Sharing information is an important tool in improving the efficiency and integrity of government programs. By sharing data, agencies can often reduce errors, improve program efficiency, evaluate program performance, and reduce information collection burdens on the public. Technological advances have broadened the government’s ability to share data for these uses. Likewise, such advances have enhanced the government’s ability to use computerized analysis to identify and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. One important analytical technique is computer matching, a term commonly used to refer to the computerized comparison of information, generally including personally identifiable information (PII), such as names and Social Security numbers, in two or more information systems. Agencies use computer matching in a variety of ways to help ensure that federal benefits are distributed appropriately. For example, the National Directory of New Hires, established in 1996 under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, is used to match new-hire information from states with information from other states and federal programs to detect and prevent erroneous payments for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and other benefit programs. In another example, according to the Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, SSA collects prisoner data from states and local governments to identify incarcerated individuals who should not receive Supplemental Security Income benefits. The chairman stated that from 1997 to 2009 computer matching had helped SSA identify over 720,000 inmates who were improperly receiving benefits, contributing to billions of dollars in savings to the federal government. Due to the success of this program, prisoner data are now shared with child support enforcement and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance programs as well. Likewise, the chairman also reported that the Public Assistance Reporting Information System was being used to match state enrollment data for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, and child care programs with data from participating states and a selected group of federal databases to identify potentially inappropriate payments. According to the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House Committee on Ways and Means, the State of Colorado realized a return on investment of 4000 percent from using the system, and the state of New York annually saves an average of $62 million through its participation in the system. Much computer matching is done for program integrity purposes, but it has other uses as well. For example, Secure Flight, a program run by DHS’s Transportation Security Administration, matches information about passengers provided by the airlines against government watch lists to detect individuals on the No Fly List and prevent them from boarding aircraft and to identify individuals for additional screening. Another example is E-Verify, an Internet-based system developed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of potential employees to work in the United States. While computer matching programs have been successful in identifying fraud, waste, and abuse in federal benefit programs, if proper controls are not in place, they can also adversely affect the privacy and due process rights of individuals whose records are being matched. The data that are exchanged through matching programs involve personal information such as Social Security numbers and income and employment data. Without adequate protection, individuals’ information could be compromised through inappropriate use, modification, or disclosure. In addition, without effective due process protections, individuals could unfairly lose government benefits if decisions were made to reduce or terminate those benefits based on inaccurate or misleading computer matches. For example, according to a senior policy analyst of the Center of Law and Social Policy, a computer match authorized under the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, which allowed states to verify the citizenship of Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program applicants by matching Social Security records rather than using clients’ birth certificates, produced matches of questionable accuracy. Specifically, according to this analyst, in the first year of using this matching program, the state of Alabama incorrectly identified over 1,000 children who would have been denied benefits if the results had not been verified. The major requirements for computer matching and the protection of personal privacy by federal agencies come from two laws, the Privacy Act of 1974 and the privacy provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002. The Privacy Act places limitations on agencies’ collection, disclosure, and use of personal information maintained in systems of records. The act defines a “record” as any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency and contains his or her name or another individual identifier. It defines a “system of records” as a group of records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or other individual identifier. The Privacy Act requires that when agencies establish or make changes to a system of records, they must notify the public through a system of records notice in the Federal Register that identifies, among other things, the categories of data collected, the categories of individuals about whom information is collected, the intended “routine” uses of data, and procedures that individuals can use to review and contest its content. In 2002, Congress enacted the E-Government Act to, among other things, enhance protection for personal information in government information systems. Toward this end, the act requires agencies to conduct privacy impact assessments before developing or procuring information systems that will collect or process personal information. These assessments provide a means for agencies to analyze and document the privacy protections they have established for uses of automated data, such as computer matching and other data-sharing activities. Because of concerns about agency use of personal information in computer matching programs, Congress passed the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act in 1988 as an amendment to the Privacy Act. The provisions were intended to create procedures that would require serious deliberation and prevent data “fishing expeditions” that could reduce or terminate benefits without verifying the information and notifying affected individuals of the matching program. In 1989 and 1990,Congress enacted further amendments to, among other things, require due process procedures for agency computer matching programs, including independent verification of “hits” and a 30-day notice for individuals affected by a matching program. Under these sets of amendments, which we collectively refer to as the Computer Matching Act, computer matching is defined as the computerized comparison of records for the purpose of establishing or verifying eligibility or recouping payments for a federal benefit program or relating to federal personnel management. To ensure procedural uniformity in carrying out matching programs and to provide due process for potentially affected individuals, the law established a number of requirements for covered agency computer matching programs, including agencies must have computer matching agreements with participating agencies that specify, among other things, the purpose and legal authority of the program and a justification for the program, including a specific estimate of any savings; Data Integrity Boards (DIB) must be established to approve and review all agency computer matching programs covered by the Computer Matching Act, including the costs and benefits of such programs; and OMB must prescribe guidance for agencies on conducting computer matching programs as part of implementation of the Privacy Act. These requirements do not, however, apply to all federal agency computer matching activities. For example, the law’s definitions exclude matches of federal agency information with commercial data and matches of federal agency payments, grants, or loans to entities other than individuals. Further, the law exempts a number of matching activities. For example, the initial 1988 amendments included exemptions for matches for statistical or research purposes, law enforcement investigations of specific individuals, and certain tax-related matches. In 1999, an exemption was added for Social Security Act-related matches of prisoner data. In addition, in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act exempted matches by HHS relating to potential fraud, waste, and abuse. Most recently, in January 2013, the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act (IPERIA) provided, among other things, that data-matching activities conducted by agencies and offices of inspectors general (OIG) that assist in the detection and prevention of improper payments would be subject to requirements that differ from those of the Computer Matching Act. These include a 60-day time limit on DIB review, approvals extended up to 3 years, and a waiver on the requirement for a specific estimate of savings in a computer matching agreement. In addition, IPERIA established in law the Do Not Pay Initiative, coordinated by the Department of the Treasury, to require agencies to reduce improper payments by reviewing a number of databases, including the SSA Death Master File and the Department of Housing and Urban Development Credit Alert System, before issuing any payments. IPERIA also required OMB to ensure the establishment of a working system to provide agencies with access to these databases, and to report to Congress on the operations of the Do Not Pay Initiative. OMB’s August 16, 2013, guidance also contained instructions for agencies on implementing this initiative, including responsibilities for agency DIBs. For example, the guidance states that DIBs should be properly trained and should meet annually to evaluate agency matching programs. OMB is responsible for developing guidelines and providing continuing assistance to agencies on the implementation of the Computer Matching Act, while agencies have a variety of implementation responsibilities. Agency responsibilities can be grouped into three major areas: (1) developing computer matching agreements containing specific elements for each proposed matching program and notifying Congress, OMB, and the public of computer matching activities; (2) conducting cost-benefit analyses for proposed computer matching programs; and (3) establishing DIBs to oversee computer matching programs, including reviewing and approving computer matching agreements. The Privacy Act gives OMB responsibility for developing guidelines and providing continuing assistance to agencies on the implementation of the Computer Matching Act. OMB has periodically published guidance for implementing the act, including documents issued in 1989, 1991, 2000, and 2013. In addition, Circular No. A-130 includes instructions to agencies for reporting on computer matching activities.