Summary:
States face increased pressure to reduce SNAP payment error rates (PERs) in the wake of major funding changes in H.R. 1. Many are turning to their eligibility system vendors for SNAP quality assurance, assuming these vendors can provide the fastest path to compliance. However, this approach introduces conflicts of interest, higher long-term costs, and limited visibility into true root causes. This article explains why independent, data-driven SNAP quality assurance enables states to identify policy, process, and technology contributors to errors, ultimately strengthening compliance, reducing PERs, and supporting sustainable modernization across diverse state environments.
[Estimated read time: 8 minutes]
Why new SNAP funding rules need independent Quality Assurance, not vendor add-ons
The major changes to SNAP funding in H.R. 1 have led to a surge of state interest in SNAP Quality Assurance services, and (unsurprisingly) a wide variety of technology and consulting companies developing QA offerings. Many states are considering purchasing such services from their existing SNAP eligibility vendor, believing that their existing vendor’s knowledge of their current system will provide speed and user experience advantages that third parties cannot match. In fact, there are significant risks and drawbacks to selecting an eligibility vendor to assist the state with SNAP Quality Assurance. Conflicts of interest, lackluster historical results, and the reality of doubling down on outdated technology and architecture all provide compelling reasons to engage an independent SNAP quality assurance provider.
States should avoid relying on the same vendor to build the system, diagnose its weaknesses, and design solutions
When the same vendor responsible for the eligibility system is also asked to diagnose SNAP errors and identify solutions, they risk a “fox guarding the henhouse” dynamic:
- Vendors have no incentive to identify their own system workflows as contributors to errors, especially during warranty periods.
- Vendor-proposed solutions continue to build on existing, often outdated, technologies and architectures.
- Without competition constraining (such as between the QA vendor and the eligibility vendor) for technical solutions, the options are fewer and the prices can be higher.
This approach locks states into years of costly rework of outdated systems with limited long-term improvement to PERs. States need an objective, independent viewpoint, not analysis and solutions from the vendor trying to protect its own system.
SNAP eligibility systems cause increased payment error rates.
Across multiple states, SNAP PERs either stayed flat or increased (sometimes substantially) after eligibility system deployments due to:
- Rigid workflows and UI design
- Long wait times for system enhancements or bug fixes
- Workarounds that increase caseworker burden
- Insufficient data for actionable root-cause analysis
- Misalignment between policy logic and system design
Independent PER analysis protects states’ budgets and compliance postures
Separating PER work from system procurement gives states:
- An unbiased understanding of what drives errors
- Accurate requirements designed to address PER root causes
- More options for correcting errors
- Fewer future change orders
- A stronger negotiating position during procurement/contracting
- The ability to show FNS meaningful, data-driven corrective action
This approach reduces long-term cost and accelerates compliance.
Resultant offers an immediate, impact-ready Quality Assurance program
Resultant has developed a SNAP Quality Assurance program driven by a deep understanding of both the power of data and the complexity of the SNAP program. We know that states need deeper, structured datato uncover actual PER root causes. QC and current eligibility system data alone cannot reveal granular,actionable error patterns. Modern PER reduction requires:
- Structured data built from unstructured documents
- Advanced analytics to highlight high-risk patterns
- Clear identification of policy, process, and technology drivers
Eligibility vendors are not equipped or incentivized to create this level of transparency.
Resultant deploys a rapid QA and analytics approach that improves PERs within months, not years:
- Creation of structured data from existing case files
- Dashboards that identify high-risk cases and error trends
- “Quick win” interventions to reduce FFY2026 error rates
- A roadmap of short-, medium-, and long-term corrective actions
Our team has no legacy system to defend and no incentive to recommend unnecessary technology changes or to double down on outdated technologies or existing spaghetti code.
Meet with Us
Resultant welcomes the opportunity to discuss with your SNAP leadership on how an independent, data-driven QA program can materially reduce your PER and set the foundation for a clean, accurate, and cost-effective eligibility system modernization effort.
In a brief meeting we can share:
- Our recommended approach for your state, based on existing data
- Case studies from other states
- How our solution can seamlessly work with your existing system, without reproducing its current errors
Reach out today to connect.
