Common use of Other Supporting Justifications Clause in Contracts

Other Supporting Justifications. States must verify client circumstances when determining their eligibility for public assistance benefits. The parties to this agreement determined a computer matching program is the most efficient, expeditious, and effective means of obtaining and processing the necessary information to identify individuals who may be ineligible for public assistance benefits (i.e., to verify client declarations of income circumstances). The principal alternative to using a computer matching program for identifying such individuals is to conduct a manual comparison of all DoD pay/retirement/survivor pay files with SPAA records of those individuals currently receiving public assistance under a State-administered Federal benefit program. Conducting a manual match, however, would clearly impose a considerable administrative burden, constitute a greater intrusion of the individual's privacy, and result in additional delay in the eventual recovery of any outstanding debts. By contrast, when using computer matching, the information on successful matches (hits) can be provided within thirty (30) days of receipt of an electronic file of SPAA beneficiaries. The 2001 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, Paris Project Can Help States Reduce Improper Payment Benefit Payments (GAO-01-923), projects that if states include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid and SNAP activities in their matching projects, the gross savings will result in a savings-to-cost ratio of 11:1 (GAO 01-935, pp. 14, 15). All savings are in program dollars, because there is no cost paid by the states to either ACF or DMDC to participate in the matching program.

Other Supporting Justifications. States must verify client circumstances when determining their applicant eligibility for public assistance benefits. The parties to this agreement determined a computer matching program is the most efficient, expeditious, and effective means of obtaining and processing the necessary information to identify individuals who may be ineligible for public assistance benefits (i.e., to verify client declarations of income circumstances). The principal alternative to using a computer matching program for identifying such individuals is to conduct a manual comparison of all DoD pay/retirement/survivor pay files with SPAA records of those individuals currently receiving public assistance under a State-state administered Federal federal benefit program. Conducting a manual match, however, would clearly impose a considerable administrative burden, constitute a greater intrusion of the individual's privacy, and result in additional delay in the eventual recovery of any outstanding debts. By contrast, when using computer matching, the information on successful matches (hits) can be provided within thirty (30) days of receipt of an electronic file of SPAA beneficiaries. The 2001 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, Paris Project Can Help States Reduce Improper Payment Benefit Payments (GAO-01-923), projects that if states include Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid and SNAP activities in their matching projects, the gross savings will result in a savings-to-savings to cost ratio of 11:1 (GAO 01-935, pp. 14, 15). All savings are in program dollars, because there is no cost paid by the states to either ACF or DMDC to participate in the matching program.