A recent research series from Georgetown University’s Beeck Center for Social Impact + Innovation takes a detailed look at how states design, update and manage integrated eligibility and enrollment (IEE) systems that determine access to programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
Through interviews with 24 officials across seven states, the series explores what it actually takes to keep these eligibility systems running. Beyond broad modernization goals, the research drills into how states schedule system updates, prioritize competing demands, test changes and navigate both technical and political constraints.
SYSTEM UPDATES ARE CONSTANT BUT NOT UNIFORM
One theme that runs throughout the report is that IEE systems are never static. Policies shift, federal guidance evolves and user expectations change. States described operating on very different update schedules. Some push system releases on a steady rhythm — for example, every six weeks — often through vendor contracts. Others aim for quarterly updates, trying to balance responsiveness with stability.
As one state leader explained in the report, “We’ve tried to be pretty consistent with once-a-quarter major releases [and] once-a-month minor releases, because the feedback we were getting from our customers was that changes had been happening too quickly for them to understand what the impact was.”
In some states, update cycles are tied to multiyear road maps shaped by legislative priorities and federal coordination. In others, releases are driven more by emerging needs — especially when policy changes require rapid action.
AGILE, WATERFALL OR A HYBRID
The report also highlights how states structure their development work. Some rely on agile methods, where small teams release updates iteratively and incorporate ongoing feedback. Others operate closer to a traditional “waterfall” model, completing each project phase before moving to the next.
In practice, most states fall somewhere in between. Agile approaches may be customized rather than textbook, and waterfall processes may be blended with iterative elements. Some states manage updates in-house with dedicated teams, while others rely heavily on vendors — in some cases using multiple vendors for policy interpretation, development and review.
Regardless of structure, governance remains central. As the report notes, “technology investments can advance access and equity, but governance structures and operational capacities often dictate how successful these investments are in practice.”
WHAT SYSTEM CHANGE REQUIRES
Making even a small update to an eligibility system can involve multiple steps. States described processes that begin with policy teams interpreting new legislation or federal guidance before technical teams even touch code. In some cases, agencies must submit formal planning documents to federal partners — including advanced planning documents — to secure funding approval.
Before implementation, states analyze how a proposed change in one program might ripple across others. Because many IEEs serve multiple benefit programs simultaneously, altering a single screen or eligibility rule can affect broader system behavior.
One leader included in the report cautioned, “[We have] to ensure that we’re not introducing an unintended outcome as a result of a change that we may think is simple. That simple, simple change may have lasting impacts for families.”
Prioritization adds another layer of complexity. Some states rely on formal governance work groups that meet monthly to review and vote on change requests. Others convene smaller groups for minor maintenance items and escalate larger enhancements to more structured oversight bodies. Several states also described incorporating feedback from clients directly, with one leader stating that his office has an “online improvement committee.”
TESTING, DEPLOYMENT AND ‘SPAGHETTI CODE’
Once a change is designed, it must be tested. States described widely different testing environments. Some manually run hundreds of eligibility scenarios in test systems that mimic production environments. Others are building automated testing processes or exploring AI tools to generate more extensive test cases.
In some states, vendors handle system integration testing, while agency teams conduct user acceptance testing before a change goes live. Several states also bring front-line staff into testing labs to simulate real-world use.
Still, even thorough testing can’t fully eliminate risk — particularly in systems that have evolved over decades. Multiple states described dealing with heavy “technical debt.” One state leader summed it up bluntly: “You put one thing into it, you break something else.”
Another referred to legacy architecture as “spaghetti code,” where updates can take months to implement because of a domino effect of impacts.
Older systems also require extensive manual data entry, increasing the risk of error. As one official explained, “Everything (the caseworkers) do in the computer eligibility system is dependent upon their coding information … If a worker accidentally puts that an applicant is paid biweekly, but they are really paid weekly, we could have an error in the determination.”
POLICY TIMELINES VS. TECHNICAL REALITY
The research also examines how states are responding to policy changes under H.R. 1. While some provisions phase in over time, others — including revised SNAP work requirements — took effect immediately upon enactment. In certain cases, federal technical guidance arrived months later.
This kind of misalignment between legislative cycles and technical processes is a recurring challenge mentioned in the report. Lawmakers may view a change as straightforward, the commentary indicates, while agencies know system modifications can take a year or more. Funding structures also tend to favor large, waterfall-style projects, even as many agencies attempt to move toward iterative development.
PEOPLE, CAPACITY MATTER AS MUCH AS CODE
Beyond technology, the report underscores staffing constraints. Several states reported shortages of data analysts and technical specialists, with some teams so thinly staffed that progress stalls when key employees are unavailable.
“We have to have the expectation that we are not outsourcing everything to a vendor,” one leader said. “We have to staff ourselves differently to support this sort of model.”
Turnover and leadership changes further complicate modernization efforts. Longtime employees often hold institutional knowledge that is difficult to replace. As another official put it, “When you have unstable leadership, you can’t do those [sorts] of system redesigns that we’re talking about here.”
INTEGRATION IS THE GOAL BUT SILOS PERSIST
Even as states attempt to integrate systems across multiple programs, federal agencies and legislative processes often operate in silos. This can make true systemwide integration more difficult, especially when definitions, requirements or reporting structures differ across programs.
The picture that emerges from the Beeck Center’s research is one of sustained effort rather than quick transformation. Integrated eligibility systems promise improved access, but as the report states, progress “hinges on coordinated leadership and clear decision-making structures.”
