by clicking on the page. A slider will appear, allowing you to adjust your zoom level. Return to the original size by clicking on the page again.
the page around when zoomed in by dragging it.
the zoom using the slider on the top right.
by clicking on the zoomed-in page.
by entering text in the search field and click on "In This Issue" or "All Issues" to search the current issue or the archive of back issues respectively.
by clicking on thumbnails to select pages, and then press the print button.
this publication and page.
displays a table of sections with thumbnails and descriptions.
displays thumbnails of every page in the issue. Click on a page to jump.
allows you to browse through every available issue.
GCN : September 2015
states, such as names, Social Security numbers and birth dates. For example, an application for as- sistance in Florida from someone who is already receiving assistance in Mis- sissippi would be flagged. Florida of- ficials would send a notice to their counterparts in Mississippi saying that the beneficiary had relocated to Florida so that Mississippi would stop sending payments, Savell said. NAC can also detect duplicate appli- cations and notify the other state. “In Mississippi, we even have that auto- mated for the ones that are a high-con- fidence match,” he said. “The system automatically emails the other state to a centralized email box for NAC.” AN INSTANT SUCCESS The states tapped Iknow and LexisNex- is Risk Solutions to design, implement, host and provide ongoing operational support for NAC. The companies used the Drupal content management system for interfaces that let states create reports, track use and search for dual participation, according to an Iknow project summary. They also tapped open-source high-performance computing cluster technology for its data-handling capabilities. Information sharing happens in two ways: States can query NAC and get a real-time response, or they can submit requests through a batch or data file process each day and insert that infor- mation into their eligibility processes. The information in NAC is updated automatically through a secure file transfer between the states and Lexis- Nexis Risk Solutions. All the informa- tion is stored in the LexisNexis Secure Data Cloud. The states ran a pilot test of NAC from June 2014 to May 2015. Last sum- mer, the information from all five states was combined, and since then NAC has been applied to each new SNAP and D- SNAP applicant at enrollment. Alabama and Mississippi saw 74 per- cent and 71 percent decreases, respec- tively, in the average number of dual participants per month after imple- menting NAC, according to the Public Consulting Group, which independent- ly evaluated NAC. The organization also found that 72 percent of claims identified as dual participation were intentional program violations, and 25 percent were because of inadvertent client errors. Following that success, the five states and PCG are finalizing plans to bring other states on board. A report was due to the U.S. Agriculture Department’s Food and Nutrition Service, which pro- vided a grant for NAC’s development, by the end of August. FNS will write its own report for Congress by the end of November. A WILLINGNESS TO COLLABORATE Tim Meeks, NAC’s project lead, attri- butes the system’s success not only to detecting and preventing more duplica- tion but also to the states’ willingness to collaborate. “The states came together prior to the pilot...and created a common set of business rules,” he said. “All the states were following the same set of rules specifically related to dual participation matches within the NAC process.” The investment in NAC has been minimal for the states, which can use existing automation and secure file transfer and web services to implement it. New states must pay a setup fee, and all participants pay an annual hosting fee that is based on the average house- hold member count for that state. In Mississippi, the hosting fee is $60,000 per year, but the system is identifying and pre- venting an average of more than 300 dual beneficiaries each month — for monthly savings of $161,000 after the hosting fee, Savell said. States stand to earn a return on in- vestment within a month of using NAC, and as additional states sign on, the savings will grow. “We know we will have the poten- tial for dual participation in just about every state in the nation,” Savell said. “So that is a very conservative num- ber as far as savings is concerned be- cause it only focuses on the other four states.” NAC is the product of a public/pri- vate collaboration, but all states cur- rently use the Public Assistance Report- ing Information System, a federal/state data-matching service that detects po- tential fraud. But the system’s process is labor-intensive and misses warning signs, according to a whitepaper from LexisNexis. As a result, Meeks and Savell said they hope NAC sees wider adoption after Congress reviews their report. • “After Hurricane Katrina, there had been so many states involved in issuing food and disaster assistance...there was a lot of room for duplicate participation and/or fraud across those states.” – JOEL SAVELL, NAC LORIMARTIN/SHUTTERSTOCK GCN SEPTEMBER 2015 • GCN.COM 29 0915gcn_028-029.indd 29 9/2/15 2:18 PM