Report: How governments can balance fraud prevention with benefit accessibility
courtneyk via Getty Images
Research suggests that some Americans can accept some level of benefit fraud to ensure more eligible recipients have access to the assistance they need.
For some people, the front door to enrolling in benefit programs can be too difficult to get through. Recent research suggests that policymakers could more closely consider how to balance benefit access and fraud prevention methods.
Securing benefit programs against bad actors is a constant priority for governments, particularly as advancements in technologies like artificial intelligence have emboldened bad actors to heighten their efforts in recent years. For instance, fraudsters can tap AI to generate deepfake or synthetic identity data that help them apply for benefit programs like unemployment insurance.
Governments naturally aim to implement fraud prevention and mitigation measures, like requiring applicants to conduct in-person interviews, and such verification requirements have also advanced in recent years, according to a working paper recently released from Better Government Lab, a research collaboration between Georgetown University and the University of Michigan.
Stringent verification methods like digital identity proofing or documentation requirements, however, can also have the unintended impact of deterring eligible people from claiming their benefits, said Sebastian Jilke, one of the authors of the paper and co-director of Better Government Lab. The study identifies this phenomenon as an “access-fraud trade-off,” which policymakers should consider as they design and implement benefit program administration.
Researchers surveyed more than 2,200 people across the U.S. to determine how many fraudulent claims they would be willing to accept in order for 1,000 eligible claimants to gain access to assistance programs, including unemployment insurance, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Social Security Income.
Respondents indicated that they could accept approximately 192 ineligible recipients receiving assistance to avoid 1,000 eligible people being unable to receive benefits due to administrative burdens like identity and income verification requirements.
The study also found that while 1,021 respondents overall would vote to not reduce documentation requirements for benefit programs compared to the 941 who would, a larger share of the latter group were willing to pay additional taxes to support their preferred policy option.
“Our study results suggest that by quantifying the access-fraud trade-off … policymakers can develop administrative application procedures more aligned with public values while avoiding the polarization that often characterizes welfare debates,” the report stated.
Overall, the data offers officials a better understanding of the public’s perception of benefit programs, which is crucial for determining rules aimed at maintaining benefit system legitimacy and effectiveness, Jilke said.
“From a policy perspective, our results suggest that emphasizing concrete program details and the real-life consequences of administrative burdens may foster broader support for reducing excessive verification requirements,” according to the report.
Such insights can be particularly helpful for leaders as they adjust their benefit systems to comply with new eligibility and verification rules under H.R. 1, he said. The new work requirements, for instance, are likely to result in more people losing their benefits and could lead to overburdened agency staff who must implement the stricter enrollment and verification standards.
Policymakers can leverage the study’s findings to inform how they impose verification requirements moving forward in a way that fosters positive experiences with enrollees and administrators alike, Jilke said.