An Assessment of Computer Matching in the Food Stamp Program

Volume I—Summary of Survey Results

Final Report

January 2002

Authors:

William S. Borden

Robbi L. Ruben-Urm

This study was conducted under Contract number 53-3198-7-025

This report is available on the Food and Nutrition Service web site: 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane.

Suggested Citation:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and

Evaluation, Fiscal Year 2001 FSP-02-CM, by William S. Borden and Robbi Ruben-Urm. Project

Office, Sharron Cristofar, Alexandria, VA: 2001.

Submitted by:

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

P.O. Box 2393

Princeton, NJ 08543-2393

(609) 799-3535

Project Director: William S. Borden

Submitted to:

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Food and Nutrition Service

Office of Analysis and Evaluation

Rm. 206, 3101 Park Center Drive

Alexandria, VA 22302

Project Officer: Sharron Cristofar

United States Food and January 2002

Department of Nutrition Food Stamp Program

Agriculture Service Report No. FSP-02-CM
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not

all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require

alternative means for communications of program information (Braille, large point,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice

and TTD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W., Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20250-9419 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TTD) USDA is an

equal opportunity provider and employer.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors acknowledge the contributions of the State officials who shared their time

and knowledge with us, and provided us much of the information that is summarized in this

report. Many thanks to Steven Carlson, Ted Macaluso, Barbara Hoffman, Carlyn Foley, Ed

Speshock, and Greg Fortine. In addition to participating in the survey, the State representatives

provided written documentation and were available to answer many follow-up questions.

We also thank Sharron Cristofar, the project officer from Food and Nutrition Service, who

provided guidance throughout the project.

v

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................... ix

I SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS.......................................................................... 1

A. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .................................................................................. 1

B. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY........................................................................ 2

C. STATE CENSUS METHODOLOGY .................................................................... 3

D. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT ................................................................... 5

II OVERVIEW OF STATE COMPUTER MATCHING ACTIVITIES

AND METHODS ........................................................................................................... 7

A. COMPUTER MATCHING-RELATED ACTIVITIES .......................................... 7

1. Database Integration........................................................................................ 7

2. Certification Period ......................................................................................... 9

3. Automated Case Certification and Management System (ACS) .................... 9

4. Organizational Unit Responsible for Computer Matching.............................. 9

5. Selection of New Matching Systems............................................................. 10

6. Eligibility Data Access.................................................................................. 10

7. Connectivity and New Technology............................................................... 10

8. Information Stored on the Database.............................................................. 11

9. Duplicate Participation.................................................................................. 15

10. ABAWD Tracking ........................................................................................ 15

11. Biometrics .................................................................................................. 17

12. Inter-State Matching...................................................................................... 19

13. Alien Status Inquiries .................................................................................... 24

14. Federal Disqualified Recipient System (DRS).............................................. 24

15. Data Brokers.................................................................................................. 27

B. COMPUTER MATCHING METHODS .............................................................. 27

1 Increased Technological Capabilities............................................................ 27

2. Applicant and Recipient Matching................................................................ 28
CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

vi

II

(continued)

3. Strategies to Increase Match Effectiveness................................................... 31

4. Followup .................................................................................................. 33

C. DESCRIPTION OF FEDERAL AND STATE MATCHING SYSTEMS ........... 36

III SPECIFIC COMPUTER MATCHING SYSTEMS USED ......................................... 39

A. OVERALL USE OF MATCHING SYSTEMS ................................................... 39

1. Number of Matching Systems Used.............................................................. 39

2. Discontinued Systems ................................................................................... 41

3. Matching Systems Planned for Future Use ................................................... 44

B. DISCUSSION OF EACH MATCHING SYSTEM .............................................. 44

1. Prisoner Verification System......................................................................... 44

2. Social Security Administration (SSA) Death Match..................................... 46

3. State Wage Information Collection Agency (SWICA)................................. 46

4. State Data Exchange (SDX).......................................................................... 47

5. Unemployment Insurance (UI)...................................................................... 47

6. Benefits Data Exchange (BENDEX) ............................................................ 48

7. Internal Revenue Service (IRS)..................................................................... 48

8. Quarters of Coverage..................................................................................... 49

9. Beneficiary Earnings Exchange Reports (BEERS)....................................... 49

10. Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV).............................................................. 49

11. State New Hires............................................................................................. 50

12. Child Support ................................................................................................ 50

13. State Tax Refund Offset Program (STROP) ................................................. 50

14. State Prison Match ........................................................................................ 51

15. State Death Match ......................................................................................... 51

16. State Fleeing Felons ...................................................................................... 52

IV CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 53

1. Findings: How States Use Computer Matching........................................... 53

2. Findings: Increased Technological Capabilities .......................................... 55

APPENDIX A: COMPARISON OF MATCHING SYSTEMS

USED IN 1991 AND 2000................................................................ A.1
vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND CASE MANAGEMENT .............................. 8

2 INTERNET ACCESS................................................................................................... 12

3 INTERNET USES........................................................................................................ 12

4 HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION ON THE CLIENT DATABASE............................ 14

5 ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION PROCESSES........................................................... 16

6 METHOD FOR VALIDATING SSNs......................................................................... 17

7 STATE USE OF BIOMETRIC TECHNOLOGY........................................................ 18

8 CURRENT INTERSTATE MATCHING FOR DUPLICATE

PARTICIPATION ........................................................................................................ 20

9 ALIEN VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES ...................................................................... 25

10 DISQUALIFIED RECIPIENT SYSTEM PROCESSES ............................................. 26

11 FREQUENCY OF APPLICANT MATCHING........................................................... 29

12 FREQUENCY OF RECIPIENT MATCHING ............................................................ 32

13 SYSTEMS USING TARGETING ............................................................................... 34

14 TIME LAPSE BETWEEN MATCH AND RECEIPT OF MATCHED

DATA BY LOCAL OFFICE........................................................................................ 35

15 DESCRIPTION OF FEDERAL AND STATE COMPUTER MATCHING

SYSTEMS...........................................................................................................................................37

16 COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF STATES USING EACH MATCHING

SYSTEM IN 1991 AND 2000 FOR SYSTEMS USED BY TWO OR

MORE STATES ........................................................................................................... 40
TABLES (continued)

Table Page

viii

17 COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF SYSTEMS REPORTED BEING USED

BY STATES ................................................................................................................. 42

18 DISCONTINUED MATCHING SYSTEMS, BY STATE .......................................... 43

19 FUTURE STATE MATCHING SYSTEMS................................................................ 45
ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes the results from the State census conducted by the Food and

Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Data for the

census were collected during Fiscal Year (FY) 2001. The study examines how States are

currently using or planning to use computer matching strategies for error reduction in the Food

Stamp Program (FSP).

Data from an earlier census, the State Food Stamp Program Operations Update (STOPS)

conducted in 1991, were used as a benchmark to compare to current computer matching

activities. This study expands on the information collected in 1991 by including additional

issues related to computer matching.

Since 1991, many aspects of the FSP and of computer matching have changed. The

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)

increased State’s flexibility in several areas of program operations. For example, the Income

Eligibility and Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification Eligibility

system (SAVE) matches are now optional. General Accounting Office (GAO) studies of

individuals collecting food stamp benefits simultaneously in multiple States, and those collecting

benefits while incarcerated or deceased, have led to new matching requirements for States.

FINDINGS

How States Use Computer Matching

There were dramatic changes in State use of computer matching systems in the 1990s, both

in terms of the number of systems used and the frequency and timeliness of matches.

• The use of computer matching systems by States has almost doubled since 1991. In

1991, the average number of systems used by States was about 7.5; it is currently

about 14.

• In 1991, only three States (Florida, Illinois, and California) used more than 10

matching systems. In 2000, 45 States reported using more than 10 matching

systems.

The systems that States have most frequently added to their matching programs are:

• Prisoner Verification System (mandated)—48 States, not available in 1991

• Social Security Administration (SSA) Death Match (mandate)—45 States, not

available in 1991
x

• Disqualified Recipient System (DRS) Federal or State—44 States, not available in

1991

• Quarters of Coverage—42 States, not available in 1991

• Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)—34 States, 10 in 1991

• State New Hires—43 States now,1 2 in 1991

• Child Support—28 States now, 5 in 1991

• State Tax Refund Offset Program (STROP)—22 States now, 1 in 1991

• State Fleeing Felons—19 States now, not available in 1991

Most States continue to use the six external matching systems that comprised the original

IEVS, established in 1986. As a result of PRWORA these systems are no longer mandated but

they are still used because they are perceived as providing useful data. At least 48 States

continue to use the State Wage Information Collection Agency (SWICA), State Data Exchange

(SDX), Unemployment Insurance (UI), and Beneficiary Data Exchange (BENDEX) matches.

Even though there was a large increase in the number of matching systems used, States also

discontinued using some matching systems.

• Eighteen States indicated that they have discontinued using a total of 40 matching

systems that they reported using in 1991. The States that have chosen to discontinue

using systems most often have discontinued Internal Revenue Service (IRS) matches

(nine States) and Beneficiary Earnings Exchange Reports (BEERS) matches (eight

States).

• The reasons most often given for discontinuing these systems are the burdensome

security requirements imposed by the IRS and the fact that the data returned from

these matches often are too old to be useful.

Twenty States indicated that they plan to implement a total of 48 matching systems in

the future. Five States reported that they intend to implement the State Death match,

five States will be implementing the New Hires match, and three States plan on reimplementing the match with IRS.

States reported that 87 percent of matching systems used were effective for detecting

fraud and abuse in the FSP. Nine percent of systems used were not useful or effective.

For three percent of systems used, States reported that they did not know if they were

effective. When a State indicated that it did not find a particular matching system to be

useful, the reasons given pertained to outdated or erroneous data retrieved from the

match.

 

1

This information is based on data collected by FNS after the census was completed.
xi

Increased Technological Capabilities

Technological advances, particularly the growth in communications networks, have greatly

increased State capabilities for matching. States can now send cases to be matched and can

receive match results via communications networks, rather than by traditional shipping of

magnetic media. These advances have led to much more rapid responses from external

databases. States now have a much greater capability to initiate queries to external databases on

demand from a caseworker, rather than waiting for routine batch matches.

• Thirty-eight percent of matches can now be accessed online; only 12.5 percent of

matches could be accessed online in 1991.

• SSA has developed common interfaces to its various databases, such as the State

Online Query System (SOLQ) and the State Verification Exchange System (SVES).

Forty-three States reported using SVES.2

 A State may now send a single query to

SSA and the case will be matched with the social security number (SSN) identity file

to verify the SSN, and with the databases which contain information on SSA and

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and covered income. These interfaces

thus bundle the separate matches previously conducted, such as Beneficiary Data

Exchange (BENDEX), State Data Exchange (SDX), Beneficiary Earnings Exchange

Reports System (BEERS), Numident, Quarters of Coverage, SSA Death Match, and

Prison Verification System.

• There has been an increase in the level of intra-State automation. State databases

such as DMV, SWICA, and UI are now linked directly to food stamp client

databases. This results in a virtual integration with the food stamp client database;

when queries are made to the client database regarding eligibility, the query is

automatically routed to these other State databases, and the response is almost

immediate.

 

2

This information is based on data collected by FNS in August 2000.

1

CHAPTER I—SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESULTS

A. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This report summarizes the results from the State census conducted by the Food and

Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Data for the census

were collected during FY 2001. The study examines how States currently use or are planning to

use computer matching strategies for error reduction in the Food Stamp Program (FSP).

Since 1991, many aspects of the FSP and of computer matching have changed. The

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)

increased State’s flexibility in several areas of FSP operations. For example, the Income

Eligibility and Verification System (IEVS) and the Systematic Alien Verification Eligibility

system (SAVE) matches are now optional. General Accounting Office (GAO) studies of

individuals collecting food stamp benefits simultaneously in multiple States, and those collecting

benefits while incarcerated or deceased, have led to new matching requirements for States.

This report describes the results of a study launched by FNS to examine how States

currently use or are planning to use computer matching strategies to reduce fraud and abuse in

FSP. A major objective was to help improve program integrity by providing information on how

States efficiently manage the FSP through the use of computer matching. To accomplish this, a

State census was conducted that examined how States (1) use external databases that have been

available to them for several years, and (2) use newer matching strategies that have been

suggested as relevant to FSP or mandated by PRWORA. Data from the 1991 survey were used

as a starting point and were expanded to include additional detail.

The findings of this study will enable States to compare their operations to those of other

States. For example, if a State is considering implementing a particular matching system, it will
2

be able to determine which States already use this system so it can obtain technical assistance

and advice from these States.

B. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

USDA funds FSP, which provides benefits to low-income households. The FNS of USDA

is responsible for the development and implementation of national food stamp policy. This

includes the promulgation of regulations, financial planning, review of and reimbursement for

State FSP operations, and evaluation of the Program. At the State level, FSAs are responsible

for administering the Program. The States are primarily responsible for determination of

eligibility and benefit amounts, issuance of benefits, provision of employment and training

services, and quality control.

States have flexibility within the constraints of the law and the regulations to develop their

own procedures in operating the FSP and, when the need arises, to obtain waivers of regulatory

provisions from USDA. State program waivers and welfare reform legislation have substantially

increased State discretion and authority for making operational choices. As a result, States vary

considerably on many aspects of program operations, costs, and effectiveness.

States are not only responsive to legislative requirements, but they are also very proactive in

developing computer matching strategies. It has been only 15 years since the Computer

Matching Act was passed. The availability of PCs and LANs on a large enough scale to be

practical dates back only to the late 1980s and early 1990s. There has been a progression from

batched matching, taking several months, to interactive matching, to the often real-time

processing that exists today.

Computer matching is a powerful management tool that is intended to improve program

integrity and efficiency. The computer matching process consists of the initial match across data

files, followed by a full range of subsequent follow-up activities such as fraud prosecution,
3

administrative disqualification, and claims collection. Matching can take place at intake (to

verify the eligibility of new applicants), at recertification (to verify the continuing eligibility of

current recipients), or at some other point (to detect any inconsistencies in information on

ongoing cases). States use computer matching to reduce fraud and abuse by reducing eligibility

and payment error rates and to substantiate information used in prosecution.

C. STATE CENSUS METHODOLOGY

The content of this report derives from several sources. The data are based on a new data

collection, supplemented by information from other FNS studies and available data.

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) conducted interviews with staff in each State agency

involved in food stamp computer matching. The data collection occurred from November 2000

through April 2001.

The data collection methodology was designed to minimize burden and allow for the

flexibility to meet the needs of the respondents and the environment in which the data were

collected. The data were obtained through a telephone interview, often with email followup.

Prior to the interview, States were sent a list of topics and questions to be addressed, as well as a

checklist screener. The checklist is a comprehensive listing of possible computer matching

systems that States are using for the FSP. The States were asked to indicate which systems are

currently being used. The list indicated which systems a State reported using in the 1991 census.

State-specific questionnaires were generated based on the State’s responses to the checklist. The

customized questionnaire ensured that during the interview each State was asked only about

computer matching systems that they have used, are currently using, or plan to use.

In the majority of States, respondents were in the information systems/programming unit of

the State FSA. More than half of the interviews were conducted with only one respondent. In

these cases, the respondent had gathered information prior to the interview and collected the
4

necessary follow-up information afterward. In a handful of States, interviews were conducted

with a panel of State staff. Typically, the panel included someone from the program staff, as well

as the information systems programming staff.

The interviews were structured around the following topics:

Module I Includes general computer matching questions that are pertinent

regardless of the specific matching systems employed by the State.

Overview of State Operations Certification period and case management; Automated Certification

and Case Management System (ACS).

Telecommunications and Connectivity Internet access and use of data entry and update functions.

Database Content How client and household characteristics are stored on the database;

information on work registration status and disqualification

information; flags for outstanding verification requirements related

to a pending action.

Computer Matching Activities and Organization Role and function of offices responsible for matches; selection of

matching systems, validation of SSNs, verification of alien status;

duplicate participation checks.

Cross-State Matches PARIS participation, routine and nonroutine, cross-State or crossjurisdiction matches.

Disqualified Recipient System (DRS) State usage of the national DRS.

Able-Bodied Adults with Dependents (ABAWDS) How States are tracking ABAWDS.

Finger Imaging How biometrics are being used by States.

Data Brokers Whether or not States are using data brokers.

Module II Asks all States what, if any, changes the State has planned in

computer matching. For example, it queries States about new

matching programs or the discontinuation of existing programs.

Module III Matching system-specific questions customized for each State based

on the State's responses to the checklist screener.

Module IV Includes specific matching system questions for States who

discontinued a particular match as indicated on the State baseline

checklist. The module contained two questions asking when and

why the match was discontinued.

Module V Information on specific matching systems that the State indicated

will be used in the future.
5

D. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Volume I of the report—Summary of Survey Results—contains three chapters covering

States’ use of computer matching systems. Following this introductory chapter, Section A of

Chapter II presents the findings from the census on computer matching-related activities.

Section B of Chapter II discusses the census findings on the methods used by States to conduct

computer matching. Section C of Chapter II contains a description of each matching system.

Chapter III presents the findings on State use of matching systems, including the increase in

systems used since 1991. It also presents the findings organized by matching system (including

the number of States using each system), changes in the use of each system, and State

assessments of the usefulness of each match.

Volume II, State Computer Matching Profiles, presents computer matching-related

information for each State. Each profile provides a broad overview of the State’s computer

matching activities.

Volume III of the report, Appendix Tables, contains a series of 12 tables. These tables

provide responses to selected interview questions for each State, organized by question. Also

included in Volume III is a glossary of key terms used in computer matching and related

eligibility-verification processes. The glossary includes a brief description of each computer

matching system discussed in the report.

7

CHAPTER II—OVERVIEW OF STATE COMPUTER

MATCHING ACTIVITIES AND METHODS

This chapter summarizes the findings of the study on the States’ use of computer matching

system activities and methods. Section A discusses computer matching activities such as

program administration and case management, telecommunications and Internet connectivity,

information stored on the database, eligibility-verification processes, alien status inquiries, and

disqualified recipient inquiries. Section B discusses the methods States use to conduct matching,

such as the timing of matching, targeting, and followup. Section C presents a description of

computer matching systems most commonly used by States, as well as definitions of the key

terms necessary to understand the matching process.

A. COMPUTER MATCHING-RELATED ACTIVITIES

The census of States focused primarily on the computer matching systems and processes

employed by the States for food stamps. However, the survey included a number of questions

about other activities related to the verification of eligibility data and the computer matching

process. Program administration and case management, Internet access, alien verification, the

Disqualified Recipient System (DRS), biometrics, and data brokers are some areas that will be

addressed in this section. Table 1 presents the findings for the program administration and case

management variables from the current census and, when available, from the 1991 census.

1. Database Integration

There has been little change in program integration since 1991. For example, 33 States

reported integration with AFDC/TANF in 1991 and 35 reported integration with AFDC/TANF in

2000. Thirty-five State automated certification systems (ACSs) are integrated with at least one

other public assistance database.
8

TABLE 1

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND CASE MANAGEMENT

2000 1991

Number of States Number of States

State client database is integrated with:

TANF (AFDC in 1991) 35 33

Medicaid 29 NA

Child Support 19 4

GA 9 17

Length of food stamp case certification*

Less than 6 months 6

6-12 months 37

Greater than 1 year 6

Length of Certification Varies

 Yes 50

 No 3

State has an Automated Case Certification and Management

System

Yes 53 50

Percent of Eligibility Workers Who Can Access Eligibility Data*

99-100% 51

Less than 99% 1

Percent of Eligibility Determinations Done Online

99-100% 47 29

Less than 99% 6 7

Eligibility Workers Access to Historical Data

Can access current case status only 5 5

Can access both current status and historical cases 47 31

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State Food Stamp Agencies.

a

Shading indicates that the question was not asked in 1991.

*In some cases, the number of responses does not equal 53 because of nonresponse.
9

Twenty-nine States reported integration with Medicaid in 2000; there are no data on Medicaid

integration in 1991. The number of States integrated with a State child support enforcement

database increased from 4 to 19, but the number integrated with General Assistance (GA)

decreased from 17 to 9.

2. Certification Period

The length of the certification period can have an influence on computer matching when

matching is done at recertification. Most States reported a range of certification periods,

depending on client characteristics. Thirty-seven States reported the range as between 6 and 12

months. Six States reported less than 6 months, and six States reported more than 12 months.

Many States explained that older clients are the most likely to have the longest time between

recertifications, since they are less likely to have changes in their status.

3. Automated Case Certification and Management System (ACS)

In 2000, every State reported having a Statewide ACS, which is a State’s food stamp client

database. In 1991, three States--California, Minnesota, and Montana--reported no automated

client database.

4. Organizational Unit Responsible for Computer Matching

In 38 States, the responsibility for computer matching is centralized in one department or

division. In the remaining States, computer matching typically is divided between two or more

departments by functional area, such as fraud or claim-related matches versus eligibility-related

matches. A common model in cases where the computer matching is divided is that the State’s

fraud and investigations unit is responsible for the Federal Tax Refund Overpayment Program

(FTROP) and State Tax Refund Overpayment Program (STROP) matches, while the office of

information services is responsible for the remaining matches conducted in the State.
10

States also divided computer-matching responsibilities by technical roles. For example, the

user requirements and specifications typically are housed in the same department. The one

exception to this is programming support, which typically is in a different office and in many

cases is provided by an independent contractor.

5. Selection of New Matching Systems

States were asked how new matching systems are chosen for their State. Twenty-one States

reported that federal and State mandates were the main reason for an increase in the number of

matching systems used. Seventeen States responded that new systems are adopted as a result of

a cost/benefit or benchmarking analysis. Many States also reported that, if they see a need or a

hole in their matching programs, they will look for new matching system opportunities.

6. Eligibility Data Access

Fifty-one States reported that eligibility workers have online access to the client database; 47

States reported that 99 to 100 percent of eligibility determinations are done online. Forty-seven

States access both current and historical data on their client database, compared to 31 States in

1991.

7. Connectivity and New Technology

Technological advances, particularly the growth in communications networks, have

increased State’s capabilities for matching since the STOPS data were collected in 1991. States

can now send cases to be matched and can receive the match results more quickly over

communications networks, rather than traditional shipping of data on magnetic media.

• Forty States reported having the capacity to transfer data electronically. The most

important method used is the “Connect: Direct” network maintained by the SSA,

which 28 States reported using. (Connect: Direct is a national network allows State

agencies to transfer data to SSA through a single hub agency in each State.)
11

• The ability to transfer files electronically has led to more rapid responses from

external databases. Caseworkers now have greater capability to initiate queries to

external databases on demand, rather than waiting for routine batch matches to

occur. Thirty-eight percent of matches can now be accessed online; only 12.5

percent of matches could be accessed online in 1991.

Tables 2 and 3 illustrate how States use the Internet. All States have Internet access; 49 of

the States also provide access to their local offices. In half the States (28), all staff within the

central and local offices have access, and in the other half (24 States), only selected staff have

access. In most cases where only selected staff have access, States reported that management

staff have access. In some States, Internet connectivity varied by county office, and some

provided access on an as-needed basis or on a selected number of terminals per office.

Seven States are using the Internet for computer matching purposes. (See State Table 2 in

the Appendix for a list of States.) Fourteen States reported using the Internet to obtain and

confirm client data as part of the eligibility process. Seven States reported using the Internet as a

tool for identity verification, and six States use the Internet for case management.

8. Information Stored on the Database

These findings address the client and household characteristics stored on the database,

including:

• Financial data (earned income, unearned income, and assets)

• Information on work registration status

• Disqualification information

• Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) data

• Outstanding verification requirements flags relating to a pending action

• Maintenance of historical data
12

TABLE 2

INTERNET ACCESS

Number of States

Number of States with Internet Access

Central office only 4

Central and local offices 49

Staff with Internet Access*

All 28

Selected staff only 24

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State FSAs.

*The number of responses does not equal 53 because of nonresponse.

TABLE 3

INTERNET USES

Number of States

Functions the Internet Is Used for:

Computer matching 7

Identity verification 7

Obtaining and confirming client data 14

Case management 6

Claims processes 1

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State FSAs.
13

Table 4 presents the findings for the variables relating to the types of household information

stored on the client database. The large majority of States reported that social security numbers

(50 States), case number (45 States), name (43 States), and date of birth (36 States) were used to

identify the recipient on the client database. Other identifiers used less often are address of the

household, gross earnings of the household, race, and gender. Many States explained that they

use a number of different identifiers to look up data in the client database. All States store data

on every individual in the household. Fifty-two States also include ineligible members of the

household.

Forty-four States store work registration status, and 47 States store gross earnings by

individual. Forty-one States store information on alien status. Twenty-seven States store

ABAWDs exemptions in their system, and 23 store ABAWD’s work history.

All States indicated that they store a great deal of additional information. “Other” elements

that States reported storing are gender, sex, race, resources, assets, child care assistance, marital

status, shelter costs, and educational status.

Forty-three States reported that their systems have flags to indicate outstanding verification

requirements. Most States that use flags explained that they alert the caseworker that there are

outstanding requirements.

All States but one (North Carolina) reported that they store information on fraud

disqualifications in the system. All the States who responded, reported that they store the

disqualification code. Forty-six States also store the period of disqualification, and 44 store the

reason for disqualification.

Eligibility verification processes used by the States include duplicate participation checks,

SSN validation, ABAWD eligibility verification, and identity verification using biometrics.
14

TABLE 4

HOUSEHOLD INFORMATION ON THE CLIENT DATABASE

Household Information Number of States

Household Information Used as an Identifier of the Client

Database:

SSN of head of household 50

Case Number 45

Name of the head of the household 43

Address of Household 21

Birthdate of the head 36

Gross earnings 8

Other 23

Individuals in the Household Represented on the Database:

Head of Household 53

Spouse of Head 53

Other Adults 53

Children 53

Nonhousehold members 46

Ineligible household members 52

Information Stored on Individuals:

SSN 52

Individual ID 49

Name 52

Birth date 52

ABAWDs work history 23

ABAWDs Exemptions 27

Alien Status 41

Alien Quarters of Coverage 27

Gross Earnings by Individual 47

Work Registration Status 44

Gender 16

Other 53

Flags Indicating Outstanding Verification Requirements1 43

Information on Fraud Disqualifications

Flag Indicating Disqualification 52

Period of Disqualification 46

Reason for Disqualification 44

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State FSAs.

 1

In some cases the number of responses does not equal 53 because of nonresponse.
15

9. Duplicate Participation

As shown in Table 5, all States but one (North Dakota) that responded check for duplicate

participation. Forty-three States check only when a new client applies. The remaining States

perform the check at both application and recertification or on a nightly or monthly basis.

Thirty-three States perform the check online, while 13 States conduct the duplicate check as a

batch function.

As shown in Table 6, 50 States reported that they validated SSNs (3 did not respond to this

item). Fifty of the States validated SSNs against SSA files through SVES or through the

Numident or Enumeration matches. Guam reported that it verified SSNs by examining social

security cards.

10. ABAWD Tracking

Determining ABAWD eligibility requires information such as prior program participation

(because of time-limit provisions) and work history. The eligibility time limit for FSP ABAWDs

is no more than 3 months in a 36-month period unless; (1) the individual is working at least 20

hours a week averaged monthly (2) participating in and complying with the requirements of a

work program for 20 hours or more per week, or (3) participating in a workfare program. This

information is not required for determining eligibility of other FSP cases. A particular impact of

PRWORA on computer matching was the requirement to conduct intra-State matching of work

history data for ABAWDs. State FSPs obtain data from State employment agencies on work

history from wage record files. As shown in Table 5, 24 States track ABAWDs on either the

client database or a stand-alone application. Thirteen States report that they track ABAWDs

manually. Twenty States verify work credits for ABAWDs.
16

TABLE 5

ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION PROCESSES

Yes No

Number of States Reporting Number of States Reporting

Performs a Duplicate Participation Check 51 1

At application only 43

Both application and recertification 5

Monthly 2

Nightly 1

Match Access

Batch 13

Online 33

Methods for Tracking ABAWDS

Automated tracking on client database 24

Manual tracking 13

State Verifies Work Credits 20 24

State Uses Biometrics for FSP 4 49

State Uses Data Brokers 7 44

State Plans to Use Data Brokers in the Future 13 31

Participates in Routine Cross-State Matches 35 18

Participates in Nonroutine Matches 26 26

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State FSAs.

Shading indicates that questions were not “Yes” or “No” questions; responses are indicated in the first column.
17

TABLE 6

METHOD FOR VALIDATING SSNs

Methods Number of States1

SVES 14

Numident and/or Enumeration 10

Other SSA Method 26

Source: 2000 Census

11. Biometrics

Table 7 provides information about States that currently use biometric technology. Of the

nine States currently using biometric technology in public assistance programs,2

 four—

California, New York, Arizona, and Texas—reported using finger imaging in the FSP. The four

states using finger imaging reported that they chose finger imaging over other biometric

technologies because of its proven reliability. Texas chose to use finger imaging based on the

research available on electronic imaging systems. Finger imaging was determined to be the most

reliable and affordable technology for identification verification. Arizona indicated that finger

imaging was chosen because that is what the other States were using. Currently, Arizona does

in-State matching only but is in the process of linking up with border States. New York reported

that finger imaging was the only biometric method available, and that retinal scanning

technology is too new.

 1

The number of responses does not equal 53 because of nonresponse.

2

For a more detailed discussion of biometrics, see “The Use of Biometric Identification to

Reduce Fraud in the FSP Final Report,” April 1999.
18

TABLE 7

STATE USE OF BIOMETRIC TECHNOLOGY

State Participants for Which Biometrics Are Mandatory

Arizona FSP: All adult household members (18 years or older)

TANF: All adults (18 years or older) and minor parents

California (plan for unified,

Statewide system)

FSP: All adult household members (18 years or older) and

minor heads of household

TANF and GA3

 All adults (18 years or older)

Connecticut TANF and GA: All adults (18 years or older)

Illinois TANF: All adult applicants and recipients (including second

and minor parents) and non-aided payees.

Massachusetts FSP: All adult household members (18 years or older)

TANF and GA: All grantees (18 years or older), including

teen parents

New Jersey GA: All adults (18 years or older)

New York TANF, GA, and FSP: All adults (18 years or older), minor

parents, and minor heads of household

Age for Medicaid cases is 21

Pennsylvania FSP: All adults (18 years or older); considering minor heads

of household

TANF: All adults (18 years or older); considering

emancipated minors and minor parents

Texas FSP: All adults (18 years or older) and minor heads of

household

TANF: All adults (18 years or older) and teen parents

SOURCE: “The Use of Biometric Identification to Reduce Fraud in the FSP.”

 3

Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) is a national public assistance program. GA is

a local public assistance program.
19

Several States reported that they have examined finger imaging but do not currently use it.

Michigan reported that it plans to implement finger imaging in the next 12 to 18 months, based

on a mandate from the State legislature. Connecticut and New Jersey reported that they are

conducting finger imaging but not for FSP. Illinois reported that it conducted retinal scanning

for one year but discontinued it because it had not proved efficient or accurate. The State plans to

conduct finger imaging in the future. A pilot is scheduled for three local offices in the next year.

12. Inter-State Matching

As shown in Table 5, 35 States reported participating in routine cross-State matches to

identify persons who are collecting food stamp benefits in more than one State. Twenty-six

States also reported participating in irregularly scheduled or one-time cross-State or crossjurisdiction matches. Other matches mentioned were Tribal matches in Alaska, Washington

State matches with Canada, and Connecticut matches with Puerto Rico.

Table 8 presents data on current inter-State matching practices. The table indicates the

routine inter-State matches that States reported conducting; it also indicates their participation or

plans to participate in the Public Assistance Information System (PARIS). The information

presented is based on a combination of data sources, and represents active and passive matching

activities. Twelve States not currently participating in PARIS indicated that they plan to

participate within the next two years. PARIS is a periodic inter-State matching process

cosponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Veterans

Administration (VA). States submit caseload data to the VA, which combines all the State files

and reports back to each affected State any household members that are present on other State

files and their period of eligibility. PARIS also matches the State files against veterans benefits

information.
20

TABLE 8

CURRENT INTERSTATE MATCHING FOR DUPLICATE PARTICIPATION1

State

Conducts Routine Interstate

Matching of Food Stamp Records Frequency

PARIS Participant

or Plans to

Participate in

Next Two Years

Alabama No -- --

Alaska No -- Planned

Arizona California

Nevada

Quarterly

Annually

Yes2

Arkansas Planned matches with

Oklahoma, Louisiana,

Mississippi, Texas

-- --

California Border counties in Nevada (El

Dorado, Alpine, Nevada)

-- Yes

Colorado Unknown -- Planned

Connecticut Massachusetts Quarterly Yes

Delaware Pennsylvania

New Jersey

Maryland

--

--

--

--

District of Columbia Maryland -- --

Florida New York

New Jersey

Georgia

Annually Yes

Georgia Florida -- --

Guam Northern Marianas -- --

Hawaii No -- --

Idaho No -- --

Illinois Testing match with Wisconsin,

Pennsylvania

-- Yes

Indiana No -- --

Iowa Missouri -- Yes

 1

Information comes from two studies: (1) the 2000 State census, and (2) the “National Client Database for

Means-Tested Programs.”

2

 Has either participated in PARIS for at least one match or was a participant in the August 2, 1999 match.
TABLE 8 (continued)

21

State

Conducts Routine Interstate

Matching of Food Stamp Records Frequency

PARIS Participant

or Plans to

Participate in

Next Two Years

Kansas Missouri -- Yes

Kentucky No -- Yes

Louisiana Texas Monthly Planned

Maine Massachusetts Quarterly Planned

Maryland District of Columbia

Pennsylvania

Delaware

Virginia

West Virginia

--

Quarterly

--

--

--

Yes

Massachusetts Connecticut

Maine

New York

Rhode Island

New Jersey

Florida

Puerto Rico

New Hampshire

Quarterly

--

--

--

--

--

--

Monthly

Yes

Michigan No -- Planned

Minnesota No -- --

Mississippi Planned match with Arkansas -- --

Missouri Kansas

Iowa

-- Yes

Montana Unknown -- Planned

Nebraska Unknown -- Yes

Nevada Arizona

Border counties with California

-- Planned

New Hampshire Massachusetts Monthly --

New Jersey Pennsylvania

Delaware

New York

Massachusetts

Maryland

Quarterly

--

--

--

--

Yes
TABLE 8 (continued)

22

State

Conducts Routine Interstate

Matching of Food Stamp Records Frequency

PARIS Participant

or Plans to

Participate in

Next Two Years

New Mexico Texas (border counties)

(has access to Texas automated client

database. Dona Ana and Southern

Dona Ana offices have direct access

to information on active cases in

Texas. Plans are to add Curry, Eddy,

Roosevelt, and Lea offices. Also

matches active FS clients with active

expedited service clients in Utah

Quarterly Planned

New York Massachusetts

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Florida

Puerto Rico

New Jersey

Connecticut

Maryland

North Carolina

Vermont

Ohio (planned)

Quarterly

--

--

--

--

--

Semi-annually

--

--

--

--

Yes

North Carolina New York -- Yes

North Dakota Unknown -- --

Ohio New York (planned) -- Yes in 1997

Oklahoma Texas

Arkansas

-- Yes

Oregon No -- --

Pennsylvania Delaware

Maryland

New Jersey

New York

Florida

Illinois

Quarterly

Semi-annually

Quarterly

Semi-annually

Monthly

--

Yes

Puerto Rico Massachusetts

New York

--

--

--

Rhode Island Massachusetts -- Planned

South Carolina North Carolina -- --

South Dakota Unknown -- Planned

Tennessee Texas -- Yes
TABLE 8 (continued)

23

State

Conducts Routine Interstate

Matching of Food Stamp Records Frequency

PARIS Participant

or Plans to

Participate in

Next Two Years

Texas Louisiana

Oklahoma

New Mexico

--

--

--

Yes

Utah Matches active FS clients with active

expedited service clients in New

Mexico

-- --

Vermont New York -- --

Virgin Islands No -- Planned

Virginia Maryland -- Yes

Washington Oregon -- Yes

West Virginia Maryland -- --

Wisconsin Testing match with Illinois and Iowa -- Planned

Wyoming No -- --
24

13. Alien Status Inquiries

States may verify alien status for non-U.S. citizens who apply for food stamps. The

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) maintains the Systematic Alien Verification

Eligibility (SAVE) system, which is used by federal and State agencies that administer

entitlement programs to verify alien status. Table 9 summarizes States’ alien verification

activities.

Forty-three States use SAVE to verify alien status, which is the same as in 1991. In

addition, the number of States that prefer to use the telephone to submit SAVE inquiries has

changed little since 1991. There are two types of SAVE inquiries. Primary verification inquiries

are done using the automated phone-in system. Secondary verification entails sending a form to

INS; it is used when a discrepancy is found between the information received through the

primary inquiry and the information provided by the applicant, or when more information is

required. Most States, however, were unable to provide information on the number of each type

of inquiry they initiate.

Thirty-two of the States that use SAVE use the telephone for submitting SAVE inquiries.

Electronic file transfer was the next most popular (six States). In 30 States, SAVE inquiries are

coordinated with inquiries for other programs. Maryland is the only State that reported it does

not verify alien status.

14. Federal Disqualified Recipient System (DRS)

Table 10 presents the findings for the variables relating to the use of the federal Disqualified

Recipient System (DRS). The DRS is a federal database maintained by FNS which lists FSP

disqualifications from each State. States can query the system to determine whether an applicant

has been disqualified in another State.
25

TABLE 9

ALIEN VERIFICATION ACTIVITIES

2000 1991

Use of SAVE Number of States Number of States

Use SAVE for Verifying Alien Status 43 43

Methods for Submitting SAVE Inquiries:

Tape 1 3

Electronic file transfer 6 3

Telephone 32 33

SAVE Inquiries Coordinated with Inquiries for Other Programs 30

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State FSAs.

Shading indicates that the question was not asked in 1991.

In some cases, the number of responses does not equal 53 because of nonresponse.
26

TABLE 10

DISQUALIFIED RECIPIENT SYSTEM PROCESSES

Number of States

DRS Processes Yes No

State Uses DRS for:

Penalties 37

Eligibility 36

Quality control 28

States Can Provide Eligibility Workers with Direct

Access to DRS 11 8

Local Offices Will Access DRS through:

Mainframe 21

Internet 6

Other 6

Don’t know 19

State’s Review of DRS Edit Reports:

As received 3

Monthly 19

Do not review 3

Other 3

State Has Its Own DRS Database 35 13

State Has Problems Obtaining DRS Verification from

Other States 13 26

Response Time from Other States for DRS Inquiries:

1-2 Days 12

3-6 days 4

7-14 days 3

15-30 days 6

Other 2

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State FSAs.

Shading indicates that questions were not “Yes” or “No” questions and responses are indicated in the first column.

In some cases, the number of responses does not equal 53 because of nonresponse.
27

More than half of all States reported using the DRS for penalties (37), eligibility (36), and

quality control (28). Of the States not currently using the DRS for eligibility, 11 answered that

they could provide eligibility workers with direct access; the rest answered no, or do not know,

to this question, often citing their need to see more specific requirements before they could

answer whether or not they would be able to provide access.

Nineteen States indicated that they do not know how the local offices will access DRS. Of

the States able to answer, 21 reported that the local offices are accessing or will access the DRS

through the mainframe, and 6 said they plan to use the Internet.

Thirty-five States maintain their own disqualification database. Thirteen States indicated

that they have problems obtaining DRS verification from other States. The reasons given

include: the telephone contact information on the DRS files is erroneous (two States), the length

of time it takes for some States to respond (four States), and bad disqualification data (one State).

15. Data Brokers

Seven States indicated that they currently are using data brokers. Data brokers sell

commercial databases, such as those used by credit agencies containing financial information on

individuals. Thirteen States reported that they plan to use data brokers in the near future.

B. COMPUTER MATCHING METHODS

1. Increased Technological Capabilities

A technological trend is the integration of matching systems and databases. This integration

trend takes several forms:
28

• States often report an increase in automated linkages between State databases within

a State. State databases--such as the DMV, SWICA and UI databases--are now often

linked directly with the food stamp client database. This results in a “virtual

integration” with the food stamp client database. When a query is made to the food

stamp client database regarding eligibility, it is automatically routed to these other

State databases, and the response is almost immediate.

• SSA has developed common interfaces to its various databases, such as the State

Online Query System (SOLQ) and the State Verification Exchange System (SVES).

Forty-three States reported using SVES.4

 A State may now send a single query to

SSA and the case will be matched with the social security number (SSN) identity file

to verify the SSN, and with the databases which contain information on SSA and

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and covered income. These interfaces

thus bundle the separate matches previously conducted, such as Beneficiary Data

Exchange (BENDEX), State Data Exchange (SDX), Beneficiary Earnings Exchange

Reports System (BEERS), Numident, Quarters of Coverage, SSA Death Match and

Prison Verification System.

• A final form of integration is client-pooling of cases to be matched. In these

situations, the pool of cases to be matched is selected from more than one program,

and the results are shared across each participating program. The most commonly

reported programs with which States share matches are the Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families (TANF) program (86 percent), Medicaid (77 percent), Child Support

(38 percent), and General Assistance (32 percent). Eighteen percent of the States also

reported sharing with additional assistance programs. Some other programs

mentioned were: Interim Assistance (8 percent), Refugee Assistance (11 percent),

SSI (11 percent), Long Term Care Program (1 percent), Low Income Energy (15

percent), and Aid to the Needy Blind (6 percent).

2. Applicant and Recipient Matching

Front-end (applicant) matching is conducted as part of the eligibility process. Application is

the first step in the eligibility process. Table 11 illustrates the percentage of systems that conduct

applicant matching at various frequencies. States with access to online matches are more likely

to conduct matching at application, since it can be done instantaneously.

States often use both online inquiries and batch inquiries for a single matching system. In

other words, they conduct a monthly batch match with IRS, after which the system is updated.

 4

This information is based on data collected by FNS in August 2000.
29

TABLE 11

FREQUENCY OF APPLICANT MATCHING

When Matching Occurs Percent of All State Systems

At Application (Varies Based on

Caseload)

48

Overnight 2

Two to Seven Days 5

Monthly 22

Quarterly or Longer 2

Ad hoc 3

TOTAL 82

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State FSAs.

The total responses do not equal 100 percent because of nonresponse.
30

During the month, States query the IRS system for new applicants and recertifications. They

refer to this as “online matching.” Thus, many States’ responses to how long after application or

recertification matches are conducted is: monthly, online (real time for new applicants and

recertifications), or ad hoc (whenever someone decides to initiate a query).

For States that routinely match the entire caseload, applicant matching does not necessarily

occur immediately. The proximity of the match to the application point depends on where the

application date falls within the routine cycle. Some States explained that it is difficult to say

exactly when the applicants are matched because they are done individually by the eligibility

caseworker, who can be slowed down by a heavy workload. This particularly affects the

interactive online matches where there is no regular interval for conducting the matches, and the

timing is, instead, dependent on the caseworker’s schedule. Caseload could affect batch matches

as well, though, if the batch is run relatively frequently. For example, if FSP recipients are

matched to State UI records twice a month and, due to a backlog, several applicants do not get

matched for three weeks, they miss the first biweekly match cycle.

Applicant matching is conducted during the eligibility process or at application for 48

percent of the matching systems that States are using. Two percent are matched overnight.

Another 22 percent of the matching systems are matched monthly for applicants. For two

percent of systems, the match is performed less frequently than monthly. For the remaining

eight percent of systems for which information is available, the matching is done on demand

through ad hoc query capabilities (three percent) or within one week (five percent).

The timing of recipient matching varies more than the timing of applicant matching.

Seventeen percent of the recipient matches occur at recertification, 39 percent occur monthly, 10

percent occur quarterly, and the remainder occur at other intervals, the most common being

within one day, annually, and ad hoc. In six percent of systems, matching is done at other
31

intervals--weekly, bimonthly, every three years, eight times a year, and so on. Table 12

illustrates the percentage of systems that conduct recipient matching at various frequencies.

3. Strategies to Increase Match Effectiveness

Targeting is the process of selecting cases for follow-up activities based on thresholds for

discrepancies between information provided by the client and information received from the

match. For example, a dollar amount threshold may be established for the IRS match in which

only cases where there are earnings greater than $5,000 are followed up. Reporting is the

process of transmitting the information obtained from the match to the local office for followup.

A variant of targeting can occur before or after a match is conducted. Targeting that occurs prior

to the match is often referred to as “screening.” Screening is the process of selecting cases not to

be matched based on household and/or individual characteristics.

Twenty-six States have implemented targeting strategies for applicant matching, and 32

States use some type of targeting strategies for recipient matching. From the standpoint of

matching systems, 15 percent of applicant matching systems involve targeted matching, as do 19

percent of recipient matching systems.

States use targeting primarily for matching systems that provide income data. Income

thresholds and discrepancies between reported and matched amounts are the most common type

of targeting conducted. Not surprisingly, the Income Eligibility Verification Systems (IEVS)

systems, all of which match income data and program benefit data, are the ones most likely to be

targeted by States. These matches are described in Section C of this chapter. SWICA is the

system most often targeted (24 States target recipients), followed by UI (20 States target

recipients), IRS (15 States target recipients), BEERS (15 States), and BENDEX (9 States). Other
32

TABLE 12

FREQUENCY OF RECIPIENT MATCHING

When Matching Occurs Percent of All State Systems

At Recertification (Varies Based on Caseload) 17

Daily/Overnight 5

Monthly 39

Quarterly 10

Annually 4

Ad hoc 5

Other5 6

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State FSAs.

The total responses do not equal 100 percent because of nonresponse.

 

5

Weekly, bi-monthly, bi-annually, every three years, eight times per year, three times per

year.
33

systems that are sometimes targeted include: Child Support, Fleeing Felons, DRS, Prisoner

Verification, State New Hires, Income Tax Records, State Prison Match, and State Lottery

Winners. Table 13 indicates the systems most commonly targeted and the number of States

targeting.

4. Followup

Follow-up activities typically are conducted by the caseworker, eligibility worker, or field

staff. In some States, the overpayments unit is responsible for handling followup of the federal

and/or State Tax Refund Offset Program (FTROP and STROP).

All but one State, Wisconsin, indicated that there is no difference between the way followup

is conducted for applicants and for recipients. Wisconsin indicated that there was a shorter time

frame for followup of applicants.

• Prioritization refers to the process of ranking or ordering cases at the State level for

subsequent followup. Seventy-three percent of States do not prioritize cases. Of the

18 percent of States that did report using prioritization, cases involving large dollar

amounts, or cases with a large discrepancy between the reported and matched dollar

amounts, were followed up first.

Examples of priority rules that were reported include: prioritizing based on the largest

dollar discrepancies, prioritizing based on individual characteristics, and prioritizing based on

timing.

Verification is the process of confirming that the data returned from the external database

are correct. States indicated that they seek third-party verification on cases designated for

followup that are not considered self-verifying.
34

TABLE 13

SYSTEMS USING TARGETING

System Number of States Using Targeting

SWICA 24

UI 20

IRS 15

BEERS 15

BENDEX 9

Prisoner Verification System 9

State New Hires 5

State Prison Match 4

State Lottery Winners 3

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State FSAs.

In some cases, the number of responses does not equal 53 because of nonresponse.
35

Fifty percent of States report the results of the matches to the local offices with online

reports. Twenty-four percent send paper reports; the remaining States typically use online alerts,

rather than a full online report. An alert is displayed via a “pop-up window” on the eligibility

worker’s screen. There was no significant variation in follow-up methods between reporting for

applicants and for recipients, but there was slightly more variation by system. Reporting issues

are not applicable to matches that are initiated at the local level, since the results come back to

the local office rather than to the State.

The time it takes for match results to be returned to the local offices ranged from

immediately to more than a month. Again, there was no significant variation between applicants

and recipients. Table 14 indicates the time lapse between the match and when the local office

receives the matched data.

TABLE 14

TIME LAPSE BETWEEN MATCH AND RECEIPT OF

MATCHED DATA BY LOCAL OFFICE

Percent of Systems

Applicants

1 day 77

Less than 1 week 7

Greater than 1 week 6

Monthly 3

Recipients

1 day 66

Less than 1 week 16

Greater than 1 week 8

Monthly 3

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State FSAs.

In some cases, the total responses do not equal 100 percent because of nonresponse.
36

C. DESCRIPTION OF FEDERAL AND STATE MATCHING SYSTEMS

So far, we have presented an overview of State matching activities, in order to set the stage

for a more detailed analysis by type of match in the next chapter.

Table 15 contains descriptions of some of the most frequently used computer matching

systems and how information derived from the matches is used for determining eligibility or

disqualification.
37

TABLE 15

DESCRIPTION OF FEDERAL AND STATE COMPUTER MATCHING SYSTEMS

Matching Systems Description

Federally Mandated Matches

Prisoner Verification System

(PVS)

Match with SSA national prison records for identification information for

incarcerated household members.

Social Security Administration

(SSA) Death Match

Match with SSA national death records for identification information for

deceased household members.

Federal Matches (Optional)

State Data Exchange System

(SDX)

Match with SSA Supplemental Security Income (SSI) database for SSI earnings

information. This is an IEVS match.

State Wage Information

Collection Agency (SWICA)

Match with State UI wage information. Employers whose employees are

covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) must report to the SWICA each

quarter. The wage data are 3 to 6 months old when matched. This is an IEVS

match.

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Match with State UI information on benefits provided to UI recipients each

month. This is an IEVS match.

Beneficiary Data Exchange

(BENDEX)

Match with SSA Old Age and Survivor Insurance benefits, and other benefits

provided under Title III of the Social Security Act. This includes (1) Master

Beneficiary File (MBR) for SSA benefits, and (2) Master Earnings File (MEF)

for quantifying quarters of coverage for SSA eligibility. This is an IEVS match.

Beneficiary Earnings Exchange

Reports System (BEERS)

Match with IRS annual earnings data compiled from the IRS Form W-2,

including; (1) self-employment, (2) out of State wages, (3) Federal and military

wages, and (4) agricultural earnings. This is an IEVS match.

Federal Disqualified Recipient

System (DRS)

Match with FNS database for identification information of applicants for food

stamps who are disqualified from collecting food stamps because of program

violations. Disqualification periods range from one year to permanent,

depending on the number and severity of the offense.

Quarters of Coverage Match with SSA quarterly earning file to ensure that aliens have 40 quarters of

coverage/earnings.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

Systematic Alien Verification

System (SAVE)

Match with IRS database containing data on interest, dividends, and other types

of unearned income to check for unreported income. These data are compiled

from IRS Form 1099. This is an IEVS match.

State Matches (Optional)

Department of Motor Vehicles

(DMV)

Match with DMV database for identification of applicants misreporting

automobile assets.
TABLE 15 (continued)

38

Matching Systems Description

New Hires Match with State Employment Service new hire database for income information

for recently hired applicants.

Child Support Match Match with State or Federal Parent Locator Services child support database for

identification information of applicants not reporting child support income.

State Prison Match Match with State Department of Correction prison records for identification

information of incarcerated household members.

State Tax Refund Offset

Program (STROP)

Match with the database used for offsetting State income tax refunds to collect

claims against households for over issued food stamp benefits where those claims

are past due.

State Death Match Match with State vital statistics records for purpose of identification to detect

participation of deceased individuals.

Fleeing Felons Match with State database of fleeing felons providing information on

probation/parole violators who are ineligible to participate in the FSP.

Worker’s Compensation Match with worker’s compensation to determine whether the individual is

receiving worker’s compensation.

Day Care Licenses Match with day care licensing database for day care earnings. The lists typically

include the name, address and phone number of the licensee and the home or

facility, the licensed capacity, and the status and effective dates of the license.

The following lists are available: adult foster care, child day care homes, child

day care centers, camps, child caring institutions, child-placing agencies,

children’s foster homes.

State Lottery Winners Match with State database of lottery winners for asset information.

State Workfare/Training/

Education

Match with State Department of Labor database of individuals enrolled in the

Workfare/Training/Education Program for eligibility and identification

information.

State Payroll Match with State payroll for earnings information for State employees.

Employees Retirement Match with State database of public employee retirements.

Bank Match Match with Treasury Department bank records for assets and eligibility

information.

Foster Care Adoption Match with State database of foster care providers and adoption records for

identification information.

State Assessor’s Records/Tax

Records

Match with State Assessor’s tax records for income information.

Cross-State Match Match between two or more State client databases for the purpose of

identification and disqualification information.
39

CHAPTER III—SPECIFIC COMPUTER MATCHING SYSTEMS USED

This chapter presents the findings of the State census for each of the different matching

systems that States reported using. Section A discusses changes in the number of matching

systems that States currently use, have discontinued, or plan to use in the future. Section B

includes further discussion of particular matching systems and the reasons why States did or did

not find them effective.

A. OVERALL USE OF MATCHING SYSTEMS

There have been many changes in States’ use of computer matching systems since the

STOPS study was conducted in 1991. States are using more matching systems and accessing

them more quickly. States also have discontinued some matching systems that were used in

1991 and have made plans to add matching systems in the future.

For 87 percent of matching systems used, States reported that the systems are useful and

effective for detecting fraud in the FSP. For nine percent of matching systems used, States

indicated that they did not find them to be useful and effective. When a State indicated that it did

not find a particular matching system to be useful, the reasons given pertained to outdated or

erroneous data. For three percent of the systems, States did not know whether the matches were

useful and effective.

1. Number of Matching Systems Used

The use of computer matching systems by States has almost doubled since 1991. In 1991,

the average number of systems used by States was about 7.5; it is now 14. This large net

increase in matching systems used occurred despite States discontinuing a total of 40 matches.

Table 16 compares the number of States using various matching systems in 2000 and 1991.
40

TABLE 16

COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF STATES USING EACH MATCHING SYSTEM

IN 1991 AND 2000 FOR SYSTEMS USED BY TWO OR MORE STATES

Systema 2000 1991

Federally Mandated Matches

Prisoner Verification System 48 0

SSA Death Match 45 0

Federal Matches

SWICA 51 52

SDX 50 48

UI 49 51

BENDEX 48 50

DRS 44 0

Quarters of Coverage 42 0

IRS 42 51

BEERS 40 50

State

New Hires 34 10

DMV 431 2

Child Support 28 5

STROP 22 1

State Prison Match 22 4

State Death Match 21 2

Fleeing Felons 19 0

State Worker’s Compensation 13 3

Lottery Winners 9 4

Day Care Licenses 6 0

State Workfare/Training/Education 6 0

Income Tax Records 5 0

State Drug Felons 5 0

State Assessor’s Records 5 0

Public Assistance Data Exchange (PADX) 4 2

State Employees 4 8

State Retirement 4 1

Department of Rehabilitative Services 2 1

Public Assistance 2 3

Source: 2000 Census of State FSAs.

a

Definitions of matches are presented in Chapter II, Section C.

 1

This information is based on data collected by FNS after the census was completed.
41

Table 17 compares the number of systems being used by States in 1991 and 2000. The

table also indicates the number of systems that have been added and discontinued, to explain

the net change in the number of systems used.

• In 1991, only three States (Florida, Illinois, and California) used more than 10

matching systems, compared to 45 States in the 2000 census. Of those States

reporting more than 10 systems, five States reported using 20 or more systems.

• Three States reported no change in the number of systems used in 1991 and 2000,

even though two of these States discontinued and added the same number of systems.

They were Florida (15), Illinois (24—added 2 and discontinued 2), Virginia (6—

added 5 and discontinued 5).

• The largest increases in the number of systems used were by Connecticut (from 3 to

21), Massachusetts (8 to 27), Texas (6 to 20) and Montana (1 to 15).

• Only six States reported using fewer than 10 databases.

Thirty-four States continue to use six systems comprising the original IEVS even though

they are no longer mandated, thus suggesting that they provide useful data. Fifty States reported

using SDX, 51 States reported using SWICA, 49 reported using UI, 48 reported using BENDEX,

42 reported using IRS, and 40 reported using BEERS.

2. Discontinued Systems

Eighteen States indicated that they had discontinued the use of at least one matching system

they had reported using in 1991. Table 18 shows the States that reported discontinuing matches,

and which matches those were.

The most frequently reported discontinued matching systems were IRS matches (nine

States) and BEERS matches (eight States). The reasons most frequently given for why these

systems were discontinued were the burdensome security requirements imposed by the IRS and

the fact that the data returned from these matches often are outdated or too old to be useful.
TABLE 17

COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF SYSTEMS REPORTED BEING USED BY STATES

State/Territory

Number ofSystems in

2000

Number of

Systems in

1991

Systems

Added

Systems

Discontinued State

Number of

Systems in

2000

Number of

Systems in

1991

Systems

Added

Systems

Discontinued

Alabama 11 6 5 0 Montana 15 1 15 1Alaska 11 9 5 3 North Carolina 12 8 4 0Arkansas 10 8 6 4 North Dakota 12 6 7 1Arizona 16 6 11 1 Nebraska 11 6 7 2California 19 13 6 0 New Hampshire 8 6 3 1Colorado 17 7 10 0 New Jersey 15 6 9 0Connecticut 21 3 19 1 New Mexico 13 8 8 2Delaware 16 10 7 1 New York 16 6 14 4Washington, DC 14 10 4 0 Nevada 20 7 13 0Florida 15 15 0 0 Ohio 17 5 12 0Georgia 13 6 7 0 Oklahoma 19 8 11 0Guam 9 6 4 1 Oregon 14 6 8 0Hawaii 12 9 3 0 Pennsylvania 9 8 1 0Iowa 14 9 5 0 Rhode Island 15 8 7 0Idaho 12 8 4 0 South Carolina 17 7 11 1Illinois 24 24 2 2 South Dakota 13 7 6 0Indiana 14 6 8 0 Tennessee 10 8 2 0Kansas 14 10 5 1 Texas 20 6 14 0Kentucky 13 8 5 0 Utah 8 7 1 0Louisiana 12 6 6 0 Virginia 6 6 5 5Massachusetts 27 8 19 0 Virgin Islands 17 5 12 0Maryland 9 8 7 6 Vermont 11 7 4 0Maine 12 6 6 0 Washington 18 6 12 0Michigan 15 7 8 0 Wisconsin 15 8 7 0Minnesota 12 6 6 0 West Virginia 14 7 9 2Missouri 16 7 9 0 Wyoming 13 6 7 0Mississippi 11 6 6 1Average NumberPer State 14.1 7.5

42
43

TABLE 18

DISCONTINUED MATCHING SYSTEMS, BY STATE

State

Number of

Discontinued

Matching

Systems Matching Systems Discontinued

Alaska 3 BEERS, IRS, BENDEX

Arkansas 4 State Worker’s Compensation, State Death Match, BEERS, IRS

Arizona 1 Prisoner Verification

Connecticut 1 Prisoner Verification

Delaware 1 State Prison Match

Illinois 2 Mississippi Client-to-Client, Financial Management Match

Kansas 1 State Worker’s Compensation

Maryland 6 IRS, BEERS, UI, SWICA, SDX, BENDEX

Mississippi 1 IRS

Montana 1 State Worker’s Compensation

North Dakota 1 State Prison Match

Nebraska 2 Prisoner Verification, BEERS

New Hampshire 1 IRS

New Mexico 2 Public Employees Retirement, IRS, BEERS

New York 4 State Payroll, STROP, BEERS, IRS

South Carolina 1 List of Food Stamp Recipients Found Guilty of Fraud

Virginia 5 IRS, BEERS, SWICA, UI, SDX

West Virginia 2 BEERS, IRS

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State FSAs.
44

3. Matching Systems Planned for Future Use

Of the 20 States that indicated they plan to implement matching systems in the future, 5 plan

to implement the State Death Match, 5 plan to implement the New Hires match, and 3 plan to reimplement the match with IRS. Table 19 shows what matches the States plan to implement in

the future.

B. DISCUSSION OF EACH MATCHING SYSTEM

FEDERALLY MANDATED MATCHES

1. Prisoner Verification System

The value of food stamp benefits that a household is entitled to receive is determined

partially by the number of eligible household members. Prisoners are not counted as household

members when benefits are calculated. To identify prisoner participation, computer matches are

conducted using the Prisoner Verification System. The Prisoner Verification System is a

mandated match with SSA national prison records to obtain identification information to detect

households reporting incarcerated individuals as household members for the purpose of food

stamp eligibility. This match is mandated as a result of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and

was not available in 1991. Forty-eight States reported that they are currently using this match.

Seventeen of the States that reported using the match, and the two States not currently using it,

reported that they do not find it useful or effective. Four States said it was too soon to tell

whether or not the match is effective for them.

The problem with the Prisoner Verification System most commonly reported by States is

that the data are not received in a timely fashion and that the information is outdated. Many of

the matches turn out to be incorrect because the person has already been released from prison.

Lack of a release date on the match reports has led States to spend a great deal of time following

up and investigating hits—often to find out that the client is no longer incarcerated.
45

TABLE 19

FUTURE STATE MATCHING SYSTEMS

State

Number of

Planned Matching

Systems Matching Systems Planned

Alaska 5 Tribal Assistance Match, BENDEX, BEERS, IRS

Arkansas 2 Border States Duplicate Participation, DRS

Delaware 3 Criminal justice information system, New Hires, State Drug Felons

Idaho 3 STROP, State Death Match, State Prison Match

Massachusetts 6 Federal Employees Match, Federal Retirees Match, Multiple Benefit Fraud

Match, State Drug Felons, State and Federal Veterans Match, Fleeing Felons

Michigan 2 State Death Match, State Prison Match

Montana 1 State Worker’s Compensation

Nebraska 2 State Death Match, New Hires

New Hampshire 1 IRS

New Mexico 3 State Drug Felons, IRS, BEERS

New York 2 FBI Match, State Bank Match

Ohio 3 State Mental Health Records, STROP, State Prison Match

Oregon 2 Prisoner Match

Pennsylvania 3 State Worker’s Compensation, Fleeing Felons, New Hires

Rhode Island 2 New Hires, Fleeing Felons

South Carolina 1 Quarters of Coverage

Virginia 1 New Hires

Vermont 1 State Death Match

West Virginia 1 Foster Care Adoption Match

Wyoming 4 State Workfare/Training/Education Match, State Death Match, Biometrics,

Day Care License Information

SOURCE: 2000 Census of State FSAs.
46

Several States explained that it can be helpful in the rare circumstance where they did not

realize someone was incarcerated. Including more information on the match report would lesson

the burden on States for followup and make this a more useful match. See Appendix Volume

Three System Table 5 for more information.

2. Social Security Administration (SSA) Death Match

The SSA death match collects information from SSA national death records to identify

deceased individuals who are still listed as household members in households receiving food

stamps. States were required to use this match after 1998. At the time of the survey, many

States had not implemented the match due to delays from Y2K priorities. Forty-five States

reported conducting the death match through SSA. At the time of the survey, many States had

not yet implemented the match. Seventeen States reported that the death match was useful and

effective; 10 States either reported that it was not effective or that it was too soon to tell.6

 States

that did not think the match was effective reported that the data are often inaccurate.

FEDERAL MATCHES

3. State Wage Information Collection Agency (SWICA)

SWICA is a match with State UI wage information reported to the State UI agency each

quarter by employers whose employees are covered by UI. SWICA data are three to six months

old when matched. SWICA was an IEVS mandated system in 1991, and 52 States reported

using it at that time. In this study, 51 States report that they continue to conduct a match with

SWICA. Of the 51 States currently using the system, one State reported not finding it useful,

due to the sometimes outdated information. All other States indicated that SWICA is valuable

 6

This information is based on data collected during the Census, as well as FNS data from

August 2000.
47

and reliable and a good source of information on unreported income. Although most States find

this to be an effective matching system, some complaints were voiced. Several States report that

the information is not timely enough. A few States said that SWICA data provide a good starting

point but that further research into cases usually is required. One State said that the information

is often duplicative of data obtained through the New Hires match.

4. State Data Exchange (SDX)

SDX is a match with the Social Security Income (SSI) benefits database maintained by the

SSA to collect SSI benefits data. Use of SDX for computer matching went from 48 States in

1991 to 50 States in 2000. All the States that responded indicated that they found this to be a

useful match. Some of the reasons given are:

• Verifying benefits and disability information

• Verifying identification information

• Detecting unreported income

• Cost effectiveness

5. Unemployment Insurance (UI)

This is a match with State UI information on benefits provided to UI recipients each month.

In 1991, 51 States reported using the UI system. UI was one of the IEVS mandated systems at

that time. In the 2000 study, 49 States reported that they are continuing to use the UI match. Of

the 49 States conducting matches with UI, all reported that they find the match to be useful and

effective. The most common reason given is that this match provides useful data on unreported

income and resources. Several States added that the match is cost effective and that the data are

more timely than data from some other matches, although they are not available immediately.
48

6. Benefits Data Exchange (BENDEX)

BENDEX is a match with SSA databases to collect information on Old Age and Survivor

Insurance benefits and other benefits provided under Title III of the Social Security Act. These

include SSA benefits maintained in the Master Beneficiary File, and, for quantifying quarters of

coverage for SSA eligibility, data maintained in the Master Earnings File.

In 1991, 50 States reported using the BENDEX match; this decreased to 48 in 2000. All

States that responded indicated that they found the match to be useful and effective. The reasons

given include current information, cost effectiveness, a timesaver for the caseworker, and

reliable data.

7. Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

The IRS match collects interest, dividends, and other types of unearned income maintained

by the IRS. These data are compiled from IRS Form 1099. IRS was one of the two systems that

were most often discontinued between the 1991 survey and this study. In 1991, IRS matching

was mandated through IEVS, and 51 States reported using it. In 2000, conducting a match with

IRS was no longer mandated, and only 42 States reported that they are still conducting this

match. Many of the States still using this matching system report that it is not always useful or

effective in detecting fraud and abuse in the FSP. In particular, of the 42 States that are

conducting the match with IRS, 17 reported that it is not a useful match, for the same reasons

given by the States that discontinued the match. The most common complaint is that the data are

already out-of-date by the time they are received (data are often 18 to 24 months old). Another

common complaint concerns the onerous security requirements imposed by IRS.
49

8. Quarters of Coverage

Quarters of Coverage is a match with an SSA database, to verify that aliens have 40 quarters

of employment coverage in order to qualify for benefits. Forty-two States are conducting the

Quarters of Coverage match. All States but one indicated that this match is useful and effective.

States find the data useful because they are necessary to determine eligibility and are timely.

9. Beneficiary Earnings Exchange Reports (BEERS)

BEERS is a match with Social Security Administration (SSA) data on annual earnings

collected on the IRS Form W-2, including: (1) self-employment, (2) out-of-State wages, (3)

federal and military wages, and (4) agricultural earnings. Findings for the BEERS match were

similar to those for the IRS. In 1991, when BEERS was a required match, 50 States reported

using it. In 2000, the number of States using this match had decreased to 40. Other than IRS,

this is the most frequently discontinued match. This is particularly noteworthy, since, in general,

computer matching has increased in nearly every State. Eleven of the States that are currently

using BEERS do not find the system useful or effective, for reasons similar to those mentioned

in relation to the IRS match. The data are often found by the States to be too out-of-date to be

useful by the time they are received. Several States also mentioned the burdensome security

requirements of BEERS.

STATE MATCHES

10. State New Hires

This database contains the identification of newly hired individuals as reported by

employers and is more timely than SWICA. Employer New Hires reporting requirements were

instituted in the 1990s primarily as a result of child support enforcement laws. Use of the State
50

New Hires match rose from 2 in 1991 to 43 in 2000.7

 All States that use the match indicated that

they found it to be useful and effective; several indicated that this was the most useful of all their

matching systems. The data are particularly timely, often providing new information on clients

who have failed to report a new job or earnings. A number of States reported that this match

generates a significant cost savings.

11. Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV)

DMV is a match with the State Department of Motor Vehicles database to verify automobile

assets and identification. In 1991, the DMV match was used by 10 States, which was more than

any other non-IEVS matching system. Thirty-four States reported using the DMV match in

2000. Twenty of these have online, real-time access to the DMV computer system, rather than

matching through a batch process. All but one State indicated that the match is useful and

effective for providing identification and resource information.

12. Child Support

This is a match with State or Federal Parent Locator Service child support databases for

identification and income information. Use of the Child Support match rose from 5 States in

1991, to 28 in 2000. All the States that responded indicated that this was a useful and effective

matching program for their State. Reasons for their positive rating included helpfulness for

allowing deductions and identification information, time savings for the eligibility worker, and

reliable information. The only negative mentioned was that the report contains too much

information.

 7

This information is based on data collected by FNS after the census was completed.
51

13. State Tax Refund Offset Program (STROP)

The STROP collects information from the State Department of Revenue for offsetting State

income tax refunds to collect claims against households for over-issued food stamp benefits

where those claims are past due. Use of the STROP match rose from 1 State in 1991, to 22 in

2000. All States that conduct this match indicated that it is useful and effective in collecting

overpayments.

14. State Prison Match

The State Prison Match collects information from the State Department of Correction prison

records to identify households reporting incarcerated individuals as household members for the

purpose of food stamp eligibility. The number of States using the State Prison Match rose from

4 in 1991, to 22 in 2000. As with the Prisoner Verification System, States indicated mixed

feelings about the usefulness of this matching system. Four States reported that the data can be

inaccurate, as well as time-consuming and expensive to verify. States cited examples where an

individual was in prison for one day and released, but then showed up on the report as being

incarcerated.

15. State Death Match

The State Death Match collects information from the State vital statistics records, to identify

deceased individuals who are still listed as household members in households receiving food

stamps. Use of the State Death Match rose from 2 States in 1991, to 21 in 2000.8

 All States but

one indicated that they found this match to be useful and timely. One State reported that this

match was more useful than the SSA Death Match. Five of the States, however, either expressed

some concerns or said it was too soon to comment. The most common concern expressed was
52

that sometimes the reports contain erroneous data, and thus it would be useful to incorporate

some checks and balances.

16. State Fleeing Felons

Fleeing Felons is a match with the State database of fleeing felons to determine whether

household members should be disqualified because of their fleeing-felon status. Fleeing Felons

is a new matching system that is currently being used by 19 States. Three other States expressed

interest in implementing this system in the future. Response to this match is similar to the

response to the prison matches. Although information is available, caseworkers have to review a

large amount of outdated information and spend a lot of time verifying it. As with the prison

match, a prime concern is individuals showing up on reports who are fleeing felons for only one

day. Two States said this report is a lot more useful to law enforcement officials than it is to the

FSP.

 8

Data were collected during the Census only. No data were provided by FNS.
53

CHAPTER IV—CONCLUSION

The State census of FSP computer matching produced two general findings: (1) that States

have significantly increased their use of computer matching to enhance program integrity since

the last study was conducted in 1991, and (2) that State technical capabilities for conducting

matches with external databases have increased greatly since 1991.

1. Findings: How States Use Computer Matching

There were dramatic changes in State use of computer matching systems in the 1990s, both

in terms of the number of systems used and the frequency and timeliness of matches.

• The use of computer matching systems by States has almost doubled since 1991. In

1991, the average number of systems used by States was about 7.5; it currently is

about 14.

• In 1991 only three States (Florida, Illinois, and California) used more than 10

matching systems. In 2000, 45 States reported using more than 10 matching

systems.

The systems most frequently added to States’ matching programs are:

• Prisoner Verification System (mandated)—48 States, not available in 1991

• Social Security Administration (SSA) Death Match (mandate)—45 States, not

available in 1991

• Disqualified Recipient System (DRS) Federal or State—44 States, not available in

1991

• Quarters of Coverage—42 States, not available in 1991

• Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) —34 States, 10 in 1991

• State New Hires—439

 States now, 2 in 1991

• Child Support—28 States now, 5 in 1991

 9

This information is based on data collected by FNS after the census was completed.
54

• State Tax Refund Offset Program (STROP) —22 States now, 1 in 1991

• State Fleeing Felons—19 States now, not available in 1991

Most States continue to use the six external matching systems comprising the original IEVS,

which was established in 1986. As a result of PRWORA these systems are no longer mandated

but they are still used because they are perceived to provide useful data. At least 48 States

continue to use the State Wage Information Collection Agency (SWICA), State Data Exchange

(SDX), Unemployment Insurance (UI) and Beneficiary Data Exchange (BENDEX) matches.

Even though there was a large increase in the number of matching systems used, States also

discontinued using some matching systems.

• Eighteen States indicated that they have discontinued using a total of 40 matching

systems that they reported using in 1991. The States that have chosen to discontinue

using systems most often have discontinued Internal Revenue Service (IRS) matches

(nine States) and Beneficiary Earnings Exchange Reports (BEERS) matches (eight

States).

• The reasons most often given for discontinuing these systems are the burdensome

security requirements imposed by IRS and the fact that the data returned from these

matches often are too old to be useful.

Twenty States indicated that they plan to implement a total of 48 matching systems in the

future. Five States reported that they intend to implement the State Death match, five States will

be implementing the New Hires match, and three States plan to reimplement the match with IRS.

States reported that 87 percent of matching systems used were effective for detecting fraud

and abuse in the FSP. Nine percent of systems used were not useful and effective. For three

percent of systems used, States reported that they did not know if they were effective. When a

State indicated that it did not find a particular matching system useful, the reasons given

pertained to outdated or erroneous data retrieved from the match.
55

2. Findings: Increased Technological Capabilities

Technological advances, particularly the growth in communications networks, have greatly

increased State capabilities for matching. States can now send cases to be matched and can

receive match results via communications networks, rather than by traditional shipping of

magnetic media. These advances have led to much more rapid responses from external

databases. States now have a much greater capability to initiate queries to external databases on

demand from a caseworker, rather than wait for routine batch matches.

• Thirty-eight percent of matches can now be accessed online; only 12.5 percent of

matches could be accessed online in 1991.

• SSA has developed common interfaces to its various databases, such as the State

Online Query System (SOLQ) and the State Verification Exchange System (SVES).

Forty-three States reported using SVES.10 A State may now send a single query to

SSA and the case will be matched with the social security number (SSN) identity file

to verify the SSN, and with the databases which contain information on SSA and

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and covered income. These interfaces

thus bundle the separate matches previously conducted, such as Beneficiary Data

Exchange (BENDEX), State Data Exchange (SDX), Beneficiary Earnings Exchange

Reports System (BEERS), Numident, Quarters of Coverage, SSA Death Match and

Prison Verification System.

• There has been an increase in the level of intra-State automation. State databases

such as DMV, SWICA, and UI are now linked directly with Food Stamp client

databases. This results in a virtual integration with the Food Stamp client database;

when queries are made to the client database regarding eligibility, the query is

automatically routed to these other State databases, and the response is almost

immediate.

 10This information is based on data collected by FNS in August 2000.

APPENDIX A

GLOSSARY OF KEY COMPUTER MATCHING TERMS

   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Alabama SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) BENDEX

BEERS Prisoner Verification

BENDEX SSA Death Match

SDX IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

New Hires

PADX

Alaska SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS Prisoner Verification

BENDEX SSA Death Match

SDX Quarters of Coverage

State wages Child Support

Longevity Bonus State Prison Match

Permanent Fund State Employees

Longevity Fund

Permanent Fund

Arizona SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX SSA Death Match

SDX DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

New Hires

State Treasury Offset Program

State Death Match

A. 3
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Arizona Fleeing Felons

Fleeing Felons

State Lottery Winners

State Assessor's Records

Finger Imaging

Maricopa County Jail

Arkansas SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Child Support DRS

Worker's Compensation Quarters of Coverage

Child Support

State Prison Match

California SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Department of Corrections DRS

Lottery Winners IRS

Disability (EDD) Quarters of Coverage

Franchise Tax Board BEERS

Homeless New Hires

MEDS State Treasury Offset Program

Tax Intercept Fleeing Felons

State Workers Compensation

State Lottery Winners

California Youth Authority

Homeless

Jail Reporting System

State Franchise Tax Board

A. 4
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Colorado SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BENDEX BENDEX

SDX Prisoner Verification

Client Database SSA Death Match

LEAP Program DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

New Hires

Child Support

State Treasury Offset Program

Fleeing Felons

Day care License

State Workfare/Training/Education

Public Assistance

Connecticut BENDEX SWICA

SDX SDX

UI

BENDEX

Prisoner Verification

SSA Death Match

DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

DMV

New Hires

Child Support

State Prison Match

State Treasury Offset Program

State Death Match

Fleeing Felons

State Workers Compensation

State Bank Match

A. 5
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Connecticut DRS Property Match

MA Match

RI Match

Delaware SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Department of Motor Vehicles DRS

Child Support IRS

AFDC Quarters of Coverage

Death Match BEERS

DMV

Child Support

State Prison Match

State Treasury Offset Program

State Death Match

TALON

District of Columbia SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX SSA Death Match

SDX IRS

State wages BEERS

State wages DMV

State Food Stamp recipients State Prison Match

State Food Stamp recipients State Death Match

Fleeing Felons

State Employees

DC Schools

Veterans Benefits

Florida SWICA SWICA

A. 6
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Florida UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BEERS Prisoner Verification

BENDEX SSA Death Match

SDX DRS

Social Security Number Validation IRS

State wages Quarters of Coverage

State Wages BEERS

Worker's Compensation New Hires

Active Federal Employees State Death Match

Federal retirement State Workfare/Training/Education

Florida retirement State Retirement

out-of-state Unemployment out-of-state Unemployment

Georgia SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

New Hires

Child Support

State Treasury Offset Program

Fleeing Felons

Guam SWICA SWICA

Unearned Income (IRS) BENDEX

BEERS Prisoner Verification

BENDEX SSA Death Match

Northern Marianas Recipient Match DRS

Traffic Information System (TRIM) Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

A. 7
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Northern Marianas Nutrition Assistance 

Program

Guam

Hawaii SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Social Security Number Validation DRS

Department of Motor Vehicles IRS

Bank Match Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

Child Support

State Treasury Offset Program

Idaho SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX SSA Death Match

SDX DRS

Social Security Number Validation IRS

Social Security Number Validation Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

New Hires

State Prison Match

State Treasury Offset Program

Illinois SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Child Support DRS

Child Support IRS

Department of Corrections BEERS

A. 8
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Illinois Department of Corrections DMV

Lottery Winners New Hires

AFDC Child Support

Death Match State Prison Match

Department of Revenue State Death Match

Bendex Death Match Fleeing Felons

Bendex Interstate State Lottery Winners

Dept. of Rehabilitative Services Day care License

Duplicate Assistance State Workfare/Training/Education

Financial Management Match Income tax records

IVA/IVD AFDC Cases with employed State Employees

spouses

Marriages State Drug Felons

Mississippi Client-to-Client Department of Rehabilitative Services

State Employees Duplicate Assistance

Surrender Drive Licenses through the Marriages

Secretary of State

Indiana SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

New Hires

Child Support

Income tax records

Illinois match

Iowa SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

A. 9
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Iowa SDX SSA Death Match

Social Security Number Validation DRS

Department of Motor Vehicles IRS

PADX BEERS

DMV

New Hires

Child Support

State Treasury Offset Program

PADX

Kansas SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Social Security Number Validation IRS

Child Support Quarters of Coverage

Department of Revenue BEERS

Employment Services New Hire File DMV

Child Support

State Death Match

Fleeing Felons

State Retirement

Kentucky SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Social Security Number Validation DRS

AFDC IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

New Hires

Child Support

A. 10
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Kentucky State Treasury Offset Program

Louisiana SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS Prisoner Verification

BENDEX SSA Death match

SDX DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

State Prison match

State Death Match

Maine SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

Child Support

State Treasury Offset Program

Maryland SWICA Prisoner Verification

UI DRS

Unearned Income (IRS) New Hires

BEERS State Prison Match

BENDEX State Death Match

SDX Fleeing Felons

Department of Motor Vehicles State Lottery Winners

Lottery Winners Day care License

State Employees

A. 11
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Massachusetts SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Department of Motor Vehicles DRS

Bank Match IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

New Hires

State Prison Match

State Treasury Offset Program

State Death Match

Fleeing Felons

State Workers Compensation

State Lottery Winners

Income Tax Records

State Bank Match

Interstate Match

Department of Social Services

Department of Youth Services

Federal Veterans

New Hampshire Registry Motor Vehicles

Match

Parole Violators

State Court Warrants

Michigan SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Social Security Number Validation SSA Death Match

A. 12
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Michigan DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

New Hires

State Treasury Offset Program

State Workers Compensation

Day care License

Minnesota SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

New Hires

Fleeing Felons

Mississippi SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX DRS

Quarters of Coverage

DMV

State Prison Match

State Treasury Offset Program

State Workers Compensation

Missouri SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

A. 13
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Missouri Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BENDEX BENDEX

SDX Prisoner Verification

Social Security Number Validation SSA Death Match

PADX DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

New Hires

Child Support

State Prison Match

State Treasury Offset Program

State Death Match

State Lottery Winners

PADX

Montana SWICA SWICA

SDX

UI

BENDEX

Prisoner Verification

SSA Death Match

DRS

IRS

BEERS

DMV

Child Support

State Prison Match

State Treasury Offset Program

State Death Match

State Assessor's Records

Nebraska SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

A. 14
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Nebraska IRS

Quarters of Coverage

DMV

Child Support

PADX

Nevada SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Social Security Number Validation DRS

IRS

BEERS

DMV

New Hires

Child Support

State Prison Match

State Death Match

State Workers Compensation

State Workers Compensation

State Workfare/Training/Education

State Assessor's Records

State Employees

Federal Bank Match

State Payroll

New Hampshire SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

DRS

New Hires

A. 15
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


New Jersey SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

New Hires

State Treasury Offset Program

Fleeing Felons

Income Tax Records

New Mexico SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Department of Motor Vehicles DRS

Public Employees Retirement Quarters of Coverage

Association (PERA)

DMV

New Hires

Fleeing Felons

State Workers Compensation

Texas Dual Participation

New York SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

State wages DRS

A. 16
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


New York Quarters of Coverage

DMV

New Hires

Child Support

State Prison Match

State Death Match

Fleeing Felons

State Lottery Winners

State Workfare/Training/Education

Finger Imaging

North Carolina SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Department of Corrections DRS

Department of Transportation IRS

BEERS

DMV

State Prison Match

State Drug Felons

North Dakota SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

Child Support

A. 17
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Ohio SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS Prisoner Verification

Social Security Number Validation SSA Death Match

DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

New Hires

Child Support

State Prison Match

State Death Match

Fleeing Felons

State Assessor's Records

Department of Rehabilitative Services

Oklahoma SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX DRS

State Wages IRS

Third Party Query (TPQY) Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

New Hires

Child Support

State Workers Compensation

State Workers Compensation

State Workfare/Training/Education

Income Tax Records

Oklahoma Wage Link

STROP

A. 18
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Oklahoma Third Party Query

Oregon SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX SSA Death Match

SDX DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

Child Support

State Prison Match

State Treasury Offset Program

State Death Match

Pennsylvania SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX DRS

Social Security Number Validation Quarters of Coverage

Lottery Winners BEERS

State Death Match

Rhode Island SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

New Hires (NH) IRS

Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

A. 19
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Rhode Island State Prison Match

State Death Match

State Workers Compensation

State Drug Felons

EBT - out of state

South Carolina SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

DRIPS (list of Food Stamp recipients DRS

found guilty of fraud)

IRS

BEERS

New Hires

Child Support

State Treasury Offset Program

State Death Match

Fleeing Felons

State Retirement

Investigations PC Match

Special Benefits

South Dakota SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Department of Motor Vehicles DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

New Hires

A. 20
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


South Dakota Child Support

Tennessee SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Client Database DRS

Birth Files IRS

Child Support

Birth Files

Texas SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

New Hires

State Prison Match

State Death Match

Fleeing Felons

State Lottery Winners

State Drug Felons

State Retirement

Interstate Match

Nursing Home

Teachers' Retirement System

Utah SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

A. 21
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Utah BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Department of Motor Vehicles IRS

BEERS

Vermont SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX DRS

Department of Motor Vehicles IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

New Hires

Virgin Islands SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX SSA Death Match

DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

State Workers Compensation

State Workers Compensation

State Lottery Winners

Day care License

State Assessor's Records

State Bank Match

Public Assistance

Paternity Match

A. 22
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


Virginia SWICA Prisoner Verification

UI SSA Death Match

Unearned Income (IRS) DRS

BEERS Quarters of Coverage

SDX DMV

Department of Motor Vehicles New Hires

Washington SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

DRS

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

New Hires

Child Support

State Prison Match

State Death Match

Fleeing Felons

State Workers Compensation

Day care License

West Virginia SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

Unearned Income (IRS) UI

BEERS BENDEX

BENDEX Prisoner Verification

SDX SSA Death Match

Worker's Compensation DRS

Quarters of Coverage

DMV

New Hires

A. 23
   	

	   

	


	



	

	


West Virginia Child Support

State Treasury Offset Program

State Workers Compensation

Foster care/Adoption - Financial Info

Wisconsin SWICA SWICA

UI SDX

UI UI

Unearned Income (IRS) BENDEX

BEERS Prisoner Verification

BENDEX SSA Death Match

SDX DRS

Income Maintenance IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

New Hires

State Prison Match

State Treasury Offset Program

Fleeing Felons

Income Maintenance Match (other states)

Wyoming SWICA SWICA

SDX SDX

UI UI

BENDEX BENDEX

BEERS Prisoner Verification

Unearned Income (IRS) SSA Death Match

IRS

Quarters of Coverage

BEERS

DMV

Child Support

State Treasury Offset Program

State Workers Compensation

A. 24