What do you need to do?
No matter the situation, there is something you can do. You may only see that people’s benefits are getting cut, but there are also proactive approaches to systematically prevent these harms from happening in the first place.See All Resources
Challenge benefits cuts that are caused by broken or inadequate technology.Learn more
Get familiar with the benefits tech lifecycle and learn how you can engage at different stages to stop the potential harms of benefits tech.Learn more
Learn more about technology used to administer benefits programs and how it can contribute to benefits cuts.Learn more
Advocates, people using benefits programs, and other community members often only find out about new benefits technology once people start getting denied benefits. But, technology does not appear out of nowhere. It has a long lifecycle with several steps that are mostly hidden from public view. Orient yourself to the lifecycle so that you can advocate earlier in the tech development process and prevent benefits cuts from ever happening.Learn more about the Lifecycle Framework
StoriesAll Case Studies
It is possible to successfully challenge state public benefits systems or assessment tools and get people’s benefits back, especially when you have the right tools. Below are a few examples where advocates really moved the needle on widespread issues — though there is always more proactive work to be done. Click to read the full case study.
Advocates analyzed the complex algorithm and showed the court how it didn’t include many important factors and was providing too little care to people across the state.
Advocates audited the untested proposed algorithm and used the alarming projections of massive cuts to force the state to revise and eventually pause its implementation.
Advocates examined the system and pressured SSA to fix the glitch faster by pointing out where critical changes could easily be made in the software.
Advocates identified a trend in waiver eligibility terminations and worked with the state to correct how the program interpreted people’s conditions.