The QC and specifically the error rate measure is such a nonsensical data point. Shouldn't we figure out what changes in procedure improve any error? And as a side note, I thought CAPERS tracked cases that were incorrectly deemed ineligible and why? Either way, there'd be a lot more accuracy if there were less irrelevant procedures. It's almost as if there's a whole viewpoint that we should make it hard to get and maintain the benefits so it motivates you to change your behavior. Because poverty is a personal choice. /S
> as a side note, I thought CAPERS tracked cases that were incorrectly deemed ineligible and why?
That's a reasonable thought! Unfortunately the technical manner by which CAPER is measured means that it most likely does not catch this situation, specifically when a person is unable to get through to reschedule their interview.
The reason is that CAPER samples denials/terminations and evaluates the case record. In the situation where someone can't get through to do their interview, my understanding is that there would not be anything in the case record to indicate they called but couldn't get an interview. So QC reviewers (in my understanding) would assess this case as a proper denial with the reason being "failure to interview."
Would be interested to hear more about the agency problem. How did you work to actually get things done in an environment where people didn't feel like they could act?
> Most disagreement about public policy tends to boil down (I think) to disagreement about what’s changeable and what’s fixed. Getting more explicit about assumptions there may be more fruitful.
Yes yes yes yes 1000x - and so often people with ideas get ignored because "that will never work" without anyone actually interrogating those assumptions.
The QC and specifically the error rate measure is such a nonsensical data point. Shouldn't we figure out what changes in procedure improve any error? And as a side note, I thought CAPERS tracked cases that were incorrectly deemed ineligible and why? Either way, there'd be a lot more accuracy if there were less irrelevant procedures. It's almost as if there's a whole viewpoint that we should make it hard to get and maintain the benefits so it motivates you to change your behavior. Because poverty is a personal choice. /S
> as a side note, I thought CAPERS tracked cases that were incorrectly deemed ineligible and why?
That's a reasonable thought! Unfortunately the technical manner by which CAPER is measured means that it most likely does not catch this situation, specifically when a person is unable to get through to reschedule their interview.
The reason is that CAPER samples denials/terminations and evaluates the case record. In the situation where someone can't get through to do their interview, my understanding is that there would not be anything in the case record to indicate they called but couldn't get an interview. So QC reviewers (in my understanding) would assess this case as a proper denial with the reason being "failure to interview."
This is one of my biggest SNAP policy critiques!
Would be interested to hear more about the agency problem. How did you work to actually get things done in an environment where people didn't feel like they could act?
> Most disagreement about public policy tends to boil down (I think) to disagreement about what’s changeable and what’s fixed. Getting more explicit about assumptions there may be more fruitful.
Yes yes yes yes 1000x - and so often people with ideas get ignored because "that will never work" without anyone actually interrogating those assumptions.