Field practitioners vouch for the efficacy of deterrence activities, but they do not lend themselves to any form of cost-benefit analysis. An example is the fingerprint imaging process which deters clients from applying twice under different names. Error prevention occurs when computer systems, procedures or individual knowledge intervenes in the payment process to correct the error before an overpayment actually occurs. If there is public knowledge of these programs, they also have both deterrent and preventive effects. Once that identification of potential fraud or error has been made, however, post-fraud investigation programs move in to confirm and correct the overpayment.
Most jurisdictions have, at the very least, passive detection and collection processes in place.
However, only a relatively small proportion of jurisdictions proceed beyond this level into deterrence, prevention, and active detection programs. There is a very clear division between these two types of jurisdiction. Only those jurisdictions who have made an active attempt to measure the degree, cause, and dollar value of overpayments have proceeded beyond the minimal programs of passive detection and correction. There are a surprisingly large number of jurisdictions who make no attempt to measure the degree of error or fraud that they have within their programs. These jurisdictions also invariably have few, if any, programs for controlling or reducing the level of fraud and error.