 15.8

Some months 16.4 39.2 22.4 27.7

6+ months per year 20.9 22.4 17.1 20.7 a Universe includes only reviewers who had at least 5 years of experience with SNAP QC.
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐7

Table B.3b. State Director and Supervisor Survey: Experience and Caseload  

   State Completion Rate

Total

Low Average High

Total number of respondents 51 49 23 123 

Number of SNAP QC directors 13 14 8 35 

Number of SNAP QC supervisors 38 35 15 88 

Years of experience with SNAP QC 

5 years or fewer 23.5 28.6 17.4 24.4 

6–10 25.5 28.6 13.0 24.4 

11–15 17.7 18.4 21.7 18.7 

More than 15 years 33.3 24.5 47.8 32.5 

Mean 13.5 10.7 17.4 13.1 

Experience with SNAP prior to QC 82.4 81.6 100.0 85.4 

Has job duties outside of SNAP QC 52.9 44.9 78.3 54.5 

Time spent on SNAP (vs. other programs) 

<50% 13.7 12.2 8.7 12.2 

50–99% 39.2 32.7 69.6 42.3 

100% 47.1 55.1 21.7 45.5 

Number of SNAP QC reviewers (directors only) 

<=10 23.1 14.3 57.1 26.5 

11–14 38.5 50.0 28.6 41.2 

15+ 38.5 35.7 14.3 32.4 

Mean 13.8 13.7 10.9 13.1 

Change in number of SNAP QC reviewers over last 5 years (directors only) 

Increase 23.1 7.1 42.9 20.6 

No change 7.7 28.6 14.3 17.7 

Decrease 69.2 64.3 42.9 61.8 

"Staff is large enough to maintain quality review processes." 

Strongly agree 27.5 38.8 22.7 31.2 

Agree 56.9 42.9 59.1 51.6 

Disagree 13.7 16.3 4.6 13.1 

Strongly disagree 2.0 2.0 13.6 4.1 

"My SNAP QC staff has sufficient time to complete the reviews assigned to them." 

Strongly agree 37.3 40.8 31.8 37.7 

Agree 56.9 53.1 59.1 55.7 

Disagree 5.9 6.1 9.1 6.6 

Strongly disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐8

Table B.4a. State Reviewer Survey: Training and Tools

State Completion Rate

Total

Low Average High

Number of respondents 160 182 103 445 

Reviewers receive training on SNAP QC 91.2 85.2 90.3 88.5 

Training frequency 

Once 17.4 18.1 5.4 14.8 

Ongoing—weekly, monthly 14.6 25.8 11.8 18.4 

Ongoing—1–2 times per year 16.0 12.9 35.5 19.4 

As-needed 52.1 43.2 47.3 47.5 

Training topics 

310 Handbook 95.2 91.6 95.7 93.9 

Eligibility and certification 77.2 72.3 73.1 74.3 

Procedural components 87.6 86.5 88.2 87.3 

Interview techniques 60.0 58.1 63.4 60.1 

Household location 53.8 52.9 49.5 52.4 

State-specific policy 76.6 68.4 75.3 73.0 

Likely conclusion 73.1 74.2 72.0 73.3 

Other 23.5 18.7 17.2 20.1 

Training format 

In-person (formal) 62.8 56.8 57.0 59.0 

Online independent 22.1 24.5 20.4 22.7 

Online group 16.6 38.1 33.3 29.0 

Conference call 43.5 47.7 40.9 44.5 

In person (informal) 71.0 72.9 76.3 73.0 

One-on-one 45.5 50.3 49.5 48.4 

Peer mentoring 31.0 49.7 38.7 40.2 

Individual study 64.8 64.5 59.1 63.4 

Other 11.0 7.7 8.6 9.2 

Training conductors 

QC director 53.8 26.5 50.5 42.2 

QC supervisor or coordinator 88.3 78.7 87.1 84.2 

Reviewer 15.9 9.0 25.8 15.5 

Regional Office personnel 22.1 26.5 24.7 24.4 

Contractor 33.1 25.8 12.9 25.5 

Other 8.3 15.5 15.1 12.7 

Independent (no instructor) 0.0 2.6 1.1 1.3 

Change in training over time a

Increase 18.2 48.9 29.6 34.3 

No change 51.5 31.1 55.6 43.8 

Decrease 30.3 20.0 14.8 21.9 

Format of notification of change 

Email alert 89.4 86.8 91.3 88.8 

State manual page change 38.8 44.0 51.5 43.8 

Memo 56.3 50.0 48.5 51.9 

Formal training 44.4 41.2 50.5 44.5 

Conference call 34.4 37.4 30.1 34.6 

Other 12.5 13.2 9.7 12.1 

Not notified 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 

"The training I received provided me with the tools and knowledge I need to effectively

complete a SNAP QC review." 

Strongly agree 30.0 31.9 40.8 33.3 

Agree 62.5 50.6 51.5 55.1 

Disagree 6.3 14.8 5.8 9.7 

Strongly disagree 1.3 2.8 1.9 2.0 

a Universe includes only reviewers who had at least 5 years of experience with SNAP QC.

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐9

Table B.4a. State Reviewer Survey: Training and Tools, continued

State Completion Rate

Total

Low Average High

Additional training that would be helpful 

310 Handbook 51.9 51.1 45.6 50.1 

Eligibility and certification 22.5 23.6 18.5 22.0 

Procedural components 30.6 37.9 33.0 34.2 

Interview techniques 13.1 16.5 14.6 14.8 

Household location 23.8 25.3 21.4 23.8 

State-specific policy 36.3 36.3 33.0 35.5 

Likely conclusion 43.1 37.9 38.8 40.0 

Other 12.5 5.0 12.6 9.4 

Tools 

Frequency using 310 Handbook for reviews 

Very rarely 6.9 7.7 4.9 6.7 

Occasionally 31.9 21.4 20.4 24.9 

Often 41.9 33.0 53.4 40.9 

Almost always 19.4 37.9 21.4 27.4 

State has other supplemental materials 81.5 68.2 73.3 74.1 

Frequency of use of supplemental material 

Very rarely 7.0 6.6 1.4 5.6 

Occasionally 29.9 26.2 40.5 31.0 

Often 42.5 39.3 32.4 39.0 

Almost always 20.5 27.9 25.7 24.5 

State uses automated FNS-380 worksheet 72.3 57.9 82.5 68.8 

Effect of automated FNS-380 worksheet 

Easier 33.9 41.8 45.9 40.0 

Same 56.3 50.5 43.5 50.7 

More difficult 9.8 7.8 10.6 9.3 

Additional tools or materials available 80.5 76.8 79.6 78.8 

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐10

Table B.4b. State Director and Supervisor Survey: Training and Tools

   State Completion Rate

Total

Low Average High

Number of respondents 51 49 23 123 

"Overall, my SNAP QC staff has the tools and knowledge they need to correctly determine if a 

case is complete or incomplete." 

Strongly agree 51.0 53.1 59.1 53.3 

Agree 47.1 46.9 40.9 45.9 

Disagree 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 

Strongly disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Training 

Training topics 

FNS 310 Handbook 100.0 100.0 95.2 99.2 

Eligibility and certification 87.8 91.5 85.7 88.9 

Procedural components 98.0 97.9 95.2 97.4 

Interview techniques 75.5 89.4 90.5 83.8 

Household location 71.4 78.7 76.2 75.2 

State-specific policy 87.8 83.0 85.7 85.5 

Likely conclusion 95.9 93.6 95.2 94.9 

Other 26.5 17.0 33.3 23.9 

Training format 

In person (formal) 77.6 78.7 76.2 77.8 

Online independent 26.5 14.9 19.1 20.5 

Online group 18.4 23.4 19.1 20.5 

Conference call 53.1 63.8 66.7 59.8 

In person (informal) 81.6 85.1 90.5 84.6 

One-on-one 87.8 87.2 90.5 88.0 

Peer mentoring 57.1 80.9 61.9 67.5 

Individual study 83.7 91.5 71.4 84.6 

Other 14.3 8.5 28.6 14.5 

Training conductors 

QC director 57.1 31.9 61.9 47.9 

QC Supervisor or coordinator 91.8 91.5 85.7 90.6 

Reviewer 14.3 12.8 23.8 15.4 

Regional Office personnel 34.7 36.2 52.4 38.5 

Contractor 26.5 29.8 9.5 24.8 

Other 16.3 12.8 23.8 16.2 

Independent (no instructor) 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.9 

Training planners 

QC director 67.4 46.8 66.7 59.0 

QC supervisor or coordinator 77.6 80.9 71.4 77.8 

Reviewer 4.1 10.6 0.0 6.0 

Regional Office personnel 2.0 6.4 14.3 6.0 

Contractor 4.1 2.1 0.0 2.6 

Other 2.0 6.4 4.8 4.3 

Independent (no instructor) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Training frequency 

Once 6.1 8.9 5.0 7.0 

Ongoing—weekly, monthly 22.5 37.8 25.0 29.0 

Ongoing—twice yearly 8.2 0.0 0.0 3.5 

Ongoing—yearly 8.2 6.7 30.0 11.4 

As needed 55.1 46.7 40.0 49.1 

Change in training over time 

Increase 49.0 46.8 50.0 48.3 

No change 38.8 40.4 50.0 41.4 

Decrease 12.2 12.8 . 10.3 

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐11

Table B.4b. State Director and Supervisor Survey: Training and Tools, continued

   State Completion Rate

Total

Low Average High

Format of notification of policy change  

Email alert 86.3 85.7 73.9 83.7 

State manual page change 49.0 55.1 47.8 51.2 

Memo 54.9 65.3 52.2 58.5 

Formal training 58.8 61.2 52.2 58.5 

Conference call 62.8 63.3 43.5 59.4 

Other 11.8 14.3 4.4 11.4 

Not notified 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Responsible party for notification of policy change 

QC director 54.9 30.6 61.9 46.3 

QC supervisor or coordinator 35.3 51.0 19.1 38.8 

State policy office personnel 7.8 18.4 14.3 13.2 

Regional Office personnel 2.0 0.0 4.8 1.7 

No one 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Tools 

State-specific/supplemental materials 90.2 81.6 71.4 83.5 

Additional tools available to reviewers 92.0 87.8 72.7 86.8 

Staff use automated FNS-380 72.6 69.4 81.8 73.0 

Effect of FNS 380 on ability to complete reviews 

Easier 50.0 44.1 55.6 48.9 

No change 13.9 5.9 11.1 10.2 

More difficult 36.1 50.0 33.3 40.9 

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐12

Table B.5a. State Reviewer Survey: Staff Perceptions Related to SNAP QC Completion  

   State Completion Rate Total

Low Average High

Number of respondents 160 182 103 445 

SNAP QC Completion Accountability and Priorities 

"Obtaining high completion rates for SNAP QC reviews is a priority for my office." 

Strongly agree 51.6 47.0 68.0 53.5 

Agree 45.3 48.6 30.1 43.1 

Disagree 1.3 3.3 0.0 1.8 

Strongly disagree 1.9 1.1 1.9 1.6 

"I am personally held accountable when I have low completion rates for SNAP QC

reviews." 

Strongly agree 24.5 18.9 34.0 24.5 

Agree 45.9 55.4 43.7 49.2 

Disagree 25.8 21.7 16.5 22.0 

Strongly disagree 3.8 4.0 5.8 4.4 

Intensity of SNAP QC Completion Efforts 

"I go the extra mile to complete SNAP QC reviews." 

Strongly agree 57.2 60.4 71.8 61.9 

Agree 40.3 39.0 27.2 36.7 

Disagree 1.9 0.6 1.0 1.1 

Strongly disagree 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 

"During the SNAP QC review process, I make concerted efforts to speak with collateral

contacts of a client who is uncooperative or hard to locate." 

Strongly agree 47.8 57.7 68.9 56.7 

Agree 47.2 38.7 31.1 40.0 

Disagree 4.4 3.7 0.0 3.1 

Strongly disagree 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 

"During the SNAP QC review process, I come up with creative solutions to locate hardto-reach clients." 

Strongly agree 39.6 43.6 50.0 43.6 

Agree 49.1 52.2 46.1 49.5 

Disagree 10.1 3.7 3.9 6.1 

Strongly disagree 1.3 0.6 0.0 0.7 

"During the SNAP QC review process, I come up with creative solutions to convert

uncooperative clients." 

Strongly agree 30.3 36.8 42.7 35.9 

Agree 49.7 55.8 47.6 51.5 

Disagree 19.4 6.8 7.8 11.6 

Strongly disagree 0.7 0.6 1.9 1.0 

"My office environment and managers encourage sharing information about new

approaches with other SNAP QC reviewers to expand their tools for completing SNAP 

QC reviews." 

Strongly agree 36.3 30.2 57.3 38.7 

Agree 48.4 55.0 36.9 48.4 

Disagree 9.6 10.4 4.9 8.8 

Strongly disagree 5.7 4.4 1.0 4.1 

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates B‐13

Table B.5b. State Director and Supervisor Survey: Staff Perceptions Related to SNAP QC Completion Rates

State Completion Rate

Total

Low Average High

Number of respondents 51 49 23 123 

SNAP QC Completion Goals 

Achievable completion rate 

Less than 90 21.6 20.0 15.0 19.8 

90–94 51.0 42.2 25.0 43.1 

95–97 27.5 33.3 35.0 31.0 

More than 97 0.0 4.4 25.0 6.0 

"I am currently satisfied with the completion rate for SNAP QC reviews among my staff." 

Strongly agree 14.3 16.3 31.8 18.3 

Agree 71.4 61.2 68.2 66.7 

Disagree 14.3 22.5 0.0 15.0 

Strongly disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

SNAP QC Completion Accountability and Priorities 

"Obtaining high completion rates for SNAP QC reviews is a priority for my office." 

Strongly agree 36.0 34.0 45.5 37.0 

Agree 58.0 59.6 45.5 56.3 

Disagree 6.0 6.4 9.1 6.7 

Strongly disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

"I am personally held accountable when the employees I supervise have low

completion rates for their reviews." 

Strongly agree 7.8 10.6 36.4 14.2 

Agree 47.1 53.2 31.8 46.7 

Disagree 35.3 23.4 13.6 26.7 

Strongly disagree 0.0 4.3 13.6 4.2 

Do not supervise employees 9.8 8.5 4.6 8.3 

"I am personally held accountable for the integrity of the SNAP QC process." 

Strongly agree 25.0 29.2 50.0 31.4 

Agree 60.4 52.1 36.4 52.5 

Disagree 14.6 16.7 9.1 14.4 

Strongly disagree 0.0 2.1 4.6 1.7 

Intensity of SNAP QC Completion Efforts 

"The reviewers in my State go the extra mile to complete SNAP QC reviews." 

Strongly agree 57.1 41.7 54.6 50.4 

Agree 32.7 52.1 45.5 42.9 

Disagree 10.2 6.3 0.0 6.7 

Strongly disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

"During the SNAP QC review process, the reviewers in my State make concerted

efforts to speak with collateral contacts of a client who is uncooperative or hard to 

locate." 

Strongly agree 58.3 42.9 59.1 52.1 

Agree 39.6 57.1 40.9 47.1 

Disagree 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.8 

Strongly disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

"During the SNAP QC review process, the reviewers in my State come up with

creative solutions to locate hard-to-reach clients." 

Strongly agree 36.2 33.3 54.6 38.5 

Agree 57.5 56.3 45.5 54.7 

Disagree 6.4 10.4 0.0 6.8 

Strongly disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

"The reviewers in my State routinely share information about new approaches with

each other to expand their tools for completing case reviews." 

Strongly agree 33.3 36.7 50.0 37.8 

Agree 58.3 57.1 50.0 56.3 

Disagree 8.3 6.1 0.0 5.9 

Strongly disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates C‐1

Appendix C. Regional Office Survey Results

Table C.1. Federal QC Reviewer Survey: Review Procedures

Total

Number of respondents 29 

Case assignment 

Number of States in regular caseload 

1 20.7 

2 48.3 

3 or more 31.0 

FQCRs who have reviewed an incomplete case in the past year 96.4 

FQCRs who review at least one incomplete case in a typical month 82.8 

Time to review complete active cases 

1 hour or less 27.6 

1–2 hours 41.4 

2–3 hours 13.8 

Missing 17.2 

Time to review incomplete active cases 

1 hour or less 65.5 

1–2 hours 17.2 

2–3 hours 3.4 

Missing 13.8 

FQCRs have sufficient time to complete reviews 

Agree 48.3 

Disagree 51.7 

Change in amount of time needed to review cases in past 5 years 

Increase 51.7 

No change 34.5 

Decrease 13.8 

Case review preparation 

FQCRs have access to State systems 

No 96.6 

Yes 3.4 

How helpful would it be to have State system access when completing reviews? (among FQCRs who

do not have access) 

Very helpful 32.1 

Somewhat helpful 35.7 

Not very helpful 14.3 

Not at all helpful 17.9 

Active complete case review process 

The extent to which active case review steps have changed 

A lot 51.7 

Some 34.5 

A little 13.8 

Not at all 0.0 

Reason that review steps have changed (among FQCRs who report some or a lot of changes) 

New guidance from FNS National Office 84.0 

New guidance from Regional Office administrative branch 20.0 

New guidance from Regional Office branch chief 32.0 

State policy change 44.0 

New tasks required 88.0 

New automated system 92.0 

Other 16.0 
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates C‐2

Table C.1. Federal QC Reviewer Survey: Review Procedures, continued

Total

Frequency that States use “likely conclusion” to complete cases 

At least once a month 41.4 

Once every few months 27.6 

Once a year 0.0 

This is mostly dependent on the SQCR 10.3 

This is mostly dependent on the State 13.8 

Never used “likely conclusion” 6.9 

Active incomplete case review process 

Mean number of incomplete active cases per month 12.1 

Change in the number of incomplete cases per month since FQCR began doing QC reviews 

Increase 41.4 

No change 41.4 

Decrease 17.2 

Case files are usually complete (among FQCRs who reviewed at least one incomplete case last year) 

Almost always 37.0 

Often 37.0 

Occasionally 11.1 

Very rarely 7.4 

Depends on SQCR 7.4 

Thorough documentation of review process was received (among FQCRs who reviewed at least one

incomplete case last year) 

Almost always 37.0 

Often 44.4 

Occasionally 11.1 

Mostly dependent on the SQCR 7.4 

Mostly dependent on the State 0.0 

FQCR requests additional case file information from the State (among FQCRs who reviewed at least

one incomplete case last year) 

Almost always 0.0 

Often 3.7 

Occasionally 48.1 

Very rarely 40.7 

Mostly dependent on the SQCR 0.0 

Mostly dependent on the State 7.4 

Frequency of attempts to complete cases (among FQCRs who reviewed at least one incomplete case

last year) 

No attempt to complete a case in the past year 48.1 

Less than once a year 11.1 

At least every 4–6 months 11.1 

At least every 2–3 months 18.5 

At least once a month 11.1 

Reason attempts not made to complete cases (among FQCRs who reviewed at least one incomplete

case last year) 

Lack of time 30.4 

Not required 30.4 

Other 39.1 

Steps taken to complete an incomplete case (among FQCRs who attempted to complete at least one

incomplete case last year) 

Phone call to household 42.9 

Letter to household 7.1 

In-person contact with household 21.4 

Phone call to collateral contact 71.4 

Letter to collateral contact 7.1 

In-person contact with collateral contact 21.4 

Contact with eligibility worker 7.1 

Other 14.3 
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates C‐3

Table C.1. Federal QC Reviewer Survey: Review Procedures, continued

Total

Frequency of disagreement with incomplete disposition (among FQCRs who reviewed at least one

incomplete case last year) 

0–24% of incomplete cases 100.0 

25–100% of incomplete cases 0.0 

Frequency that FQCRs attempts to complete cases are successful 

Less than 25% of the time 78.6 

25–49% of the time 0.0 

50–74% of the time 14.3 

75% of the time or more 7.1 

Secondary reviews of findings 

Cases receive secondary review 

All cases 20.7 

Some cases 69.0 

No cases 10.3 

Reasons for secondary reviews (among FQCRs reporting at least some secondary reviews) 

Disagree cases 61.5 

Incomplete cases 0.0 

Cases from a certain State 3.8 

Cases reviewed by new staff 23.1 

Random sample of cases 69.2 

Other 7.7 

QC staff member who conducts secondary reviews (among FQCRs reporting at least some secondary

reviews) 

QC director 3.8 

QC supervisor/coordinator 73.1 

Another FQCR 19.2

Other 3.8 

Resolution of differences between State and Federal findings 

Feedback provided to State outside of ROQCTs 

Yes 69.0 

No 31.0 

QC staff member who provides State feedback (among FQCRs reporting at least some feedback) 

Regional Office Branch Chief 30.0 

QC supervisor/coordinator 100.0 

FQCR who reviewed the case 55.0 

Another FQCR 0.0 
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates C‐4

Table C.2. Federal QC Reviewer Survey: Federal SNAP QC Staff

Total

Number of respondents 29 

Staff experience 

Years of experience in Federal SNAP QC 

Up to 5 years 34.5 

6 to 10 years 37.9 

11 to 15 years 13.8 

More than 15 years 13.8 

Experience in State-level SNAP QC 

Yes 31.0 

No 69.0 

Staff workload 

Mean number of active cases per month 48.2 

Mean number of negative cases per month 28.2 

Change in number of SNAP QC reviews in past 5 years 

Increase 62.1 

No change 34.5 

Decrease 3.4 

Percentage of time spent on SNAP QC 

0–49% 17.2 

50–74% 24.1 

75–99% 27.6 

100% 31.0 

FQCRs assigned additional reviews 

At least every other month 24.1 

Some months 17.2 

Once per year 31.0 

Never 27.6 

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates C‐5

Table C.3. Federal QC Reviewer Survey: Tools and Training  

Total

Number of respondents 29 

Training 

Frequency of FQCR training 

Once 27.6 

Weekly/monthly 6.9 

Yearly 6.9 

As needed 31.0 

Other 10.3 

Never 17.2 

Conductor of FQCR training 

Regional branch chief 6.9 

QC coordinator 72.4 

FQCR 27.6 

Contractor 0.0 

Other 31.0 

Format of FQCR training 

Formal in-person training 58.6 

Independent tutorial online 6.9 

Group online webinar 17.2 

Conference call 34.5 

Informal in-person meetings 51.7 

One-on-one training with a supervisor 20.7 

Peer mentoring 51.7 

Individual study with written materials 69.0 

Topics covered during training 

FNS 310 Handbook 82.8 

FNS 315 Handbook 41.4 

SNAP eligibility and certification 65.5 

Procedural aspects of QC reviews 69.0 

Interview techniques 6.9 

Household location techniques 10.3 

State-specific policy, including State options and waivers 44.8 

Likely conclusion as a means of case completion 65.5 

Other 24.1 

Training was effective? 

Strongly agree 17.2 

Agree 58.6 

Disagree 13.8 

Strongly disagree 10.3 

Change in the amount of FQCR training since FQCR began job 

Increase 3.4 

Decrease 51.7 

No change 44.8 

Source of notification of new State policy 

Regional Office policy branch 65.5 

Regional Office QC branch chief 62.1 

State QC director 20.7 

Other FQCRs 34.5 

Online resources 62.1 

On one’s own 48.3 

None 10.3 
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates C‐6

Table C.3. Federal QC Reviewer Survey: Tools and Training, continued

Total

Tools 

Use of automated FNS 380 

Almost always 44.8 

Often 27.6 

Occasionally 10.3 

Very rarely 3.4 

Never 13.8 

Effect of using automated 380 on ability to complete reviews (among FQCRs who use it at least

occasionally) 

Reviews are easier with automated 380 12.5 

Reviews are more difficult with automated 380 20.8 

No change 66.7 

FQCR use of FNS 310 Handbook 

Almost always 62.1 

Often 34.5 

Occasionally 3.4 

Very rarely 0.0 

FQCR use of State-specific QC materials 

Yes 86.2 

No 13.8 

FQCR use of FNS 315 Handbook 

Almost always 13.8 

Often 10.3 

Occasionally 27.6 

Very rarely 48.3 

   
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP QC Completion Rates C‐7

Table C.4. Federal QC Reviewer Survey: Staff Perceptions Related to SNAP QC

Total

Number of respondents 29 

Does your office place priority on reviewing incomplete cases over cases with other dispositions? 

Yes 13.8 

No, my office prioritizes reviewing cases other than incomplete cases 3.4 

No, my office priorities cases equally, regardless of disposition code 82.8 

Monitoring State SNAP QC quality is a priority for my office 

Strongly agree 31.0 

Agree 51.7 

Disagree 6.9 

Strongly disagree 10.3 

The Regional Office environment encourages sharing information about new approaches with other 

FQCRs 

Strongly agree 17.2 

Agree 55.2 

Disagree 17.2 

Strongly disagree 10.3 

I go the extra mile to complete SNAP QC reviews coded as “incomplete” by the State reviewer 

Strongly agree 27.6 

Agree 34.5 

Disagree 27.6 

Strongly disagree 3.4 

This does not apply to me 6.9 

I enjoy my work 

Strongly agree 24.1 

Agree 51.7 

Disagree 17.2 

Strongly disagree 6.9 

I work hard 

Strongly agree 69.0 

Agree 31.0 

Disagree 0.0 

Strongly disagree 0.0 

I feel supported by management 

Strongly agree 24.1 

Agree 48.3 

Disagree 20.7 

Strongly disagree 6.9 
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 

Appendix D. Administrative Data Analysis Tables

Table D.1. SNAP Household Demographic Information by QC Review Completion Status and State: FY 2010–FY 2012

Characteristic Iowa Kentucky Mississippi Ohio Oklahom

Complete Incomplete Complete Incomplete Complete Incomplete Complete Incomplete Complete 

Total Households 2,877 356 3,855 249 3,673 99 3,899 329 3,375 Household Size 

1 48.0 46.1 44.6 36.1 44.5 39.4 47.4 45.0 43.7 2–3 32.1 31.7 36.5 41.4 32.9 40.4 32.8 34.0 33.8 4+ 19.9 22.2 18.9 22.5 22.6 20.2 19.7 21.0 22.4 Mean 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.3 

Household Composition 

With children 45.5 50.0 44.7 54.6 48.5 54.5 45.7 48.6 49.4 

Preschool-aged children (0–4) 24.8 28.9 21.9 25.3 24.5 30.3 23.0 26.1 26.6 School-aged children (5–17) 32.7 36.0 32.6 39.8 37.2 44.4 34.9 34.3 36.8 Single adult with children 26.4 30.3 25.4 30.9 31.6 25.3 28.1 27.4 30.5 

No children 54.5 50.0 55.3 45.4 51.5 45.5 54.3 51.4 50.6 With older individuals (60+) 12.0 6.7 15.5 7.2 14.6 4.0 15.7 6.7 14.2 No older individuals 88.0 93.3 84.5 92.8 85.4 96.0 84.3 93.3 85.8 

Age of Household Head 

<25 17.0 26.4 11.9 18.1 12.5 23.2 1 12.4 25.2 14.4 25–44 47.1 49.4 46.8 59.8 48.6 56.6 44.1 52.0 47.3 45–59 24.3 18.0 26.8 17.3 25.0 18.2 28.3 17.3 24.5 60+ 11.7 6.2 14.5 4.8 13.9 2.0 15.2 5.5 13.7 

Metropolitan Statusb

Metropolitan 20.6 22.8 32.8 53.4 38.3 46.5 75.3 88.1 21.6 Micropolitan 11.6 11.2 33.5 15.7 33.3 38.4 20.4 9.4 35.4 Rural 67.7 66.0 33.7 30.9 28.4 15.2 4.2 2.4 43.0 

a Totals are based on States with data available from both complete and incomplete casesb Metropolitan areas contain a core urban area of 50,000 or more people, while a micropolitan area contains an urban core of at least 10,000 (but fewer than 50,000) people. All 

http://www.census.gov/population/metro/data/def.html (Core‐Based Statistical Areas, 2013)
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 

Table D.2. Household Economic Information by SNAP QC Completion Status and State: FY 2010–FY 2012

Characteristic 

Iowa Kentucky Mississippi Ohio Okla

Complete Incomplete Complete Incomplete Complete Incomplete Complete Incomplete Complete 

Total Households 2,877 356 3,855 249 3,673 99 3,899 329 3,375 Gross Countable Income as a Percentage of Poverty Guideline 

<=100% 80.2 – 89.2 85.9 90.4 84.9 81.2 83.6 88.8 

0% 17.1 – 21.0 29.3 21.2 26.3 18.1 43.5 20.8 1–50% 23.0 – 20.5 23.7 21.4 26.3 19.3 10.6 23.1 51–100% 40.1 – 47.7 32.9 47.8 32.3 43.8 29.5 44.9 

101–130% 14.6 – 9.4 14.1 9.3 14.1 13.8 10.9 10.6 131%+ 5.2 – 1.4 0.0 0.4 1.0 5.0 5.5 0.5 

Income 

Average gross monthly countable income $809 – $706 $649 $691 $703 $789 $665 $696 

Average net monthly countable income $393 – $392 $458 $404 $369 $352 – $365 

Households With Countable— 

Earned Incomeb 41.2 – 24.4 31.5 27.8 50.5 27.5 34.0 29.8 

No earned income 58.8 – 75.6 68.5 72.2 49.5 72.5 66.0 70.2 Unearned income 59.1 – 62.2 46.0 61.6 44.4 65.3 36.2 58.3 No unearned income 40.9 – 37.8 54.0 38.4 55.6 34.7 63.8 41.7 TANF income 8.6 5.1 6.4 3.6 3.9 4.0 8.5 0.3 3.1 

No TANF income 91.4 94.9 93.6 96.4 96.1 96.0 91.5 99.7 96.9 

SSI 18.0 7.3 31.6 12.9 28.0 13.1 24.7 8.5 21.5 

No SSI 82.0 92.7 68.4 87.1 72.0 86.9 75.3 91.5 78.5 

Social Security income 22.6 9.3 26.6 16.1 24.4 8.1 27.1 7.9 24.1 No Social Security income 77.4 90.7 73.4 83.9 75.6 91.9 72.9 92.1 75.9 

Monthly SNAP Benefit Amount 

$50 or less 9.7 7.3 6.8 5.6 8.8 5.1 10.4 5.5 9.6 

$51–100 7.1 6.7 11.8 3.2 14.8 5.1 5.4 3.1 9.5 $101–200 40.0 42.4 36.1 36.5 29.4 42.4 40.0 43.1 32.1 

$201–400 22.3 24.4 24.5 27.7 23.1 21.2 21.3 25.4 24.4 $401+ 20.9 19.1 20.8 26.9 23.9 26.3 22.9 22.9 24.5 Maximum benefit receivedc 34.5 36.2 31.8 41.0 29.3 36.4 36.1 48.3 33.3 Mean $272 $271 $271 $318 $279 $295 $283 $300 $289 

a Totals are based on States with data available from both complete and incomplete casesb Including wages and salaries, self‐employment, and other earned incomec Very few households reported benefit amounts greater than the maximum allotment. These households were included in the maximum benefit category

Note: – indicates data not available
Insight ▪ Enhancing SNAP Quality Control Completion Rates 

Table D.3. Administrative Information by SNAP QC Completion Status and State: FY 2010–FY 2012

Characteristic 

Iowa Kentucky Mississippi Ohio Oklah

Complete Incomplete Complete Incomplete Complete Incomplete Complete Incomplete Complete 

Total households 2,877 356 3,855 249 3,673 99 3,899 329 3,375 Reporting Requirements 

Simplified reporting 99.8 – 96.9 98.4 89.0 96.0 86.3 – 97.7 

Change reporting 0.2 – 0.2 1.6 1.3 4.0 0.0 – 1.8 

Other/Waiver 0.0 – 2.9 0.0 9.7 0.0 13.7 – 0.4 

Most Recent Action 

Certification 31.2 – 35.3 42.5 33.6 38.9 30.4 – 53.3 

Recertification 68.8 – 64.7 57.5 66.4 61.1 69.6 – 46.7 

Timing of Most Recent Action 

0–<3 months 49.3 44.9 38.7 42.5 34.8 42.1 36.2 – 28.8 

3–<6 months 40.0 50.7 39.1 46.7 32.9 31.6 32.4 – 27.5 6–<12 months 10.5 4.4 19.3 6.3 23.5 25.3 30.6 – 32.5 

12+ months 0.2 0.0 2.9 4.6 8.8 1.1 0.8 – 11.3 Mean months 2.9 2.9 4.3 3.8 5.5 4.0 4.3 – 6.2 

a Totals are based on States with data available from both complete and incomplete cases

Note: – indicates data not available