Post Top Ad

Showing posts with label EBT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EBT. Show all posts
9:20 AM

Stubborn Little Things Called Facts

by , in

Predicting Customer Behavior

I was watching a couple of talking heads hotly debate ObamaCare the other night on a news program. What struck me more than anything else was that neither speaker had much of a clue about healthcare, much of a command of the issues, or, frankly, much concern for the facts.

I know that facts can be stubborn things. And it can become pretty obvious that some people don’t like them because they interfere with one narrative or another.

Years ago, in my last stint in a newsroom, I was covering a pretty contentious issue. Seems the local power company wanted to divert water from a nearby river to its nuclear power plant about 20 miles away in order to provide water for the plant’s cooling towers. The plan would have allowed the utility to produce and sell more nuclear energy from the plant.

Supporters and opponents of the plan lined up along the usual fault line: on one side, college kids, liberals, greens, and suburbanites opposing the plan; on the other, businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, and lower-income people hoping for lower heating bills.

The plan’s opponents were able to get a referendum on the issue on the November ballot. The station’s GM asked me to conduct a survey of voters so we could predict whether the referendum would succeed or not. Most people thought the vote would support the water diversion plan.

With little more sophistication than pencil and some copy paper I conducted a survey from the newsroom. My numbers showed that the voters would kill the power plan by a pretty comfortable margin. We ran with the story.

Because of the predicted margin of victory for the plan’s opponents, we had other news organizations contact us. The survey had becomethe story.

Some reporters ran with the story: Local survey shows residents oppose power plan. But others walked away from it because it contradicted what had been their story line—that the opposition to the power plan was being fed largely by out-of-town celebrity protesters. And that was good enough for them.

By 8:00 on election night it wasn’t good enough. Voters approved the referendum that killed the water diversion project. Unstated anywhere outside the newsroom was the fact that the large percentage of voters turning thumbs down on the power plan closely matched the percentage of surveyed voters who said they would approve killing the project.

We went from a small, backwater broadcasting outlet to one that had outfoxed and outworked our city slicker cousins. It was a lesson I never forgot.

Today in business we use surveying to uncover the facts on which we base our conclusions for clients. For example, we survey retailers on their level of electronic payments sophistication in order to predict their ability and willingness to adopt new forms of electronic payments like electronic benefits for WIC, a government-sponsored nutrition program for young families.

We’ve also survey state agencies to determine what effect, if any, pending regulation will have on our customer’s clients. Those regulations could have severe adverse consequences for companies that supply those agencies with technology.

In all these cases, advance surveying yields tactical, actionable data that can be filtered, modeled, and hypothesized in order to predict behavior.

The next time you’re developing a business model regardless of what it is, consider surveying. Without it you’re an attack column without scouts.

Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of your target customers!
5:26 AM

Inventing Durable Solutions to Welfare Fraud

by , in

The late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once famously referred to state governments as  laboratories of democracy. It is at the state level that lawmakers who are closer to their constituents than the Congress craft legislative solutions to solve the pressing issues of the day.

If that’s the case, then there are a lot of state lawmakers walking around places like Springfield, Albany and Austin in their white lab coats trying to discover how to eradicate the thorny issue of welfare fraud.

In early 2012 as a sidebar to the Middle Class Tax Relief and Jobs Creation Act Congress for the first time sought to reform the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or Tanf, program. This is the grant program, jointly funded by the states and the federal government, that provides cash subsidies to poor families and is often called as welfare.

The law cracks down on the use of Tanf money by beneficiaries at what I call vice locations: liquor stores, casinos and adult entertainment (read strip clubs) venues. That all sounds well and good, but it is going to be difficult if not impossible to enforce the law from Washington, which seems to have its own law enforcement issues these days.

So rather than waiting, a host of states are getting into the act, looking for their own solutions to the misuse of cash benefit programs like Tanf. A recent survey shows that there are some 40 bills pending in state legislatures across the country that would in one way or another tighten up on misuse of welfare reform. Some states have multiple bills pending. New York and Illinois, for example, are considering three bills. Tennessee legislators are sorting through four.

Three states—California, New York and Indiana—are considering whether to mandate a “systemic” solution to misuse of benefits. Since many benefits, like Tanf, are delivered to beneficiaries via an electronic benefits transfer system, a systemic solution would vest in the EBT system the intelligence to decide whether a payment card was issued by the government and therefore should not be honored at a specific location.

At least seven states—Illinois, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Texas—are looking to strengthen security in these benefit programs by switching in some way to photo I.D.s.

The problems with the new federal law is that states will be responsible for policing fraud according to yet unwritten rules into which they have had limited input. The effect on fraud will be limited at best. Those states which fail to clean up their acts will see their Tanf grants cut by five percent. This ancient moribund solution, which penalizes everyone for the sins of a few, dates back to the days of imperial Rome. States, on the other hand, are closer to the problem. They can take enforcement down to the level where it should be: the beneficiary and the sin venues where the EBT cards are used.

For example, in Arizona, liquor stores could lose their licenses for accepting EBT cards. In Missouri, beneficiaries who use their cards for purchase of forbidden goods or services could lose their benefits for up to three years. Rhode Island would suspend retailers from the Snap, formerly food stamp, program who fail to validate the identity of shoppers presenting EBT cards for payment.

Perhaps most creative is an Illinois bill that would force the state’s Human Services Department for the first time to share recipient information with the Department of Corrections to prevent cons from receiving public aid while they’re locked up.

Most of these bills will never make it out of committee, let along make it to a floor vote. But they show the ingenuity that lawmakers are using to solve a local problem that has become a national one. Congress was right to address this problem, but states know welfare fraud first hand. They’re the ones better positioned and more experienced in crafting longer lasting, more effective solutions to the misuse of taxpayer dollars.